Mayor Nagin...Stuck On Stupid

I thought I heard this on the news yesterday, but I wasn't sure. But then I was surfing around the web and found this from The Drudge Report:

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - New Orleans' mayor on Friday proposed building a casino zone near the historic French Quarter to jump start the hurricane-ravaged city's economy, saying a bold move was needed to restore lost tax revenue.

"I'd like to have another solution for the citizens ... but I don't know what else we can do at this point," Ray Nagin told a news conference.

New Orleans is struggling to rebound from Hurricane Katrina in August which fractured flood walls and flooded 80 percent of the city. Hurricane Rita hit the Gulf Coast on September 24, triggering renewed flooding in parts of the city.


Under Nagin's proposal, a U-shaped section encompassing several blocks of the city's downtown area would allow large hotels to covert part of their property into Las Vegas-style casinos.

He's got to be kidding, right?

Isn't that just what the people of New Orleans need right now? After they've lost everything they own, and the government stepped in and literally handed them free money so they could get their lives back together?

We've all heard the stories of the many poor who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina using the debit cards that were given to them to buy expensive clothes and designer handbags and blowing their money in strip clubs, etc.

And now that they've wasted most of the money, Mayor Nagin wants to make sure they waste the rest of it. How did this man ever convince the people of New Orleans to elect him as their Mayor?

Voodoo?

Gambling doesn't help anyone. It ruins lives. It ruins families. It creates poverty and depression and directly contributes to higher crime rates.

I have two first hand experiences to relate here:

1. My ex-wife developed a gambling habit after her boss took his staff to one of the casino boats on the Missouri river one time. She won about 50 dollars and that was all it took to get her hooked. After that, she looked for every opportunity to get away and gamble her hard earned money away. One evening she asked me for 50 dollars, but didn't want to tell me why she wanted it. But I knew. I told her, "Why don't you take this 50 dollars and go upstairs to the bathroom and throw it into the toilet and flush it? That way, you won't have to waste the time and gasoline along with the money."

That angered her, and she stalked out of the house, only to came back in a few hours penniless, as usual. I don't know how much money she eventually threw away, vainly trying for instant riches.

2. I was in a pawn shop in Kansas City, Kansas, looking at stereos to purchase for my daughter, and a woman came in carrying two shotgun cases. Apparently she was a regular because the clerk asked her, "Dave been to the boats again?"

I'll never forget the look on her face as she nodded in response. She looked like someone who was clinging desperately to the last vestiges of dignity. She pawned her husbands shotguns, explaining that her husband had gambled away the rent money. She had to come up with something or lose the house.

And the State of Kansas had created this problem under the guise that it would be good for the state, would help improve public schools and improve the deteriorating roads. All the time I lived in Kansas City, I never noticed any appreciable improvement in either the roads or the schools, but I noticed the local politicians were living pretty good.

Gambling does indeed create revenue, but for whom? And at what price?

That is a rhetorical question. I think we all know the answer.

The Other Victims

The local newspaper here in Western Maryland has an interesting series about the effectiveness of Maryland's sex offender registry.


The October 3rd issue reports on sexual abuse through the eyes of family members of it's victims and how one convicted sex offender views the registry law.

In the 1st part of the article the writer reports:

Twenty-two-year-old Shelly has faced the pain of being sexually abused for half of her life.

Her father, Thomas, feels it's only right that her molester, a middle-aged former family friend, spend the rest of his life facing it.

Thomas said he thinks convicted sex offenders should spend the rest of their lives listed on the sex offender registry, for the safety of others' children and for the contentment of his own. Read more here.

From the offenders perspective comes this:

Ned wears a label imposed on him by a judge.

It's on the minds of those who know how it got there.

Ned knows even more people can find out.

His blurred photo, name and address have been posted on the Maryland Sex Offender Registry Web site for 20 months. Before that, Ned spent nine years in state prison for molesting his 7-year-old stepdaughter.

"Doesn't anybody forgive somebody?" Ned asked, perched on his living room couch. He answered his own question: "But they don't for this." Read more here.

The articles chronicle life as has become for both the victims of these crimes and the offenders. It is indeed tragic that such reprehensible and unconscionable crimes occur. Now both the victim and the offender are scarred for life. I actually know some things about pedophilia, that you can read about here.

Perhaps for the offender, that's how it should be.

But what about the other victims? The ones that have been falsely imprisoned and still have to wear that label like a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives? Their story may be the most tragic of all.

Let me tell you of an example:

When I lived in Wichita, Kansas some years ago, I had a very close friend who was accused of a sexual crime.

Warren was married, and had 2 beautiful children, 1 boy, 6, and 1 girl 4. His wife had some mental problems. Because of her condition he sought out marital help.
And that's when the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan.

During a marriage counseling session, his wife dropped a bomb. In anger, and probably as a part of her delusion, she accused him of molesting his own children. Both of them. The counselor had no choice, by law but to report the accusation to the authorities. And before he had time to spit, he was arrested, interrogated, jailed, indicted and facing a maximum of 40 years in state prison.

Warren was so traumatized by the accusation, that he failed a polygraph test. He told me that everytime the test administrator asked him if he ever touched his kids in a sexual way, a wave of nausea and extreme nervousness went through him. The very suggestion that anything that horrible could have been done to his own children was repugnant to him. He is convinced that the way his heart jumped inside him when the administrator mentioned those words contributed to the reason he failed the test.

Polygraphs are not infallible.

In the 6 months between the time he was arraigned and the trial, he went through an excrutiating period of fear, anger, and even self doubt. He contacted and engaged the best lawyer he could find, who took the case even though it was clear he doubted his clients innocence himself. Warren even went to a psychiatrist and asked to be hypnotized to determine if maybe he had committed the crime and he just didn't remember. As I recall the shrink asked him if he remembered having any blackouts, and when Warren told him he hadn't, the psychiatrist assured him that he couldn't have done it and not remember.

The fact that there was no evidence of abuse either physical or emotional, had no effect on the prosecutor of the case. She prosecuted the case with gusto.

One by one witnesses stepped up to the stand. The arresting officer, the detective who did the interrogation, social services experts, child abuse experts, a medical doctor, and the childrens mother. Not one of them could be absolutely certain of his guilt, but all of them stated they were convinced he was. The head detective even stated that of all the alleged perpertrators he had arrested, 100% of them were guilty in his opinion. Asked how many of them were convicted, he said about 50%.

The children's mother's testimony was so disconnected from reality on the stand, she was asked to leave the witness stand and her testimony was stricken from the record. The Judge asked the jury to disregard her testimony.

There was one witness for the defense. Warren himself.

He handled the cross examination well, and was acquitted. But there were some jurors that still believed he was guilty.

20 years later the memory of that experience still haunts him. He cannot show affection for children, for he fears accusations of impropriety. Once he went to the airport to meet his brother and his family who had been out of the country for 2 years. His niece, about 6 years old at the time, attempted to give Warren a hug, and Warren pushed her away from him.

He will not discuss the incident except to tell me, personally, that it disturbs him to this day, that there may be some people who knew him then who will forever believe he is a child molester. Warren could never again bring himself to kiss his own kids, and it was many months after his trial that he was even able to hug them.

You see, Warren understands the social stigma associated with sexual offenders. He remembers with bitterness how his own brother said he wasn't so sure that he didn't do it.

He tells me he is fortunate that he isn't one of those other victims, the ones that were falsely accused and imprisoned for a very grievous crime they didn't commit. He is thankful that he escaped having to register as a sexual offender everywhere he goes for the rest of his life.

And he feels a certain empathy for the poor souls that didn't.

Eminent Domain Unleashed

According to the Washington Times, Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

From an interview with Laura Ingraham today, Mayor Michael Brown repeatedly insisted that taking the private homes of his city's citizens and handing them over to developers was good for the city, and would bring economic prosperity to the area. He said it would create jobs and raise the aggregate income of the people of Riviera beach.

I suppose it would. But at what price?

And what kind of jobs? Menial labor? Towel boys? Waiters and waitresses? Housekeepers? Has anyone ever done that kind of work? They are good honest jobs but you can't make a living doing them only. Many times you can make more income on welfare than on those minimum wage jobs.

He also said that the new development would provide better housing for the residents. But the most affordable of the future new housing would be approximately $250,000.00. Does he really think the poor, black, and downtrodden can afford them?

6,000 residents.

So the Mayor can collect higher taxes.

Maybe he can find even more poor people to displace with the additional revenue.

For more improvements.

This is an outrage. Even Liberals are objecting to this, but the liberal activist Justices are the ones that changed the constitutional law in the first place. They are the ones that have allowed this.

And if something isn't done, there will be much more of this kind of thing. Will they wait until the new definition of Eminent Domain forces them out of their own homes before they act on this?

Hopefully, some enterprising lawyer will find a loophole and get this issue back in front of the Supreme Court after, of course, the Court has a majority of conservative Justices. But before those 6,000 people lose their homes.

This could be the first case on which Justice Miers will have the opportunity to rule. It will be interesting to see if she is indeed the Justice President Bush believes her to be.

I did an extensive search on the internet today trying to get some information on Mayor Brown, but I was unable to find out his party affiliation. So I don't know if he's a Democrat or a Republican. But I have pretty good idea.

What would you bet it is the party that claims to be the champion of the poor, black, and downtrodden?

The Verdict On Miers

OK. After considering the facts and the expert testimony and the non- expert, yet informed opinions, I have, as promised, made a decision as to whether I will back Harriet Miers for Associate Supreme Court Justice.

The facts are:

From the U.S. government official web site: Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005. Prior to that, she served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Miers was also Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP. Previously, she was President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, where she worked from 1972 until 1999. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Miers became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council. Miers received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University. My addition: She is an evangelical Christian, and has demonstrated a pro choice and pro family stance in the past. She is a Conservative. She is 60 years old, never married, with no children.

Non expert opinions:

I count political bloggers (including myself) and callers to talk radio shows among this group. This is not to say that many of them don't have remarkable insight into matters like these, as so many of them obviously do. They are pretty much divided on this nomination. Some speak of cronyism, and wonder if Miss Miers has much, if any qualifications for the job. Some say this is a shrewd move by the President, in that he has found someone the Democrats cannot find fault with. The big knock against her, say these non experts, is that no one really knows how she would rule as a justice on the bench. In other words, they aren't so much against her as they are against the nomination of someone who doesn't have much of a "paper trail". Essentially she represents an unknown quantity.

Expert opinions:

These are Senators, Congressmen, and White House staffers, along with political pundits such as Professional talk radio hosts, and political authors. This is interesting. It seems the ones who don't know her personally, or have only met her a time or two are mostly of the opinion that it would be a mistake to put Miss Miers on the court because they suspect she will turn out to be another Souter.

The ones who do know her personally, and have worked closely with her over the years are all overwhelmingly of the opinion that she is a perfect choice for a conservative Justice who will most certainly not legislate from the bench.

My conclusion:

Barring the possiblilty that her "friends" may be biased in her favor simply because of their friendship, I am going to go along with them. They know her. President Bush knows her. If anyone can possibly know, for a fact, how she will rule as a Supreme Court Justice, and whether she will be a strict constructionist, it is them. I don't really have much of a vote, and my opinions don't matter any more than the average person on the street, most of whom probably don't even know there is an opening on the SCOTUS, but I am going to endorse her at this time, with the reservation of the right to change my mind if information emerges that disturbs me about her.


Harriet Miers. God bless her.

Harriet Who?

When I first heard the name of President Bush's latest appointment to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, My very first thought was, "Who?"

I had never heard of her.

So I did the quickest research I know of which is to check AOL news. I found that she is a personal friend of the President's, and a member of his White house staff. She is an accomplished lawyer with an impeccable record, but she isn't a judge. So then I remembered another recent Presidential appointee, coincidently also named Myers, just spelled differently. She is a Bush friend, too.

My next thought was one that I understand the Liberal blogs are now bringing up.

Cronyism. I swear that was the first thing I thought of, before I heard any talk show mention it.

Then, I heard Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, a man I have a great deal of respect for, endorse her heartily, and I confess that I now am torn.

After I had the chance to listen to the talk show hosts and their opinions and those of their guests, I am even more confused. I hear that she has donated money to the campaigns of Lloyd Bentsen, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton, as well as to the DNC. Oops! Now I hear she didn't donate to Clinton. (Rush said that)

Here is a mystery, unlike any other mysteries regarding what Bush has done in his 5 years as President:

Many Republicans and Conservatives are disappointed, to say the least, and many of the Liberals and Democrats seem genuinely pleased. Conversely, many Republicans like this appointment and many Democrats don't. I always feel that if the Liberals get upset, Bush must have done something right. Something is very wrong with this picture.

Lots of folks like her and lots of folks don't. On every side. I don't remember seeing this much bi-partisanship in a long, long time. Not since 9/11, in fact.

So here is my temporarily conclusion:

Whether she is liberal or if she is conservative, as long as she doesn't legislate from the bench, she will be an acceptable, if not good, Justice.

The more I know, the more I will say.

The Free Exercise Thereof

I am a Christian. Admittedly, I am not a good Christian, and I am not particuarly religious. But religion and Christianity, in spite of what many people think, are not synonymous.

One can usually tell if someone is Christian by their use or misuse of the two terms. Generally, when someone uses the generic term, "religion" in place of the more accurate term "Christianity", it is because they don't understand the difference. Someone who doesn't know the difference is usually not a Christian.

I am offended when someone who claims to be a Christian defends the efforts of those who seek to eradicate Christianity and the free exercise thereof from America under the guise of protecting free speech.

Common sense tells us that our right to free speech ends when that same right infringes on the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others, for instance, the oft stated example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

That is essentially what happens when the government is allowed to strip Christians of their right to freely exercise their religion.

Conversely, the same can arguably be said about those who would thrust their beliefs upon others. Therefore, the Christian must be mindful of where the proverbial line is drawn, and try to avoid crossing.

What these "free speech" advocates don't understand, in my opinion, is that Christians are mandated by God Himself to "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel".

Those who seek to prevent Christians from carrying out that mandate are denying us the 1st amendment right to the free exercise of religion. And at the same time they are seeking to deny us our right to free speech. Jesus did not tell us to preach the gospel everywhere except where the government says we can't. He said "All the world".

That includes government buildings.

Christians are taught that God is the ultimate authority, an authority that even overrides the government.

At this point, someone will invariably bring up the admonition, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's..." I don't have a good answer for that, but I know that Jesus didn't mean they shouldn't preach the gospel just because Rome didn't want them to. Even a cursory examination of the New Testament shows the early Christians defying Rome in order to spread the faith.

So when the ACLU or anyone else says I can't worship as I see fit in any place I see fit, they abridge my right to free exercise of my religion.

And, the way I see it, my right to free speech as well.

I understand the dilemma that it places upon the government. By adhering to the first amendment without regard to any particular group or religion (in the true sense of the word), government violates the very rights they seek to protect.

There are Christian organizations that are actively defending their right to exercise their religion according to their understanding of the first amendment. There are, likewise, non-Christian organizations that are actively seeking to take that right away according to their understanding of the first amendment.

So what should be the tie breaker?

My opinion is that government should seek to understand that Christians are under a higher authority, and because that is a major tenet of their faith, any attempt to abridge their right to the free exercise of that religion is unconstitutional.

After all, Christians don't tie anyone down and force them to listen to us. Anyone who is offended by the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is always free to move themselves out of earshot, and if the Christian who is doing the offending attempts to follow that person, for the purpose of annoying,then the Christian is indeed violating the first amendment.

I believe that Christians should defend their right to practice their religion. We are taught to "turn the other cheek" but that doesn't mean we are supposed to be doormats for any person or group who attempts to shove conflicting ideas down our throats.

No one is saying that the government has the right to tell anyone that they have to worship any religion. We are simply saying the governemnet doesn't have the right to tell us we can't.

As the great Irish philosopher Edmund Burke put it, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I do not intend to do nothing. I will continue to speak out against injustice in defense of my right to the free exercise of my religion and my right to free speech, even within the hallowed halls of Congress up to and including the White House, if necessary.

I have that right.

A Message from Max Lucado

My Mother sent this to me by e-mail. She rarely sends things like this by e-mail, unlike some people who forward everything they get to everyone in their address book.
Obviously, this message was delivered before the news that many of the horror stories about Hurrican Katrina were exxagerated.

(Special message preached at Oak Hills Church by Max Lucado)

Who would have thought we would ever hear this phrase spoken on a radio
news report in America: "Today, about 25,000 refugees were moved from the
Superdome in New Orleans to the Astrodome in Houston."

For days, we've watched the tragedy continue to unfold in Mississippi and Louisiana and, if you are like me, you've wrestled with feelings of shock and disbelief. Feelings that, over the last five years, have become all too familiar.

We were barely into the new millennium when we saw towers falling in New York City and planes crashing into the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania farmland.

We saw bombs over Baghdad and witnessed the ancient land of Abraham become a war zone for his ancestors. You'd think we had seen enough, but then came the tsunami--a roaring wave that sucked life and innocence out to sea.

And now the fruits of Katrina. A city sitting in twenty feet of water. Citizens hacking their way onto roofs and helicopters hovering over neighborhoods. Optimistic rescuers, opportunistic looters, grateful people, resentful people-we have seen it all. And many have seen it up close. Katrina came to San Antonio in the form of 12,500 evacuees. Many of you are meeting them, feeding them, writing checks, and manning shifts. And you, as much as any, have reason to wonder. What is going on here?

9/11, Iraq, tsunami, Katrina. And I didn't mention nor intend to minimize hurricanes Dennis, Ivan and Emily.

Jesus criticized the leaders of his day for focusing on the weather and ignoring the signals: "You find it easy enough to forecast the weather-why can't you read the signs of the times?" Matthew 16:2-3 (MSG).

What are we to learn from all of this? Is God sending us a message?

I think so. And, I think we'd be wise to pay attention. There are some spiritual lessons that I think God would want us to learn through this tragedy. The first lesson we see is:

I. The Nature of Possessions: Temporary.

As you've listened to evacuees and survivors, have you noticed their words? No one
laments a lost plasma television or submerged SUV. No one runs through the streets
yelling, "My cordless drill is missing" or "My golf clubs have washed away." If they mourn, it is for people lost. If they rejoice, it is for people found.

Could Jesus be reminding us that people matter more than possessions? In a land where we have more malls than high schools, more debt than credit, more clothes to wear than we can wear, could Christ be saying:

"Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions" (Luke 12:15)?

We see an entire riverboat casino washed up three blocks and placed on top of a
house in a neighborhood. You see demolished $40,000 cars that will never be driven
again, hidden in debris. And in the background of our minds we hear the quiet echoes of Jesus saying, "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" (Matthew 16:26).

Raging hurricanes and broken levees have a way of prying our fingers off the stuff
we love.

What was once most precious now means little; what we once ignored is now of eternal significance.

A friend and I attended a worship service at Antioch Baptist Church last Sunday
night. Several African American Church leaders had organized an assembly to pray for the evacuees that have ended up in San Antonio. Many of them sat on the front
rows..dressed in all the clothing they owned: t-shirts, jeans. Their faces were
weary from the week. But when the music started and the worship began, they came to their feet and sang, with tears in their eyes.

They were rich. Are you that rich? Were all your possession washed away, could you still worship? Would you still worship? If not, you are holding things too tightly:

"Tell those rich in this world's wealth to quit being so full of themselves and so
obsessed with money, which is here today and gone tomorrow. Tell them to go after God, who piles on all the riches we could ever manage-to do good, to be rich in
helping others, to be extravagantly generous. If they do that, they'll build a
treasury that will last, gaining life that is truly life" (1 Timothy 6:17-19 MSG).

Through Katrina, Christ tells us: stuff doesn't matter; people do. Understand the nature of possessions. Be equally clear on:

II. The Nature of People: Sinners and Saints.

We see the most incredible servants and stories of selflessness and sacrifice. We
see people of the projects rescuing their neighbors, we see civil servants risking their lives for people they've never seen. My wife Denalyn and I toured a shelter supervised by one of our neighbors here in San Antonio. We met a family of some twenty cousins and siblings. One six-year-old girl told Denalyn about the helicopter man who plucked her off a third story porch and lifted her to safety. That child will never know who that man is. He'll never seek any applause.

He saved her life. all in a day's work. We saw humanity at its best. And we saw humanity at its worst.

Looting. Fighting. We heard stories of rapes and robberies. Someone said, "The
heavens declare the glory of God but the streets declare the sinfulness of man."

The video footage in New Orleans has confirmed the truthfulness of that quote. Can
you imagine not being able to sleep in the Superdome for fear that someone might try to rape your daughter if she went to the restroom in the middle of the night?

We are people of both dignity and depravity. The hurricane blew back more than
roofs; it blew the mask off the nature of mankind. The main problem in the world is not Mother Nature, but human nature. Strip away the police barricades, blow down the fences, and the real self is revealed.

We are barbaric to the core. We were born with a me-first mentality. You don't have to teach your kids to argue.

They don't have to be trained to demand their way. You don't have to show them how to stomp their feet and pout, it is their nature. indeed it is all of our nature to do so.

"All of us have strayed like sheep. We have left God's paths to follow our own" (Isaiah 53:6).

God's chosen word for our fallen condition has three letters- s-I-n. Sin celebrates
the letter in the middle. "I". Left to our own devices, we lead a godless, out of control life of "doing what we felt like doing, when we felt like doing it" Ephesians
2:3 MSG).

You don't have to go to New Orleans to see the chaos. Because of sin, the husband
ignores his wife, grown men seduce the young. The young proposition the old. When you
do what you want and I do what I want, humanity and civility implodes. And when the Katrinas of life blown in, our true nature is revealed and our deepest need is unveiled:

A need deeper than food, more permanent than firm levees. We need, not a new system, but a new nature. We need to be changed from the inside out.

III. The Nature of God's Grace:

Inside Out. Much discussion revolves around the future of New Orleans. Will the city
be restored? Repaired? How long will it take? Who will pay for it? One thing is for
certain: someone has to clean her up. No one is suggesting otherwise. Everyone knows, someone has to go in and clean up the mess.

That is what God offers to do with us. He comes into sin-flooded lives and washes
away the old. Paul reflected on his conversion and he wrote: "He gave us a good bath, and we came out of it new people, washed inside and out by the Holy Spirit"
(Titus 3:5).

Our sins stand no chance against the fire hoses of God's grace. But he does more than cleanse us; he rebuilds us. In the form of his Holy Spirit, God moves in and starts a complete renovation project. "God can do anything, you know-far more than you could ever imagine or guess or request in your wildest dreams! He does it not by pushing us around but by working within us, his Spirit deeply and gently within us." (Ephesians 3:20 MSG).

And what we can only dream of doing with New Orleans, God has done with soul after
soul, and he will do so with you, if you let him.

The most disturbing stories from the last week are of those who refused to be rescued. Those who spent their final hours trapped in attics and rooms regretting
the choice they'd made. They could have been saved. They could have gotten out. but they chose to stay.

Many paid a permanent price.

You don't have to pay that price. What rescuers did for people on the Gulf Coast, God
will do for you. He has entered your world. He has dropped a rope into your sin-swamped life. He will rescue, you simply need to do what that little girl did, let
him lift you out.

I mentioned my visit to Antioch Baptist Church last Sunday night. A local minister,
Pastor L. A. Williams gave a message on this one verse:

"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." (Gen. 6:8).

The minister helped us see all the things Noah could not find because of the flood. He could not find his neighborhood. He could not find his house. He could not find the comforts of home or the people down the street--there was much he could
not find.

But what he could find made all the difference. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Noah found grace in the eyes of God. If you have everything and no grace, you have
nothing. If you have nothing but grace, you have everything.

Have you found grace? If not, I urge you to do what that little girl told us she did.
When the rescuer appeared on her porch, she grabbed him, closed her eyes, and held on.

That's all you need to do. And if you never have, and would like to, I urge you to reach for the hand of your rescuer, Jesus Christ.

Your Redeemer lives, too. This hurricane was his tool to get your attention. Trust in
Him while you still can.

Note from the blog administrator: While I don't necessarily agree that God was sending these disasters to us to send a message, I do agree that through them, God is teaching us a very valuable lesson.

Aut Pax Aut Bellum

Genealogy is fun, isn't it? I grew up with no clear idea of what my heritage is. There was some speculation by some members of my family that the name Maness was, at different times, Dutch, Greek, German, French, and various combinations of all of them and more. That part is probably true. Not knowing the origin of our name it is easy to see why we didn't marry our own kind, genealogically speaking.

With the invention of the internet (thanks Mr. Gore) and my access to it, I finally got the chance to do a little sleuthing to find the origin of the family surname. For free. What I found is:

I am Scottish!

This is how I arrived at that conclusion:

I entered my paternal grandfather's name at ancestry.com where I found his father's name, and his father's and so on, until I reached a dead end in the 1600's in North Carolina. Any more information, I could find, but I would have to pay for it, and I am too cheap to do that.

Scots are known for being "thrifty". Another validation of my heritage.

However, That was enough information for me to discover that my great-great-etc grandfather came over to America from Scotland. His name was John Manus. The spelling change was attributed to a census taker, who spelled the name "Maness" and I don't know why it was never changed back. I couldn't understand why the census taker chose that particular misspelling of the name, until I did further research at Scotclans.com where I discovered that both the name Manus and the name Maness are "septs" of the same clan, and are essentially the same family which is a fact that would have been commonly known in the large Scot population of the state of North Carolina at the time.

A sept is basically a cousin of the main clan or a family that more or less attached themselves to a bigger clan for protection and maybe a sense of identity. A hanger-on, you might say.

That clan is known as the clan Gunn. Here is the Gunn family crest.The Latin Phrase on it means, "Either peace or war"

Not very imaginative, I admit, but hey, we weren't a clan of poets.

There is a fascinating history about Scot clans and their septs that can be found in various places on the internet (Thanks, Al) and even links to modern day societies that celebrate the histories of the clans of Scotland. I found the Clan Gunn's tartan plaid there. (that's the pattern of the cloth that the kilts were made from. It is traditional that each clan have their own plaid.) This is it. The Gunn clan family plaid:

And here is part of a condensed history of the Gunn clan:

Helen, only daughter of Lachlan Gunn of Braemor, was celebrated for her great beauty and was due to marry her cousin Alexander. Dugald Keith, a retainer of Keith of Ackergill, had tried to woo her, been rejected, and responded jealously. On her wedding day, he paid a surprise visit to her father's house, surrounding it with armed members of his own family, who then began slaying the unsuspecting Gunns.

Keith took Helen and imprisoned her in Ackergill. Eventually, to escape his sexual abuse, she went to the top of the tower and jumped to her death. The feud that ensued was very long and bloody, with continuing attacks upon each clan. One costly but indecisive battle was at Harpsdale, near Thurso, in 1426.

Eventually, in 1464, the war-weary chiefs of the two clans agreed to meet at the Chapel of St Tears to lay their grievances to rest. The chief of the Gunns was George. He held the important office of crowner, and wore the magnificent brooch of the post. He arrived at the chapel on horseback with eleven other riders, as agreed.

The Keiths arrived on twelve horses also, but with two men to a horse, and slaughtered the Gunns. The brooch of the crowner was taken from dead Gunn's body. A century later, William MacKames, George's grandson, avenged his kinsmen with the life of George Keith of Akergill, his son and twelve others in a bloodbath at Drummoy in Sutherland.

In 1978, the two clans ended the feud.

1978!

Scots can be very stubborn. I have that trait, also.

OK. That's enough for today. Some might say too much.

I Was Wrong (Alert The Media)

I really don’t know if Tom Delay is guilty of anything or not, in fact, I admit I don’t know much about Tom Delay at all. But After reading about this case, It certainly appears that Ronnie Earle, Democrat District Attorney for Travis County, Texas, is indeed gunning for Delay, and will resort to false allegations to accomplish that goal.

The now famous Rep. Tom Delay indictment filed Wednesday in the 147th Judicial District Court in Travis County, Texas can be found here in it's entirety.

Read it. It is relatively short.

Notice that Mr Delay is mentioned only in the beginning of the document where it lists the defendants of the case and at the end where it mentions that he did “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive the application of articles 12.01 and 12.03 of the Texas code of criminal procedure“…etc, etc, etc

What does this legalese mean? It means that Tom Delay allegedly knew of a conspiracy.

Allegedly.

There’s more to this than meets the eye. This website here claims that Travis county DA Ronnie Earle is a partisan hack who has been gunning for Tom Delay for years. Indeed, Earle has convened five other grand jury’s in the past for the purpose of indicting Mr. Delay but has failed every time. In addition to that, he has attempted on three separate occasions to obtain various indictments of Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Republican Senator from Texas, to no avail.

The Wall Street Journal has this on the subject:

The Majority Leader also deserves the presumption of innocence because of Mr. Earle's guilty past. A liberal Democrat, he has a history of indicting political enemies, Democrat and Republican, on flimsy evidence that didn't hold up in court. In the mid-1980s, he indicted Attorney General Jim Mattox, a rival of his ally Ann Richards, on bribery charges. Mr. Mattox was acquitted and won re-election.
In 1993, he indicted Kay Bailey Hutchison, who'd just been elected to the U.S. Senate, on charges of misconduct and records tampering. Mr. Earle was forced to drop the case even before it went to trial. Earlier this year, the prosecutor delivered a widely criticized speech at a Democratic fund-raiser in which he compared his prosecutorial targets to "Mussolini and his fascists" and all but declared that he had Mr. DeLay in his sights.

Other websites I have found indicate that Earle is simply a good ‘ol country lawyer who only wants to ferret out corruption in government.

A very noble cause, right?

Well, lets see what the Ronnie Earle apologists have to say about their hero.

Media Matters says:

While Earle is an elected Democrat, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, a March 17* editorial in the Houston Chronicle commended his work: "During his long tenure, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has prosecuted many more Democratic officials than Republicans. The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts." This assertion supports Earle's own claim about his record; a March 6 article in the El Paso Times reported: "Earle says local prosecution is fundamental and points out that 11 of the 15 politicians he has prosecuted over the years were Democrats."

What the article doesn’t mention is that the Democrats that Earle indicted were political enemies of Earle, and Conservative Democrats at that.

Rush Limbaugh reports that Earle has dropped charges against major corporations in the past on the promise to him that they will contribute money to his pet projects. Captains Quarters does, too, saying:

“Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor who has indicted associates of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in an ongoing campaign-finance investigation, dropped felony charges against several corporations indicted in the probe in return for the corporations' agreement to make five- and six-figure contributions to one of Earle's pet causes.”

There is a lot more to be found there. Read that, too.

That is called extortion, and if memory serves, extortion is illegal, too.

It is also interesting to note, that MSNBC and other “mainstream media outlets“, somehow conveniently fail to mention that fact, or the fact that Earle is a Democrat.

I was watching television this morning and I caught just enough of the Daily show to hear Jon Stewart, the very Liberal host, announce the indictment of Delay accompanied by a thunderous chorus of applause, hoots, and cheers. He failed to mention that Earle is a Democrat, also.

NOTE: It occurred to me that The Daily Show audience is a collection of people who don’t read, or at least, blindly accept any and everything that the Liberals tell them, never mind whether it’s true or not. In short, if they can read, they must read the New York Times, a newspaper that doesn’t let truth stand in the way of their “objective reporting“, as evidenced by the recent admission that the story reported by them regarding Geraldo Rivera, turned out to be manufactured out of whole cloth. That is at least the third time in the last year that they have been caught in a lie, so why would anyone ever take anything they say as fact?

After doing the additional research that I didn’t do yesterday before posting my comment, it has become clear that I owe Sean Hannity an apology. He was right. I was wrong. Rush is right, too. Ronnie Earle is just as much a partisan hack with a vendetta against Delay as they say he is.

Don't Get Your Hopes Up, Liberals, But...

Readers of my blog no doubt have noticed lately that I seem to be undergoing an introspection of sorts.(What? Again?) What I mean is I am having second thoughts about what I believe, politically. I think my main problem is that I am both blessed and cursed with the innate ability to see and understand things from all possible perspectives, and that's what leads me to question my own ideology. There are several factors at play in this introspection:

The list of Bill Clinton's accomplishments that ER published in my comments section.

Jaymeister, and Liam, and, to a lesser extent, even Rich Bachelor making some compelling arguments.

The rampant overspending of the Bush Administration and the Republican dominated legislature, particuarly the transportation bill which contains so much pork we could literally hold a BBQ for the world.

Bush's announcement of the appointment of another of his cronies to an important leadership post in the immigration department, who has no experience in immigration matters at all.

The failure of Bush and his administration to secure the borders.

Today, I have discovered that Sean Hannity is engaged in the type of spin that I used to think only Liberals were guilty of. On his program today, he addressed the issue of Tom Delay's indictment of campaign contribution related malfeasance. Hannity told his listeners that The Travis County Texas District Attorney was a partisan hack who has a long record of indicting Republican politicians in the state of Texas. We are led to believe, if we take Hannity's word for it, that Ronnie Earle has a personal vendetta against all Republicans.

I personally don't see where Delay did anything even questionable, let alone illegal, but if that be so, why would Hannity be employing typical Liberal tactics by attacking the accuser?

I did some research into the case because ER brought it up on his blog, and found a website that seems to indicate that Mr. Earle is simply doing his job, and that he has actually prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans during his tenure in office. However, I also keep in mind that the information in that site may be as much spin in Mr Earles favor as Hannity's spin is against him.

Lately, I have learned it's best to not accept anything on face value. Or, in other words, "Don't believe everything you read". Especially if it's in the New York Times.

How many times are their reporters going to be caught lying before no one ever believes them again? Geeeez.

I also looked up the actual indictment of Rep. Tom Delay. To Hannity's credit, he appears to be correct in his assessment that Mr. Delay has little to do with the charges listed in the indictment other than an association with the other 2 defendants. The allegation that Delay is personally involved in any illegal activity is tenuous at best. Although I don't understand legalese that well, and the particular statutes mentioned in the indictment aren't explained so that a 4 year old can understand them, and I definitely need things explained to me as simply as possible.

In short, I am not saying that I am about to become a Liberal, or even a Democrat. I have been both in the past and I no longer ascribe to that ideology. The issues that concern me are issues of Republicans behaving in a most un-Republican like manner. We conservatives are supposed to be against out of control spending, and for integrity in politics, and picking the right person for the right job regardless of personal feelings, and in controlling the borders.

I don't see that happening lately.

Could it be that President Bush, knowing that he can't run again, is throwing caution to the wind and just doing whatever he wants with no regard to the future of his party?

I don't know, but it certainly looks like that from where I sit.

But then, Bruiser puts things in their proper perspective for me.

Is This War Necessary?

Lately, I’ve been thinking maybe the war in Iraq really is unnecessary. Maybe the left’s arguments are starting to make sense to me.

So why don’t we just leave and let them have Iraq? What do we owe the Iraqi people? Do you think they would do the same for us if we were the nation under the oppression of a ruthless dictator and they were the leaders of the free world? Are we supposed to care if the Muslim extremists make a shambles of Iraq?

They are not Americans. We are not obligated to free them, or help to bring about a Democracy.

Right?

Are the terrorists really only in Iraq because we’re there? I believe they are.

You read me right. I believe they are there because we are there.

But not because they want us out of Iraq. Quite the contrary, I believe they want us there. We are the terrorists excuse to commit acts of terrorism. True Islam does not condone random acts of violence, nor does it condone suicide. True Islam has more in common with Christianity than we, as non-Muslims think. The main difference is that they deny the deity of Christ, that Jesus is the son of God. They believe that God has no son and no father. True Islam is indeed a religion of peace, the way Mohammed envisioned .

But the terrorists are not devotees of “true” Islam.

The only way the terrorists can continue to terrorize without incurring the wrath of Muslim nations is to have an enemy. We serve that purpose. If we were not considered enemies, the terrorists would not have an excuse to attack us, and our intervention to assist in the toppling of Saddam’s regime gives them the perfect excuse to invade and terrorize.

Am I saying that we should pull out of Iraq? Not at all. If we were to pull out of Iraq, the terrorists would most certainly follow us to America’s shores and attack us over here. Or, if we were to send troops into Iran, or North Korea, or North Africa, or Northern Ireland, or North Dakota, they would be there to attack and terrorize.

The Muslim extremists want to kill and maim. That is all they want. Even if all America were to convert to Islam, they would still want us dead. We represent to them everything they want but do not have, and they are envious. This is not about religious differences, it is about power.

Whether we are there for a good reason or not, we cannot pull out. We have no choice but to stay and fight. And to see this through to it’s conclusion, whatever and whenever that will be. As President Bush has stated, It’s better to fight them over there than at home.

We can choose to be reactive or we can choose to be pro-active. Either way, we will have to fight, and we will have to win.

So. Is the war necessary?

You bet it is. America’s survival depends on it.

Nothing's Cold as Ashes After the Fire is Gone

Just as I predicted, Cindy Sheehan’s flame is being extinguished, and what’s more, she is the one that’s wielding the fire extinguisher.

Sean Hannity said today, that she cannot get out of the spotlight. It happens often when someone who’s not used to media attention suddenly is thrust into the spotlight, they become addicted to it and then they cannot get out. In Ms. Sheehans case, I don’t believe she wants to get out. She has become a media whore. Her crusade is no longer about ending a war in the name of peace, but about getting more attention for herself.

I actually understand this phenonomen well. I started my blog because I only wanted to state my opinon on a variety of subjects, as a kind of catharsis, but as people became aware of it, and brilliant people, people who are professional writers and journalists etc, began commenting and engaging in discourse with me over my opinions, it encouraged me and now I think, probably stupidly, that I am more talented a writer than I am. Just as Cindy stupidly thinks her opinion matters more than it does.

In a Liberal blog, she posted this comment:

"i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!"

With that one short statement, she summed up her entire agenda. It’s all about Cindy.

And then the inevitable happened. It started out with one commentator, a resident of southeast Texas, objecting to her dismissing Hurricane Rita as "a little wind and a little rain", and ending his/her comment with these words:

"Shame on you, you're jealous of media coverage of other's suffering. You've become a caricature and I no longer support you. I'm ashamed I ever did."

(When I downloaded this photo, it was captioned "Grieving Cindy")

Then, others joined in. Most of them said they were against the war also and have, up to now, supported her, but like the first commentator, they are withdrawing their support. The last commentator in the thread, who seems to be a conservative, said this:

I can't believe the unmitigated gaul of you lady! You have the nerve to get up on your soapbox and accuse President Bush of being insensitive and uncaring about Americans and then you make a statement like that?
Every time you open your mouth you just keep on proving what a selfish and horrible person you are.
You call our own military (which your son was a member of) murders.
You refer to the terrorists who kidnap, torture, behead and bomb not only our troops and relief workers but innocent Iraqi civilians including children as "freedom fighters".
You refer to our brave MEN and WOMEN who made the conscious choice to join the military out of love of their country and who defend the rights that YOU take for granted as "children".
You point a finger at anyone who questions your sincerity and then point the same finger at President Bush and question his sincerity in helping the hurricane victims in the south.
You relish in the claims of the lunatic left that you have a "moral authority" because you lost a son in Iraq and then make snap judgments about those who lost sons in Iraq and still support the war! (So I guess you think the First Amendment only applies to you is that it?) Does that mean that those parents aren't "moral authorities"?
You stoop to an all time low when you start badmouthing your own family and belittling their love of Casey and even sacrifice your ex-husband in the media because he doesn't support your lust for attention.
And now you get arrested. And you have that big shit-eating grin on your face when it happened. I suppose you see yourself as a martyr. As the new Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr.
Well you're not! Those people actually stood for something other than media glory, unlike you.
You are a sad excuse for a human being, an American and most of all as a mother.
Casey is better off where he is now because he's free from you!



I would have been more respectful to her than that, but the sentiment is the same.


(Wheee!)

Just for the record, this post was originally going to be about the fact that I object to war, too.

The difference is, unlike Cindy Sheehan, I know sometimes war is a necessary evil.

Who Say's They're Anti-American?

This past weekend, There were two rallies held in Washington, DC. One was Cindy Sheehan's anti-war, anti-Bush "rally for peace". The other one was a rally organized to support Bush and the war in Iraq by the Gold Star Mothers. Not the pseudo "Gold Star Mothers for Peace" that Cindy Sheehan started, but the real "Gold Star Mothers", the ones whose sons were killed in action fighting for America and the ones that support the cause that their children died protecting.

I watched some of the Pro Bush rally on C-Span, and I was moved by the stories of bravery and sacrifice of the sons and husbands and brothers that were chronicled by their family members.

As to the other rally, I was struck by the diversity of groups that attended, and who I believe were not there to support Ms Sheehan, but to bring attention to their own agendas.

There were Communist groups, Socialist groups, anarchist groups, Marxists, grandmother groups, environmental groups, vegan groups, even a Portugese against Bush group. No kidding. Portugese! No wonder that rally had so many participants. It would seem that every group that has any kind of anti-Bush or even anti-government agenda was well represented.

In contrast, the only groups present at the other rally were the ones that were there to support Bush, and the Gold Star Families. No other fringe groups.

I wonder how much the presence of some of those extreme groups at Cindy's rally really helped her cause? She, and many other anti war protestors claim that they are patriotic and believe in the principles upon which America was founded. But anarchists don't believe in those things. Communists and Marxists don't support a democratic form of government. I think, although I may be mistaken, that even Liberals think some of the groups attending that rally are nuts.

So what I'm wondering is this:

Do the organizers of that rally believe that the presence of these lunatic fringe groups really help their cause? Or do they just accept them because it makes their group look bigger?

Or is Cindy Sheehan a member of the Marxists and Communists and Socialists and Anarchists?

I think if I were running some kind of rally, I would discourage any groups that would tend to undermine my cause.

As it stands now, however questionably noble her cause may have been, it has lost whatever credibility it ever had, if any.

Class Envy

I was talking to my college student son on the phone last night, who informed me he had just registered as a Democrat. While disappointed, I respect him for caring enough, at least, to take an interest. But I wondered briefly what brought him to the conclusion that the Democrat party is the one that would best represent him.

I say briefly because upon further discussion he outlined some of his reasons. It was then that I realized how much party rhetoric and yes, even the media to some extent, can influence us in regards to who we vote for to represent us.

One of the biggest phrases that I think influences many people is this:

"Tax cuts for the rich"

This phrase exploits the notion of class envy. Class envy is the phrase that refers to the curious resentment of people because of some perceived notion of snobbery stemming from the oft mistaken idea that they possess undeserved riches, far beyond the amount that they really need.


wikipedia defines it thusly:

"Class envy is a pejorative term sometimes used to describe criticisms of the rich and powerful by the poor and less powerful."

Yeah, that's what I said. Sort of.

I know a little about this subject as I myself have suffered from this malady. It is only from examining this concept from a non-biased point of view that I achieved clarity of thought on the subject.

For one thing, I had to get past the fallacy that the wealthy don't work for a living. Of course they do. In fact, I believe for the most part, they work a good bit harder than I. It's just a different kind of work. I describe it this way:

It takes hard work to get rich and it takes hard work to remain rich. I have often said that mental work is more tiring than physical work. There are exceptions.
(Paris Hilton comes to mind. And stirs in me.... nevermind. That's a subject for another post.)

Another, better example:

There is a man in West Virginia who won the biggest single lottery in history. He didn't work for his riches aside from working hard enough to earn the dollar that he paid for the lottery ticket.

Actually he illustrates my next point as well:

It takes some intelligence to achieve and to keep wealth. Of course, there are those who were born into wealth, but even they have to have brains enough to be able to hold onto their wealth, with a few exceptions. There are, after all, exceptions to every rule.

The above mentioned man is an idiot. The sheer size of his lottery winnings is the only reason why he is still rich. This guy has had large quantities of cash stolen from him at least twice because he left it sitting on the seat of his pick up truck in the parking lot of the local strip bar that he frequents. Also, he has been asked, with no deference to his wealth, to leave said strip bar on numerous occasions because he apparently is one of those people who become obnoxious after imbibing a large quantity of alcohol.

When I was awarded custody of my daughter, who was raised by her mother on welfare, in true poverty, She had a bitter attitude against "rich people" and often spoke sneeringly about the "preppies" that lived in her town. I supposed there is some snobbery in the children of people who have worked long and hard for wealth. After all, their kids didn't have to work for privileges that my daughter could only wish to have.

I had the same attitude growing up among peers, who were mostly children of high ranking executives in my hometown of Wichita, Kansas. One was the son of a local real estate mogul. One was the daughter of the President of a large chemical corporation. One was the daughter of a Vice President of Boeing Aircraft. They didn't have to wonder if they had enough money to pay bills, or even to eat, week to week.

There were others.

If I could have looked past the fact that they were "rich" and I wasn't, I would have seen them for who they really were: Good decent people who had no comprehension of what true poverty is really like. They were, for all practical purposes, clueless.

It was when I realized they were naive, but not evil, that I was able to overcome class envy. After that, it was just a matter of reminding myself constantly, that the wealthy are no better or smarter than I.

OK. So now I am still poor. But I don't resent those that aren't. I don't idolize them either.

God is in Control

Between ER listing all of Bill Clinton's positive accomplishments during his administration, and the Able Danger fiasco, in which both Republicans and Democrats seem to be engaged in cover up, and the President firing back at Clinton, which blew my previous argument about his integrity out of the water, I have decided to take a step back from politics and re-evaluate my position on some issues.

I will say this, though, which is something I've been thinking about long before I posted my comments about Clinton's legacy:

If someone had not broken the story about Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton's affair, there would have been no scandal. There would have been no investigation. There would have been no need for Clinton to lie. There would have been no need for an impeachment hearing.

I, and most every other conservative have made a mountain out of a molehill about this case and have done precisely what we criticize the Liberals of doing. Sensationalizing a minor flaw in a President. Making it seem worse than it is, so to speak.

Yes, He cheated on his wife. Yes, he was weak and used bad judgment. Yes, he lied about the whole thing. Yes, and when it became obvious that he was caught in the lie, he went into defense mode, and launched a counter attack, going after Ken Starr and others, and alledgedly ordering the IRS to do impromptu audits of his perceived enemies.

As I have said, How different things might have been if he had simply called a press conference, and said,

"Yes, I did have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I was wrong. I broke the covenant I have with my wife and with the American people. There is no excuse for my reprehensible behavior. I am sorry. I have discussed this with the First Lady, and I have apologized to her and I have promised to never do it again, and she has been gracious enough to forgive me, although no one would blame her if she didn't. I certainly wouldn't. And now, I feel it is my obligation to you, the American people, to offer my sincerest and most humble apology. I promise I will not do it again. That is the end of this matter and I will discuss it no further and I will not seek revenge against those who have brought this matter to the attention of the American people."

Don't get me wrong. I still don't think he was a very good president. I still think he was corrupt. But that is not the issue I am addressing here today.

Now. During this time of natural disaster following on the heels of natural disaster, and the continually depressing news about the war in Iraq, and the uncertainty of the future of the World and the United States,. I think it is important to remember Who is really in control. Where there seems to be no hope, there is Hope. Here are the words to a song recorded by Twila Paris:

This is no time for fear
This is a time for faith and determination
Don't lose the vision here
Carried away by emotion
Hold on to all that you hide in your heart
There is one thing that has always been true
It holds the world together

God is in control
We believe that His children will not be forsaken
God is in control
We will choose to remember and never be shaken
There is no power above or beside Him, we know
God is in control, oh God is in control

History marches on
There is a bottom line drawn across the ages
Culture can make its plan
Oh, but the line never changes
No matter how the deception may fly
There is one thing that has always been true
It will be true forever

God is in control
We believe that His children will not be forsaken
God is in control
We will choose to remember and never be shaken
There is no power above or beside Him, we know
God is in control, oh God is in control

He has never let you down
Why start to worry now?
He is still the Lord of all we see
And He is still the loving Father
Watching over you and me

watching over you...watching over me..
watching over every thing..
watching over you..watching over me..
every little sparrow..every little thing...Oh

God is in control
We believe that His children will not be forsaken
God is in control
We will choose to remember and never be shaken
There is no power above or beside Him, we know
God is in control, oh God is in control.

I feel better already.

A Father's Story

Yesterday, on the Laura Ingraham show, a father of a marine who was killed in action and a mother of a another soldier killed were interviewed.

The father, Gary Qualls, read a letter which was the last letter he had received from his son, Lance Corporal Louis Qualls, before he was killed in action on November 16, 2004 in Fallujah, Iraq. It can be found here, along with a letter to his brother and letters of condolence from Texas state legislators.
This is the letter, in it's entirety:

LOUIS' LAST LETTER TO DAD FROM IRAQ

Dear Dad,

Well I saw this post card at the PX and when
I read it, it summed up all my feelings and my
thoughts at the moment so I only thought it
appropriate to get it for you. Well there's a
lot going on here. They say that the next
month will probably be some of the most
serious combat that the war has yet to see,
and well I'm right in the middle of it. I think
I'm truly scared, because not just knowing
I'm going to be in a fight, but I fear it's a fight
for my life. So Dad I need your prayers and
your advice more than ever. I know you've
always been there for me, and I know you
always will be. I just can't wait to come home.
I just want you to know that no matter what
happens in the next weeks that I've always
looked up to you and I always will.

You know kids idol some football player or
something along those lines but me I've
always idol'd and looked up to you, and I
always thought damn I can only dream of
doing the things you've done. Well I love you
and I'll be home soon. Well lookin' forward to
hearin' from ya'll soon and tell Cathe thanx
for the emails.

Your Son,
Louis

My son is 16. Mr. Qualls said in the interview that his son signed up for the marines when he was only 17. He said he had finished reading the letter from his son less than a hour before the uniformed men stood outside his door, flanking a chaplain. He said all he could do was repeat the words, "No, No, No", over and over.

I don't think I would want my son to join the armed services, but if he wanted to, I wouldn't stop him. When a young man is 17 he cannot join without his parent's permission. If my son insisted on me giving my permission, I am not sure I would want to give it. However, During these times when we are engaged in a war against terror, I could only assume the reason he may want to join would be a noble one. Why else would he want to risk his life?

A few years ago, my daughter, Crystal Star, who was only 21 at the time, but living with an abusive boyfriend, called one night and asked me to take her to the hospital because she was sick. I went over to her place to pick her up but I didn't take her to the hospital right away, until my wife, her stepmother insisted that she really was sick and I should take her.

It was only after the hospital had admitted her that I found out she had taken 85 extra-strength Tylenol and her liver was shutting down as a result. She had been despondent over a fight her and her boyfriend had. The doctors told us she was dying. Also, she had admitted to the doctors that she had a cocaine addiction, which disqualified her for a transplant.

Seemingly, the only thing we could do is watch her die.

Words cannot begin to describe the pain I felt when the reality of the situation sunk in. Children are not supposed to die before their parents.

I am a proud and largely unemotional man, but for the first time in many years, I cried.

And prayed.

Here are pictures of my daughter and her family today. (not the same guy she was with at the time)

After hovering on the brink of death for a week, Crystal pulled through, by the grace of God, but the memory of that horror will stay with me the rest of my life.

I don't want my children to die before I do. Gary Qualls did not want his child to die before him. Cindy Sheehan did not want her child to die before her.

I cannot imagine the pain they must feel, although I had a taste of it the day my daughter took those pills.

All in all, I think if my child were to die before I do, I can only hope he dies fighting for our freedom.

And for Cindy Sheehan's right to protest his service.

Amusements

I don't own a video tape player/recorder. I own a cheap DVD player that I bought from Walmart for about $59.00 a couple of years ago. I've been lucky. So far, except for the fact that it will not open and close by remote control and that I can't fast forward it anymore, it still works good.

I don't own a lot of DVD's either. I have a few, but generally, when I want to view a film, I rent one. I have found that most movies, even the good ones, are only worth 2 -3 viewings, and then they just sit and gather dust.

The only DVD's I own are ones that I like so much that I will watch them over and over and that aint very durn many. And ones that I seem to get a hankerin' to see occassionally and are never on television. Some of those are:

"The Dream Team", with Michael Keaton, Peter Boyle, Christopher Lloyd, and Steven Furst.

"Her Alibi" with Tom Selleck and Paula Porizkova.

"Plan 9 from Outer Space" An Ed Wood classic.

Then I have my most favorite movies:

"Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?"

"Cyrano de Bergerac" (the 1950 version with the Academy Award winning performance of Jose Ferrer)

I want to get "Evolution" with David Duchovny and Julianne Moore but I can't find it for sale anywhere. Except Amazon.com and I don't like buying things over the internet, but I probably eventually will.

I would own anything by the Cohen brothers, too, but just haven't got anymore of those yet.

I have "Super Size Me", the liberal propaganda film by that guy that ate nothing but McDonalds food for 30 days, getting a little fat in the process. And sick (the wussy)But I didn't buy it for myself. My 21 year old college student son back in Wichita sent it to me for Christmas. He said the last time he saw me I was fat and he thought it would inspire me to lose weight.

It inspired me to go out and get a Big Mac.

So it goes.

On a whim one day I bought a DVD of "Murders in The Rue Morgue" starring, of all people, Val Kilmer, and believe it or not, George C Scott. What can I say? I like Poe. It doesn't stick very close to the text and that has always been a difficult thing for me to adjust to in movies.

I don't like DVD collections of television series' as a rule but I really love my 2 disc, 8 episode edition of the "Andy Griffith Show". I especially like the ones featuring the Darling family, played by the real life bluegrass band, the Dillards, as the family and Denver Pyle as Mr. Darling. I saw the Dillards in concert once and they did a parody of the Darling family which was hilarious.

I'd like to see a collection of Andy Griffith shows featuring only those, with and without Ernest T. Bass (Howard Morris) and any episode where Barney isn't portrayed as an incompetent.

I've always kind of identified with poor ol' Barney. I never liked it when he was being a jackass. I liked to see him as a hero. Those episodes are rare.

That's it. I just thought I'd lighten up one day.

Bill Clinton's Legacy

To begin with, let me state for the record, that I can’t fault Clinton for having sex with Monica Lewinsky. He is after all, a man, with a typical man’s natural instincts. And I don’t care what the comedians and journalists say, Monica is an attractive woman. I don’t think she is fat at all, as they say.

I know that it is indeed hard to turn free sex with an attractive woman down, especially when said woman is throwing herself at you. Even if you are married. The temptation is daunting. Being a man, and a single man at that, I don’t know if I could resist such a tempting offer. But he should have been able to.

And in addition to that, it is generally recognized that important powerful men have, for the most part, an overactive libido, further complicating the matter. So I understand that it would be hard for Clinton to resist.

That said, we must also remember that this man was the most powerful man in the world at the time, and as such, had an obligation to eschew all appearances of impropriety. My concern was, at the time, that if the man cannot control his own sexual urges, how can he be trusted to control his emotions in a pressure situation such as the outbreak of war? If a nation with a death wish had launched an all out offensive against the United States, could a man with so little control over his own urges be up to the task?

I think we are fortunate that we never had to find out the hard way.

Lets look at what things Clinton did in his 8 year tenure as our nation’s leader that assured his place in history:

1. He gave missile technology to Communist China that would perfect the pinpoint accuracy of Nuclear missiles which would undoubtedly be used against the United States should Global thermo-nuclear war break out between us and them.

2. In 1994, Clinton brokered a one sided pact with North Korea, buying a promise from Kim il Sung with 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually and $4 billion to construct a pair of nuclear reactors for “electricity”, and, in exchange, North Korea promised not to build nuclear weapons.

As is now well-known, about six seconds after the deal was signed the North Koreans began feverishly building nuclear bombs. In October 2002, the regime admitted it had in fact been working on them since the mid or late 1990’s. But up until the North Koreans were caught red handed, the “experts” were assuring us that the 1994 peace deal had been a smashing success.

3. During the aforementioned Lewinsky scandal, he issued an edict declaring oral sex to not really be considered sex at all, insuring American 15-19 year old girls for generations to come that they can indiscriminately and promiscuously engage in oral sex, because if President Clinton says so, it must be fact.

So now, the percentage of underage girls in America routinely having oral sex has skyrocketed. Slightly more than half of American teenagers ages 15 to 19 have engaged in oral sex, with females and males reporting similar levels of experience, according to the most comprehensive national survey of sexual behaviors ever released by the federal government.
The report released September 15 by the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the proportion increases with age to about 70 percent of all 18- and 19-year-olds. That figure is considerably higher for those who also have engaged in intercourse.


Arguably, it can be said that the internet culture in America, as well as other factors, has contributed significantly to the rise in the percentage of teens engaging in oral sex, but I have personally heard teen age girls say it was Clinton that convinced them that oral sex wasn’t really sex. Basically, he has legitimized the practice. And yesterday, it was announced that the Chinese will be marketing condoms named after Clinton. They will be called "Clinton Condoms". They are also planning to market "Monica" brand condoms. So we know now what kind of legacy he has left the Chinese.

4. He lowered the bar for what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors”, in regards to what is an impeachable offense, relegating perjury before a grand jury to the status of a “little white lie“.

5. In 1998 Clinton bombed Iraq. Coincidently, It just happened to be on the day scheduled for his impeachment. I’m sure this wasn’t a “Wag the Dog” type thing. He wouldn’t try to distract America would he? Naw, probably just a coincidence.

6. He also bombed an aspirin factory in Khartoum, Sudan on the flawed intelligence information that it was a crucial link to Osama bin Laden.

This flawed information, by the way, is not considered as important a blunder as that which President Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deposition of a murderous, sadistically tyrannical dictator, who was known to have used WMD in the past against his own people as well as Iran.

Of course, possibly the interruption of the aspirin trade in the Sudan made Osama have to resort to more primitive methods of soothing his headaches, so that is probably a good thing, too, but somewhat less effective than capturing him as we did with Saddam.

7. By his declaration that he had smoked pot before but hadn’t inhaled, he empowered at least two different and disparate groups - Pot smokers and conservative critics who considered the statement to be proof positive that he is a liar. Now, it’s not only OK to engage in oral sex out of wedlock, it’s also OK to abuse illegal drugs.

8. He had an opportunity to capture Osama bin Ladin but decided against it preferring to leave him to the Saudis. He reportedly said that bin Ladin had committed no crimes against America yet, and we had no basis with which to hold him. Consequently, 5 years later bin Ladin orchestrated the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon that killed 3,000 non-combatant men, women, and children. As a side note to this, It has recently come to light that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the terrorists that piloted the planes into those buildings, was known to staffers in Clinton’s Whitehouse as a potential terrorist threat to America, but would not allow a full investigation.

(On a personal note, I think that if Atta had been detained and prevented from carrying out the attacks, another of bin Ladens soldiers would have taken his place, and the attacks likely would have come off as planned anyway.)

9. Then there was the matter of the Rose Law Firm documents that disappeared and then mysteriously reappeared (by a fortuitous coincidence that could only happen in bad novels) the day after the statute of limitations ran out on the investigation.

The untimely deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster. I don’t believe that Clinton had anything to do with those two deaths,( I have a hard time believing anyone could be that cold blooded, although there are some that would accuse Bush of being that, and more) but there exists some conspiracy theorists that do.

Now, personally, I think Clinton is a good man overall, but he got himself in some pretty sticky situations and instead of taking the bull by the tail and facing the situation with aplomb, he attempted to cover up his colossal blunders and by doing so, made things infinitely worse.

Thus did Clinton etch his name into the unforgiving stone tablets of history, but not in the way he had originally envisioned.

Integrity

I came across this news story this morning. I think it illustrates perfectly what I've been saying all along.

"Thirty-six hours after ex-president Bill Clinton bashed and trashed his son on everything from his handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis to the Iraq war, former president George H.W. Bush says he still likes Clinton.
Appearing during commercial breaks on ABC's "Monday Night Football," the president's father was asked how he and Clinton managed to get along.

"I like him," Bush 41 said, despite the verbal thrashing Clinton administered to his son on ABC's "This Week" the day before.

Given two more opportunities to comment on his relationship with Clinton, Bush Sr. declined to say a single negative word about his successor.

Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, demonstrated no such graciousness when asked on Sunday about the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina."

Both Bush 41 and his son have integrity.

Clinton bashes Bush. Kerry bashes Bush. Former President Carter bashes Bush.

"Given two more opportunities to comment on his relationship with Clinton, Bush Sr. declined to say a single negative word about his successor."

See the difference?

Do you think maybe the 2 Bushes don't have reason to bash Clinton? Has Clinton always conducted himself with decorum and grace? How about Kerry?

Remember the 2004 Presidential campaign? Who was slinging the mud and who was talking about the issues?

Think hard.

When the 527 groups were squabbling with each other, Kerry went right along with the accusations that Bush had gone AWOL from the national guard during Vietnam.

Bush praised Kerry's service in Vietnam and thanked him for his service, while publicly rebuking the very 527 groups that were attacking Kerry on his behalf.

See the difference?

Now George W. Bush has twice enlisted the aid of Bill Clinton to help with recovery efforts in the wake of the Tsunami and hurricane Katrina, without having to remind the world that Clinton committed perjury while in office, which was an impeachable offense.

No, Bush has had nothing to say about Clinton that isn't positive.

What a stark contrast! Do you know what the real difference is?

What is it called when someone steadfastly refuses to bash the ones who bash him out of respect and courtesy?

It's called integrity.

A Moral Dilemma

Before I discuss today's topic, I first want to acknowledge Pastor Timothy. I just recently discovered his blog, and I was impressed. When y'all are done reading this you might want to cruise on over to his place and see what he has to say. I read some of his posts and found one in which he discusses his objection to those church signs with silly, trite messages on them.

Here is a gift from me to you, Pastor. Forgive me.

Today's post:

The last few weeks have been difficult for me and my son. Financially, I mean.

I make a pretty good income overall, but I am an independent contractor and I drive for a living, which means I pay my own expenses. And with the gas prices shooting up like Roman Candles lately, my expenses have gone up significantly. To go along with that, just when it was time to get my son school supplies and school clothes, I had unexpected car trouble that costs me almost 300 dollars itself.

This past paycheck was a day short because I didn't work Labor day and when I don't work, I don't get paid.

Needless to say, for one who lives pretty much paycheck to paycheck, my budget has become very strained. My rent is late and so is my car payment.

Now that you know something of my predicament, You may appreciate the unique dilemma I had to deal with over the weekend.

Saturday, I took my dog, Beast, for a walk. I first walked him over to the post office and checked my mail. (We don't have mailboxes at the house, we have to go to the post office for it) Then, I needed some cash for the Laundromat and for my son's school lunches, so I walked on over to the building next to the post office, which happens to be the bank in which I have an account.

The bank has a drive up ATM, and as I approached on foot, a car was just pulling away, the driver having just made a transaction. At first, I didn't understand why the screen on the ATM had the message, "Would you like to make another transaction?"

And then I realized that the driver who had just left had left his ATM card in the machine. I looked, and he was nowhere in sight. I had walked up to the machine so my face was high enough over the video camera, that I knew I couldn't be identified if I decided to make "another transaction". The bank was closed.

No one was around.

Suddenly I realized that I could possibly solve my current money problems, at least I could withdraw enough to pay my rent.

I pressed the "yes" button.

I was offered choices. Withdrawal, Deposit, Money Transfer, etc.

At this moment a wave of uncertainty swept over me. If I hit that withdrawal button, there was little chance, if any, that I would ever get caught. I looked all around. A sweat broke out on my brow. I was suddenly aware that I was shaking. My mouth was dry.

I hesitated. A million thoughts flashed through my mind. Should I or shouldn't I? Would it place a hardship on the true owners of the money? Would they even miss the money? Maybe they were wealthy. Maybe they weren't.

I was facing a moral dilemma. I know there are those who are reading this who would say, "How could you even consider that? An honest person wouldn't think twice. They would absolutely not touch that money."

There may be those who are reading this who would say, "Take the money. No one will ever know and besides, it's their own fault for being irresponsible."

What do you think I did? What would you do?

Admittedly reluctant, I forced myself to press the cancel button and removed the card, without withdrawing any cash. Then I inserted my own ATM card and withdrew 20 bucks for myself. From MY account.

I went home and told my son what happened. He asked me, "Why didn't you take some money if no one would have known?"

I replied, "Because I would know."

And so would God.