Allow me to apologize for not posting at all this past week. Some things have drastically changed in my personal life and that has restricted the free time I have had. On Monday of last week I was notified by my company that they were eliminating my department. Frankly, I think this is insane on their part as our entire business is predicated on the acquisition, collection, analysis and delivery of data to our customers, through a complex Access / SQL hybrid database that frequently has issues. However, it is not my decision and no longer my concern.

Therefore, the past week I have been spending what spare time I had applying for jobs. If there is anyone in the Fort Worth area that is looking for a seasoned IT professional, let me know.

While I have not been able to post an article, I have been trying to keep up with events and comments as best I could. An interesting conversation developed on the ELCA article I posted the other day. As I knew would be the case, someone came on to flame me for my intolerance and hatred. Now, I think I was plainly clear in my posting that I would never deny someone access to the word of God by telling them that they could not attend church, but I felt it wholly inappropriate for someone openly living in sin and against the will of God, to give instructions to others in His word. How that is hateful, I do not know. How it is intolerant I acknowledge, but make no apology for.

This posting is not about the issue of homosexuality in the church at all. This one is a broader examination about tolerance. We hear this word used an awful lot today. We are told that we must be tolerant of others. We must be tolerant of their behavior and their beliefs. We must be tolerant of ideas that we oppose and opinions that we do not share. What I want to know is where this comes from and why that tolerance is never offered in return. There is no tolerance for the Christian faith. It is continuously under assault and forced to change to the will of others. Christian churches have been forced to perform same sex marriages, Christmas events have been banned or relabeled to not offend others and there is now talk of hate crimes legislation against speaking the word of God. How is this tolerant? I thought Congress was to make no laws governing religion or the free exercise thereof? Was that not clear enough?

We are expected to understand when the effigy of Bush was burned in protest while people screamed offensive appellations against a sitting President. We were expected to be tolerant of people rights to protest as they called our soldiers murderers and our leaders criminal. We were expected to understand when our own political leaders betrayed the men and women serving this nation for their own political needs. We were expected to be tolerant.

Now we see people amassing to protest their rights to individual freedoms and government by their states and we are called racists, tea baggers (a sexually derogatory appellation), unruly mobs and terrorists. We protest for lower taxation, responsible spending and less government intervention in our lives and we are made out to be nothing more than angry dissenters who simply hate having a black man as our President. Where is the tolerance now? Oh, and I have some news for you… I can quickly name about five black men and one black woman that I would easily take as my President. Barack Obama is simply not one of them.

Where did this idea of tolerance come from? Were we tolerant of the British when we rebelled in Boston over a 2.5% tax on tea? When did this nation start down this path? Did we suddenly decide that it is not appropriate to speak out when we see something we believe is wrong? What exactly does tolerance mean? Should we have been tolerant of the South and their belief in slavery? Should we have learned to accept that they believed differently and that the North had no right to impose its morality upon them?

The issue of tolerance is often used as a club to stifle debate on an issue that one side does not want to face. What I find interesting is that most often though, it is those who preach tolerance the loudest who are the most intolerant of all. Just as the commenter showed in the previous post, there is absolutely no tolerance allowed for the Christian faith decide to follow the word of God and not allow certain people to instruct other in His word. There is no tolerance at all for our beliefs or what we see is right when it differs from others.

tol⋅er⋅ance – noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.

So where in this definition does it say this only works one way. Furthermore, I do not like the use of the word permissive. Should I be tolerant or permissive of something I believe to be wrong?

What if I see someone stealing money from a vending machine? Should I be tolerant of this behavior because the person stealing might think that there is nothing wrong with theft?

What if I discover that my neighbor disciplines his children in a dangerous manner that I think might be abusive? Should I be tolerant of this because he thinks it is appropriate?

Why are liberals not tolerant of my desire to own an automatic weapon? I would absolutely love to own an M4 Carbine, an FN P90, an M107 SAS .50 cal or one of the new H&K MP7s. My ownership of those weapons would affect no one but me. I am a law abiding citizen who just happens to like firearms. So where is the tolerance for my desire to own them?

I welcome any serious discussion on this or explanations of why this tolerance aspect seems to only be a one way street.

I tend to keep this site away from most religious matters, other than that of religious freedoms and the fact that I believe this a nation to be founded on Christian principles. However, sometimes there are issues that cannot be avoided. I am by creed a Lutheran. More specifically I am a member of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) and not a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). Yet, I find myself deeply disturbed by recent developments in our sister church.

To understand a little about this, requires a bit of a history lesson. The Lutheran Church and the Protestant movement in general were founded after the actions of Martin Luther in 16th century. Luther challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to grant forgiveness through the power of indulgences. These indulgences were sold to offset sins committed by the buyers. They could even be sold ahead of time as sort of a sin credit. Much like the farce that we see today in the movement towards carbon credits, these indulgences allowed people to assuage their guilt for committing sins by paying the Church the appropriate amount. Luther was appalled by this practice and felt that only the word of God as written in the Bible had such authority. In the document know as “The 95 Theses”, Luther condemned the actions of the Church and claimed forgiveness was a gift from God, to be obtained not by works and deeds, but by His grace alone through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. Luther posted “The 95 Theses” on the door of All Saint’s on October 31, 1517 and started one of the most influential shifts in religion since the death of Christ, the Protestant Reformation. Out of the Reformation arose many of the modern religions we recognize today: Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist and, of course, Lutheran to name just a few. The teachings of these Protestant religions held the word of God as the ultimate authority and fought against the abuses of earthly power that had been rampant in the Catholic Church. This went to the point of open warfare at times as the Roman Catholic Church tried to maintain or reassert its control over the rebellious splinters forming as the Reformations religions. Ultimately, the Church was unable to maintain control and was severely damaged by the unstoppable movement that Luther had founded.

Today, these religions still hold that the word of God is the ultimate authority. They still teach that salvation comes not from our own will, intent or deeds, but as a divine grace awarded those who believe in the Son of God. They still hold that no Church or man can assume authority contrary to the word of God as given to us in the Bible, nor may they countermand His word. Therefore, the action taken recently by the ELCA causes me great concern.

In a direct departure from scripture, the ELCA has embraced the homosexual lifestyle and has decreed that it will allow homosexual clergy to lead its congregations. This is an extremely disturbing turn of events, since the act of homosexuality is specifically condemned by God everywhere it is mentioned in scripture. I can fully understand allowing members who were homosexuals, since you cannot judge the heart of a man and those members may be sincerely repentant of their sins. However, to allow sexually active, openly homosexual members into the clergy itself is clearly against the scripture. I once walked away from a church who allowed an unrepentant, adulterous pastor who had a chemical dependency problem to remain behind the pulpit and he was a heterosexual. No one who displays such unrepentant sinful behavior, deserves to lead others in the word of God. I have never claimed to be a man free from sin. The truth is far from it, but that is why I do not pretend to lead others in God’s word. I ask for forgiveness and the strength no to sin again, but know that I am one of the flock, not one of the shepherds. I can assure you that the Missouri Synod Lutheran’s will not follow the lead of our misguided sister church, for if they do, they would lose members left and right.

Homosexuality is a difficult subject to discuss for some and I am sure that this article will get me flamed almost immediately. However, just as someone who is gay has every right to believe that there is nothing wrong with it, I have every right to find it abhorrent, a sin and an affront to God based upon my beliefs. Somehow in this nation, it has become acceptable for one person’s deeply held belief to be acceptable and another’s just as deeply held belief to be suppressed. While I understand that some of this is an inevitable result of a multi-cultural, multi-national, multi-religion society, how is it that it is increasingly the majority who is oppressed in favor of the minority? I do not agree with homosexuality, because it is condemned by my faith. I have that right. I do not believe in murder, adultery, theft, idolatry, dishonesty and I cherish the sanctity of life for the exact same reasons. I have that right. I am under no obligation to surrender my principles and be forced to accept the lifestyle or actions of others that I feel are immoral or sinful. Those who do not wish to live by the precepts of my religion can go and do so in peace. However, they have no right to force my religion to adapt to or accept their choices when it stands in direct contravention to them.

I thought there were to be no laws in this nation governing religion or the free exercise thereof? That is unfortunately not how things work today. We have seen the Courts force churches to allow homosexual members and require they conduct homosexual marriages and now we see our Congress considering making it a hate crime to preach the sins of homosexuality from the pulpit. I don’t think so. You may go and believe whatever you want however you wish, but you afford me that same right. Why can homosexual protesters stand across the street from my work and protest for their rights, demanding that others accept them, but when others show to counter protest they are immediately and without questions condemned for their beliefs. I have no problem that there is a gay bar across the street from our lab, what I have a problem with is being told that I have to accept their lifestyle choices and be tolerant of them. No I do not. I will accept that they can do what they will and I will feel pity for them and their choices, but I will not accept that their lifestyle is normal because my religion says it is not. To do so would be to surrender a piece of myself, simply to assuage the guilt of someone else or to avoid offending them. I will not judge what is in their hearts nor condemn them, for that is not my place. However, I can judge their actions to be against what I believe and that most certainly is my right.

I do condemn the choice of the ELCA as their actions are directly against the word of God and do not follow Christian teachings at all. I welcome all ELCA members who feel betrayed by their church to remember their brethren in the LCMS and know that we will not walk the path of the world and accept such things. Come and join us.

I have reached a new low in my mindset towards the future. I believe as much as the next person that we need to stand up and make a difference. We truly do, and someday we will be glad we did. But in the face of so much horrible news coming at you so fast how can ones spirit not ache? As a patriot, an idealist, and a servant of the Lord I truly hurt for America, and for humanity.

History repeats itself. This is because as a species we have failed miserably at learning from our mistakes. We continue to do so daily. But the beast is looking us right in the face and we still pretend it isn’t there. Have any of you been paying attention to what the end game of all this is? Do you think that the objective here is a clean environment? Are we really just trying to make sure people have insurance or health care? Sure the average citizen probably does think just this, but the average citizen is incredibly ignorant and it runs very deep in the United States. Remember ignorant isn’t the same as stupid. It means uninformed, but its apathy that causes it to run so deep in America. We have lived such amazing lives for so long we can’t remember what it’s like to be without. Critics will immediately shout, “No of course thousands of Americans know what poverty is like! What about single mothers in poor neighborhoods etc…” The standard of living in America for our homeless is better than it is for people in many nations. I hate to be cliché but starving children in Sudan don’t get to go to shelters for a hot meal and free room and board. We are losing our edge.

The endgame is not the environment, it’s not even some secret communist agenda. There is no conspiracy, nobody is pulling the strings. But as fate would have it history is again repeating. Elitist individuals from various walks of life have worked their way to the positions of power in this country, some by chance, others by the will of corrupt men with money. But the themes of these people have been revealed over the past several years by those with the will to see it. Look no further than the Czars of America. In this collection of people, the most powerful man in the world surrounds himself with Eugenicists, Nationalists, Socialists, and Secularists. These aren’t titles to be tossed around with abandon and they aren’t labels from the ravings of a lunatic fringe nut. They are however accurate descriptions of men and women who believe that killing a two year old human child is acceptable because they aren’t human yet. They are accurate descriptors of people who want to sterilize the water supply and automatically abort any child with a defect. They describe someone who believes religion has no place in modern society and that existentialism is the ultimate form of morality. They describe people who ultimately think the government should be the most important thing in your life. Government should control your life because you simply can’t do it yourself.

The worst part is, Americans are proving them correct! People who look to government to solve their problems, folks who bury their heads in the sand, and people who simply don’t care are essentially screaming at the top of their lungs that they simply can’t do it themselves. While those of us who do care stand by, and are drowned out by the millions who don’t. We have seen all this before. During a depression people with the same beliefs of Nationalism, Secularism, Socialism, and Eugenics formed a party. A National Socialist Party, a party for the people. A party that wants to take care of you, because you can’t do it. This party was responsible for some of the greatest acts of terror and evil the world has ever seen. What did they do? They cried for people to have hope, to believe in themselves and to trust the government. They provided a measure of relief for the people by putting them back to work with government jobs building tanks and planes. They built infrastructure to make their country more efficient. Finally they registered all the firearms in the country, took them from the people, and created one of the most tyrannical forms of government in history.

There is no conspiracy, there is no plot to destroy people, but there are misguided individuals making all the most important decisions for America. Out of shear ignorance, these people are taking us down the same road traveled by our brothers and sisters across the sea. We can stop this if we stand up for what we believe in, replace the fools in DC with honest hard working men and women. But even if this is carried through the fallout of what’s already been done will be felt for decades if not longer. But despite knowing there is hope there is also a fear of defeat. We saw a spark of the American spirit flicker and die after 9/11 when we rose up as a nation and showed what makes us great. But how quickly that died. It may take even more to wake us up, if we are not past waking already.

It is this that breaks my heart. I believe in America to my core and she is better than this. This country has more to offer than anywhere on the planet and it is because of our founding ideals that his is possible. But we have ventured so far from those things that make us great. Washington would weep at the sight of our nation today. After marveling at all our technological advances he would weep for us because we no longer see right from wrong. We have torn down God and replaced him with state because religion is for idiots, bigots, racists, homophobes, and fascists. I hope and pray we can rise to this current challenge without a catalyst of horror that it has taken in the past. May God bless America, may he save America, and may he have mercy on us for the acts we have committed against him.

Once again we see the intolerance, violence and hatred of the left. There have been many leftists that I have disagreed with, vehemently at times. However, I can recall not one single incident where I actually wish physical harm to come to one, especially not publicly or to such a vicious level at to completely demean the subject.

Here is your tolerant left. Here are your champions of women’s rights. No. The sarcasm fails me. They are nothing of the sort.

Today, Playboy Magazine published a list a list called So Right, It’s Wrong. This is a list of the top ten conservative women that they would like to hate f*ck. You heard me right. I did not coin that term, it was used many, many times in the vile article posted on the Playboy website. That is until the cowards pulled the article due to the outrage it caused. If you want to view some of the postings, I found a website that captured screen shots of the insulting article before the spineless scum at Playboy pulled it. You can view the comments on these professional women and the abhorrent languages used to describe how they would like to have violent sex with them, on RedState (Caution: Content Possibly NSFW).

What I find so infuriating about situations such as this is that when it is a leftist showing their complete intolerance of, hatred of and violence towards others it is somehow acceptable. There has been no mainstream media condemnation of this vile assault against these women. None on the left have come forward to condemn the actions of these petulant children for their assault on these women. Just as when that complete waste of skin Perez Hilton assaulted Carrie Prejean because she gave an honest opinion that he did not share, the left can call these women horrible names and suggest vile actions against them and it seems acceptable.

However, we are not to criticize a judicial nominee based on her racist comments or horrible record from the bench, when the Democrats schemed to prevent Miguel Estrada from being nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals based solely on the fact that he was Hispanic, ignoring that he was one of the most well respected trail lawyers and was supremely qualified.

We are told to be nice and not criticize President Obama’s dishonest, appeasing, apologetic speech where he panders to those who would just as well see us dead, when the left spent the last several years calling multiple members of the Bush administration everything from murders to Hitler himself.

We are said to be the sexist, racists, intolerant, ignorant rednecks, clinging to our guns and religion, but when you look for intolerance and hate, you only need to look to the left to find abundant examples. I will not stand for this hypocritical double standard bullshit any longer. Every single one of the people responsible for this article should be immediately terminated from Playboy. That means authors, producers, editors, researchers, etc. Everyone needs to be gone for this abomination against these women. I mean if Don Imus gets canned for a nappy headed ho comment, then these guys have to hit the pavement and hit it now.

No longer will I stand for the racist, sexist, hateful, bigot claims of the left. I dare anyone to bring that argument to me. I will bury anyone who does in multiple examples of bigotry and hypocrisy from the left. I am done with this hateful bullshit. I will stand for it no longer.

I did not get to hear the speech that President Obama gave this morning, but I have just finished reading its transcript. I have to admit that this man can surely stir emotions within me when he delivers a speech. Unfortunately these emotions are frustration, embarrassment, shame and fear. I want to examine a few points of his speech that really caught my eye and cause me grave concern.

“The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights.”

Uhm, no. The Qur’an has done that. The religion itself has done that. The very words of Mohamed himself have done that. Islam is hostile to America and anyone who does not believe as they do. It is NOT the religion of peace and it is absolutely intolerant of any other religions or non-believers. I can quote passage after passage, and have done so before, that show Islam to be the violent religion that it is, completely opposed to the basic human rights that we cherish.

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Again, Islam is intolerant and does not respect any who do not believe. There is no mutual interest that can be seen between a Muslim and an infidel. The principles of justice that Islam prescribes are violent and absolute ones, showing no mercy or compassion whatsoever. They practice honor killings without trials or remorse, even unto their own flesh and blood. They beat women for being independent, outspoken and free willed. They suffer no deviance from this strict religious and accept no argument towards moderation. The question of same sex marriage is an easy one to answer under an Islamic style system of justice: simply kill the homosexuals and there is no issue.

“There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.”

They will not listen to us. They wish to learn nothing from us. They will never respect infidels. There is absolutely no common ground.

“It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Let’s see here… Algebra was developed by the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians well before Islam ever existed so, no. The magnetic compass is believed to have been developed in China during the Qin Dynasty of 221-206BC, so again, no. Other tools of navigation, possibly but that is too vague a statement to discern. Our mastery of pens and printing? Well since Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1440 in Germany, the Chinese perfected movable clay type in 1041 and the Buddhist introduced the earliest form of block printing in 880AD, I am calling this one false as well. The statement that they have given us our understanding of how disease spreads and is cured is just beyond ignorant. This understanding has come from many cultures, both ancient and modern. Islamic culture has also given us: terrorist hijackings, suicide bombers, honor killings, wife beatings, barbaric executions, jihads against innocent civilians and oppression of women’s rights for centuries. Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds it absolute intolerance of other religions and racial hatred.

“As the Holy Koran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’”

Well, that is true and in that case I fear that President Obama is completely screwed. This entire speech was full of lies, half-truths and utter bullshit. Maybe tomorrow I will go into the absurdity of his support for Iran’s nuclear program that he briefly highlights in this openly apologetic and appeasement full speech.

On Friday, three children in Holland Township, New Jersey were removed from their parents by Child Protective Services (CPS). Unfortunately this would not normally be a newsworthy even as we have grown accustomed to seeing cases of abuse and neglect on a regular basis. However, what makes this particular case interesting the apparent reason for the children being removed from the home is because of their names.

The incident began because a local grocery store refused to print the name of the Campbell’s three year old son, Adolf Hitler Campbell, on his birthday cake. This has apparently been an ongoing issue as the store has denied the Campbell’s request for three years in a row. For some reason this time it drew media to the Campbell family and their unusual naming conventions. They also have two daughters named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. It seems that their Nazi revering naming methods also drew the attention of the New Jersey CPS.

When the children were removed from the home, no additional reasons were given by CPS for their removal. No statements of abuse, neglect or mistreatment were made and so far every effort from the local media to clarify the situation has been ultimately rebuffed.

I will reserve my final opinion on this matter until it is known whether or not CPS has any legitimate charges of abuse, neglect or other forms of mistreatment in the Campbell household. However, I will state that if the only reason that these children were removed from the home is that their parents are ignorant racists who named their children after iconic Third Reich symbols, then the Campbell family should sue the State of New Jersey for all that they possibly can.

I most certainly do not agree with the idealism that these names remind us of, but I do believe that the State has no business telling parents how to raise their children or what names are acceptable. If parents choose to raise their children to be ignorant, intolerant racists because that is what they believe is right, then they have every right to do so. While I may pity the children raised in such a manner, neither I nor the State have any business telling someone that they may not raise their children in such a way.

If this is acceptable then where does it end? Will traditional Christian names become taboo as to not offend others? Can I demand that Hispanic people stop naming their children Jesus because I believe that is taking the name of God in vain? Would a black family with a child named after Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X be subjected to the same abuses by the State? Are Stalin, Marx, Lenin or Che Guevara also to be names that subject you to the seizure of you children?

If the naming of the children is the only reason that CPS proceeded with the disruption of this family, every single person involved should lose their job and the State of New Jersey should pay a hefty price to this family. Even if there are other claims of abuse, I will look skeptically upon anything that CPS presents at this point having not immediately produced claims of abuse as grounds to remove the children.

At this point, it appears as if this is a case of major abuse of power by the New Jersey CPS officials and an incredible overstepping of the States authority over the parents ability to raise their children as they see fit, no matter how appalling it may be to those with even a modicum of intelligence.

Welcome to the Nanny State. We hope you enjoy your socialist stay.

A commenter posted an interesting list of questions the other day and I think now is precisely the right time for this type of introspective on what exactly the conservative movement is and why it so often has differed from the Republican Party of late. Some of these questions may take an entire post themselves, so this may quickly turn into a series.

Question 1: What does “conservative” mean? We hear a lot about the “three legged stool” of modern conservatism — the three legs being social, fiscal, and national security conservatism. In what sense are the intrinsically consistent with each other?

By definition the word conservative means to preserve traditional values. In other words, conservatives tend toward the values that have made this nation great throughout her history and resist moving away from those values. Principals such as a limited federal government with most of the power residing in the hands of the states and constructionist not interpretive views of the Constitution. We believe that the Framers designed the Constitution to specifically limit the growth, scope and power of the Federal government to prevent an overarching and overpowering central government and preserve individual liberties of the people and the ability of the states to govern themselves. We typically do not see the Constitution as a ‘living, breathing document’, but as a clearly defined set of rules for the governing of distinctly different people collected together for the common good.

Social Conservatism – this is the idea of preserving the ethical and moral values that this nation was founded on and that have kept this nation strong for so long. This is probably one of the hardest areas to define in that these values themselves tend to fluctuate between different groups, races, religions and regions. They range quite broadly across the scale, but often concern issues such as preserving the traditional definition of marriage, promoting the nuclear family, preservation of life, individual responsibility, upholding the rule of law, protection of personal property and freedoms, promoting American exceptionalism, nationalism, protection of traditional societal values, promotion of public morality and promotion of traditional family values. Aspects such as redistribution of wealth, entitlement programs, government oppression and intervention in religion, government interference in the family and different sets of rules or rights for different groups of people run completely contrary to these principals. This one aspect is at the same time where conservatives often find their greatest strengths and their greatest challenges.

Fiscal Conservatism – this is one of the aspect that clearly defines the conservative movement. The idea of fiscal conservatism stems from the belief in smaller government and less government intervention. Typical beliefs surrounding the fiscal aspect of conservatism are lower government spending, a smaller centralized government, less bureaucracy, reduction or elimination of earmark spending, a decreased national debt, lower taxes, less government intervention, regulation and manipulation in free markets and more transparency in government spending. In this aspect you will find one of the largest deviations the Republican Party has taken from traditional conservatives over the last few years.

National Defense – conservatives have always been stout advocates of a strong national defense. While there is no clearly defined aspect to conservatism that speaks directly to national defense policy, we take our cues from out leaders such a Ronald Reagan and have developed this belief out of our desire to preserve the liberties and freedoms that so many take for granted. I believe that this was illustrated elegantly in Reagan’s Rendezvous with Destiny speech given on October 27th, 1964. The entire speech defines many of the ideals of conservatism, but two lines clearly illustrate our advocacy of strong national defense better than any others:

“There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.”

“You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, ‘There is a price we will not pay.’ There is a point beyond which they must not advance.”

Conservatives believe in strength through peace. We believe that only by having a strong military that is capable and ready to meet any danger that this nation may face will we be able to avoid those dangers. We believe that weakness in the face of our enemies, or even our potential ones, only serves to emboldened them and place us at far greater danger of engagement. We believe that only through the promise of overwhelming response to threat or aggression may we ensure a true and lasting peace.

Mind you however, that we do not advocate projection or use of this force as a means of acquisition or expansion. America has never been an imperialist nation and conservatism does not and would not support such actions. We do believe that force may be used, as we have so often in the past, in the liberation of the oppressed, protection of allies, protection of national interests, prevention of genocide or the protection of democracy, liberty and freedom abroad. In this belief we often differ from others such as libertarians who, while believing in a strong national defense, often do not support the projection of that force beyond our borders under most circumstances.

In the last part of the question it asks how these views intrinsically coincide and are consistent with one another. The basic underlying belief is a preservation of what our Founders intended at the birth of this nation. At the time of the founding, the states that ratified the Constitution had just fought a major war for their very freedom and survival. They feared a strong centralized government and many resisted ratifying the document until enough assurances were included to prevent a strong controlling central government from rising and dictating to the states how they must live.

They also were a fairly religious people who valued family and tradition, yet these values and traditions varied from state to state. Each state differed in their beliefs and each state desired the rights to govern itself as it saw fit. This can be seen in many of the writings of the founders during the time and even seen in some of the founding documents. Religious prosecution having driven many settlers to the new world to begin with, they wanted to ensure that the government would not interfere with the free exercise of religion. They wanted government to stay out of religion entirely, not necessarily religion out of government entirely, which is what we have been forced into today. Many of our founding members often cited their religious beliefs as keystones for their convictions and did so even in the documents that founded this nation. Even as recent as within the last fifty years many of the great and defining leaders of this nation have used religion from the office to justify their actions, their decisions and the righteousness of our struggles.

Finally, having paid a dear price in blood for their freedom, they understood that vigilance was needed to protect from within as well as from foreign threats to that freedom. They believed in the ability not only of the nation to defend itself and the people; they also believed in the right of the people to protect themselves from oppression by their own government.

While social conservatism, fiscal (or economic) conservatism and a strong national defense are not intrinsically tied directly to each other, they also do not contravene each other. They all rise from a belief in preserving the dream, the i

deals and the intent of the Founders that was set down on parchment over two hundred and thirty-two years ago.

I will continue more on the other questions tomorrow.

We now hear the chorus of the left proclaiming Barack Obama to be the new John F. Kennedy and lauding him as bringing a new Camelot unto the distressed masses. Now, I was not yet set upon this Earth when Kennedy took office, but I am a student of history and I do not recall very many, if any, similarities between the views of the former President and the views of the messianic hopeful.

Taking probably the most famous point of reference available for Kennedy, his inaugural address, let’s compare some of Obama’s views with the late, great JFK:

On Religion:

Obama: Small town Americans cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

Kennedy: “For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago… … the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

“With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

Ok, so was Kennedy guilty of clinging to his religion?

On National Defense:

Obama: “I will cut investments in unproven missile technology. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems… … I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I seek a global ban on the production of fissile material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.

Kennedy: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

“Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. “

“We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.”

“In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it.”

On Social Issues:

Obama: He believes the government should provide you with health insurance, a living wage, a job and apparently wealth:

“In Washington, they call this the “Ownership Society,” but what it really means is that you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you’re on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You’re on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don’t have boots. You are on your own. Well, it’s time for them to own their failure.”

Kennedy: His philosophy was simple and was a very much ‘you’re on your own’ approach to the matter. He knew to rely on the strength and ingenuity of the American people to solve not only their own problems, but the problems of our nation as well:

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”

The differences are astounding. Barack Obama, we know John F. Kennedy. You, sir, are no John F. Kennedy. As a matter of fact, you stand as the antithesis to everything that Kennedy believed about this nation.

You stand opposite to his beliefe that America was the best vessel for delivering liberty to the world and that to do such things we must remain a superior nation when it comes to military strength and technological advances.

You stand as a disgrace to his belief that aggression must be met with overwhelming resolve and decisive strength.

You stand in opposition to his belief that to show weakness in the face of your enemy must never be allowed.

You stand diametrically opposed to the belief that Kennedy held in the strength of the American people to solve their own problems and face great challenges.

You want people to ask what your government can do for you, not what you can do for your government or for yourselves. The exact opposite of Kennedy’s philosophy.

We all woke this morning to a far different presidential campaign than we did just a day before. Last night at the Republican National Convention we were treated to the speeches of Mike Huckabee and a powerful representation by Rudi Giuliani, but it paled in comparison to the main show.

I am not often very impressed with politicians. Speeches are written by others and can be delivered with effect by a skilled orator, so they are not the final measurement that a candidate should be judged by. However, there are those that can take such a speech and craft it into a masterpiece that reaches out and connects with their audience in such a way to spurn a true emotional connection. We have seen this ability in the messianic visage of the Democrat’s presidential candidate. Even when the speech lacks a single substantive message, Barack Obama has the ability to spin the words into a moving oratory. He has now met his match in Sarah Palin.

With much anticipation and great expectations, Sarah Palin took the stage. She started simply by accepting the nomination and singing the praises of John McCain. Next she introduced her family and gave a little insight into the challenges that they have faced. She promised those families who had loved ones with disabilities that they would find an advocate in the White House in her. She then showed her love for and pride in her husband and thanked her parents for their role in making her who she is.

Then the gloves came off. She injected plenty of charisma and humor into the speech, but struck solid, stinging blows to the opposing ticket. The crowd erupted when she mentioned being a hockey mom. At the end of the applause, she commented. “You know what the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is? Lipstick.” The women in the place went nuts with the comment. She went on to describe her career as a small town mayor, playing up the importance of small town America and the quality of her people.

Next came the first strike: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.” Ouch. The follow up? “I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.” The crowd went nuts with that last statement, standing to their feet and cheering her on as she continued, “We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.”

After the convention settled down a bit she took aim at the media, “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

“But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country,” she defiantly stated, to thunderous applause and cheers.

Next she moved on to talk about eliminating wasteful spending and using the veto power to protect the American people by eliminating pork barrel projects. She highlighted how she had done away with executive extravagances in Alaska that she felt the people should not have to pay for. “That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.”

Moving on to energy, she highlighted the need for independence from foreign sources and gave pointed examples of why. She commented that while drilling will not solve all our problems it is no excuse for doing nothing. Then came the section that most liberal commentators in the media must have missed. All last night, continuing into today, many in the media have claimed that Palin’s speech held no substance and did not address any issues on job creation or energy at all. To that I offer, in her own words, “Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more nuclear plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.”

“We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

Shifting back to the attack on Obama, like a prize fighter, she hit again and again in quick succession:

“We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights? Government is too big … he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much … he promises more.

Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio … or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia … or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.”

She followed with sharp contrasts between McCain and Obama, “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. “

“And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”
Finally, she took one more parting shot at the Democrat establishment and it was dead on accurate: “Harry Reid, the majority leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.”

“He said, quote, ‘I can’t stand John McCain.’ Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we’ve
chosen the right man. Clearly what the majority leader was driving at is that he can’t stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. “

She ended her speech by highlighting his journey from a 6 x 4 POW cell in Hanio to the presidency and calling on a story told by a fellow POW demonstrating McCain’s courage and dedication. While the crowd were cheering Tom Moe, McCain’s fellow POW, she gracefully blew the man a kiss from the podium proving herself to be a true class act.

If this woman played professional baseball, the commission would be investigating her today for steroid use, as she stepped up to the plate, her first time out, took a hard pitch and nailed a homerun clearly out of the park. Not just out of the park, but cleanly and clearly from Alaska straight to Washington, D.C.

I am tremendously impressed with this woman. She showed class, fearlessness, determination and confidence. She possessed charm and humor. She even seemed to have a defiance about her without approaching arrogance. This is the future of our movement, our party and our nation.

Not to mention, that for a 44 year old mother of five and soon to be grandmother, the woman is smokin’ hot.

In our society today, we do not always see the good in others and tend in fact to expect the worst. It seems that we have lost our way in many aspects of morality such as honesty, integrity, fidelity and many more. We anticipate dishonesty and deceit in those we deal with and are surprised when we find the opposite. Trust of our fellow man is hard to come by and compassion often takes a distant second to our fears of each other. Yesterday, I learned that there are still decent honest people out there, sometimes where you least expect them.

My son and I went to Wal-Mart yesterday to pick up some groceries for me to take to work with me. We shopped for a while, gathering food for my lunches and a few odds and ends for the house. My son spotted a video game he had been wanting and I searched unsuccessfully for a new water cooler/dispenser for the house. After about an hour of shopping, we checked out and headed for the car. Neither one of us are big shoppers, so we were ready to head home. While I loaded the bags into the car, I sat my cell phone and billfold in the top basket of our shopping cart. You can probably guess the next part of this story. With the bags loaded, I turned to put the cart up in the rack. A very nice gentleman who was pulling into the space behind me, backed his vehicle up so that I could get to where the other baskets were. I hopped in my truck and we headed home, leaving my billfold and cell phone in the top of said shopping cart.

When we got home and unloaded all of the bags, I realized that I did not bring the missing items into the house. Thinking I had simply left them in the truck because I was wearing shorts with no pockets, I asked my son to retrieve them for me. A few minutes later, he ran into the kitchen and told me they were no where to be found. When I realized what had happened, I headed back to Wal-Mart as fast as I could to reclaim my lost possessions.

Many of you know that I am the Director of Information Technology for an environmental laboratory in Texas. I am in charge of making sure our small, but critical network keeps functioning and our instruments keep analysis data flowing in. Therefore, I live by my cell phone. It is one of AT&T’s 8925 models, better known as the Tilt. It is a PDA/Mobil Messaging/Cell Phone combination and I use it religiously to keep an eye on my network while I am not there. Many of my servers and systems will email or message that phone when there is any kind of problem and I can remotely check my main email and control some services from the applets I have installed on it. Not to mention that my billfold had cash, my driver’s license, concealed handgun license, credit cards and all my insurance information in it. A pain to lose in itself, but containing enough information to completely steal my identity if found by a determined person.

By the time I had returned to Wal-Mart, they had retrieved most of the carts from the parking lot. This is a rather good sized Super Wal-Mart and there were literally hundreds of carts lined up at the entrance of the store. With the assistance of one of the employees, I began searching each cart. No luck. I finally realized that if someone would call my phone, it would make the search much easier. I enlisted the help of the lady serving as the greeter that evening and she called my phone. It went straight to voicemail, which I assumed meant someone had already found it and turned it off. Not good. She continued calling, while I proceeded to search each and every cart I could find. Finally, the greeter got an answer. Oddly enough, it was my father and how he ended up with my phone is the amazing part of this story.

About fifteen minutes earlier, my mother had received a call from a man named Nick. This wonderful man was the one who had moved his vehicle to let me by when I went to put the cart up. His wife had noticed the items I left in the basket and retrieved my $600 cell phone and billfold full of cash and personal information. They looked at my driver’s license and then checked my phone for any other Morgans on the list. When he got to my mother, he explained what had happened and drove out to meet them and return my belongings.

I was astounded not only by the honesty and integrity displayed by this individual, but also by his willingness to go out of his way to help a stranger by meeting my parents and returning the items to them. He could have just as easily kept them or turned them into the lost and found inside the store. I called him once I picked up my things and thanked him personally for returning them to me. I even offered to take him and his family out to dinner for the random act of kindness, but he declined saying instead that I should join him in church. You see, some may place it down to luck, but the man that found my things was a Baptist minister and I don’t place much stock in luck. Even in the smallest of events, God has a way a placing the right people in the right place at just the right time and I am very thankful that he does.

While I am a Lutheran by creed, I will be attending a Baptist church very soon and offering to buy the minister lunch after the sermon, just to show how much I value finding an honest and honorable man in a world filled with quite the opposite.

May God’s grace find you in every aspect of your life and leave you never wanting. Be assured that you are never alone. Even when we attempt to hide ourselves from the presence of God or pretend that he is not there, he always finds ways to remind us of his constant presence. All we have to do is open our eyes.