What to GIVE for Christmas

The Charlie Brown Christmas special has been running annually for over 30 years, and in that animated masterpiece, the real meaning of Christmas has been exposed openly and concisely, and watched by countless millions. So, why do so many people still miss the meaning?

Christmas is all about celebrating the advent (coming) of Christ, in human form, some 2,000 years ago. The significance of His birth and His mission was missed by almost everyone in that time, so maybe we should not be surprised that people still miss the point. However, that is not a resignation to perpetual ignorance - rather - it is a chance to bring clarity and illumination to a world that needs to see Jesus lifted up.

Christ came in response to God's desire to usher in a new covenant with mankind, in that, God would satisfy His own righteous anger and judgment towards our sin, and proclaim us justified and sinless before Him in response to our faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. It may be a tad trite, but the word "giving" appropriately encapsulates this holy plan to redeem mankind from the ravages of sin, for Christ had to willingly give of Himself so that we could be made right with God (see Romans 3: 22 - 28). In light of such truth, it is also appropriate for us today to see Christmas as a time of celebrating "giving," even as we worship the Lord who has saved us.

Giving should be central to all that is Christmas. Giving gifts is giving, but to limit giving to those who are going to gift you right back is missing the point in a big way. You see, Christ gave to those who could never rescue themselves, and could never give back in kind. He rescued the helpless, and saved the doomed. His giving was the epitome of agape love, which is godly love, the highest and purest form of love. Agape is a Greek word that in an earthly translation means basically, "love that is unconditional and is not dependant upon return." He gave of Himself because no one else could, and because of His love for His creation (that's you and me). So, with this in mind, maybe we should re-think giving at Christmas time.

The suggestion here is to develop a new tradition at Christmas with you and your family. How about deciding to not give gifts to each other, but with prayer, choose rather to give to someone, or a family, or group a gift of finances, time, effort, etc.? The idea would be to seek out those who are helpless and cannot reciprocate in any way. Think of a widow on your street or neighborhood. How about that child that needs the basics just to survive? What about that missionary you know who could really use a care package from home? A soldier overseas that would love some notes, some cookies, and a blanket? How many people in the local nursing home would love a visit and some warm slippers and a hug? The list goes on and on, but the wonderful tradition must start somewhere. Yourself and your children need to experience this, rather than just talk about it.

We can try and try to capture the Christmas time spirit and meaning in all kinds of ways, but we will miss the point if we fail to actually give in a way that resembles the spirit in which Christ gave. Christmas time is a great time to put feet to our faith and action into our walk and start CONNECTING with PEOPLE!

So, pray for direction (let God lead you in this), resolve to be an active giver, and then get on with it. Such action will forever change your whole perspective on Christmas and then maybe we can all watch Charlie Brown with no guilt and a ton of joy. Go get 'em Chuck!

"Congraduations"

Is life a circle, or a continuing line?

In eastern thought, life is seen as a circle, with history repeating itself and people reaping what they sow. In western thought, life is seen in linear terms, as a line with points, and a distinct beginning and end, and with those two ends never touching.

In the eastern philosophy (which is the philosphical tact that Christ was exposed to) every person eventually winds back up where they began - feeble, helpless, and dependant upon others for survival, with life going on in a never ending circle. The western ideal touts that we all run a race, and the one with the most "points" between their two divergent, non-intersecting markers wins. Now, turn that line metaphor up on it's end, along with the hash marks, and what you have is something identical to the markings on a scientific, graduated cylinder. Beginning to make sense?

Here in America, we want everything in life to be measured and compared. Winning is everything. You would think we all came directly from Egypy, given our fascination with pyramid-esque thinking. It's all about being at the top. So, naturally, we think about graduating events in our lives as stepping stones to reaching the top. And of course, the "top" is the only place to be, right?

But what if we thought more in the eastern vein? What if we saw life as a continium, always keeping our beginning in view, knowing that what we do will be visited again and again? How would this influence the teachings of Jesus in our lives, and how we saw life in general? In eastern thinking, graduating (in academics, in age, in careers, etc.) would be seen more as something that enlarges and enhances the circle of one's life, rather than as a hurdle that is jumped and never seen again.

In reality, "graduating" happens slowly and naturally for most people, as they grow, face challenges, adjust, adapt, grow in their relationship with Christ, and just live. If we eschew the graduated cylinder (or yardstick metaphor) model and lean more towards the circle, we will lose our obsession with reaching certain points, and thereby have a better chance of seeing living life, rather than surpassing hash marks, as our goal. If life becomes a competition, even with ourselves, we turn it into a game, rather than a gift to be developed and shared, as Christ intended. He came to give us life, and life abundant - not an "edge" for competiting.

So, as we enjoy another day of the Lord's blessings, let us be thankful for the true life made possible in Christ, and let us find our sense of purpose in that relationship with God's Son, rather than in achieving any trivial status in human estimations. Besides, when we finally "graduate" from this life, our relationship with Christ will be all that matters then.

Picking a Candidate

Is it electoral time already?

It is hard to imagine how fast and furious the hype and speculation has come out of the liberal press concerning the 2008 elections. Of course, to understand the intense hatred of all liberal media for George W. Bush is to understand why the hype is so in-your-face. If they are not misrepresenting the progress of establishing democracy in Iraq, they are trying to focus upon what they hope will be their time in the presidential race. Either way, they want to shove George W. aside and move on. Someone has apparently forgotten to tell them that he is still president, fully vested with all the powers thereof, and conducting business so that this country remains free, so that those on the left can enjoy their drunken, litter ridden "save the planet" crusades and fund raisers at mansions of the godless and famous.

Well, election time for the top job is coming up within a year and a half, so it's not too soon to begin looking towards who you will vote for. As you are considering such things in such a timely fashion, here are some tips and handy thoughts that may help guide you on your way towards picking "your candidate."

1. Remember what we are: a Republic. Yes folks, we have a representative government, not a true democracy, even though there are many democratic-themed ways we do things. But as a true republic, we choose people to REPRESENT us, and our beliefs, values, and hopefully, virtues we all share. As such, the business of choice is all the more weighty, for in a republic, we are essentially electing someone to go and do their thing, provided they do their thing in a way that is consistent with what they said their thing was prior to election. An example of this going horribly wrong would be ol slick Willy - Bill Clinton. Posed as a moderate (were you fooled?) but proved to be a flaming liberal....even as that old battle axe Hillary pulled his strings. An example of this going right is our current president. Bush told the nation what he was, and dadgoneit, he has stuck to his principals. He has pulled precious few surprises, the latest being his unbelievably lenient take on immigration. Other than that, he has stuck pretty close to representing what he said he would represent.
2. Keeping with that theme, as you survey the candidates, you want to seek out someone who will be faithful to represent in office what they said they would represent in running for that office. This goes back to voting records, stances on certain issues, and an overall consistency in their stated values and virtues. We can all be wowed by persuasive speeches, but what you really want to find is consistency. That way, you can at least know what you are in for if your candidate prevails.
3. Reflecting your virtues. Please note that "values" are usually substituted for the word "virtues" in our society, but that's not all that surprising when you consider just how flakey some in our culture are. Values denotes a transient, personal take on what is right and wrong, while virtues alludes to those things that are good and honorable regardless of time or situation. Some candidates may "value" free choice, while another candidate may hold the sanctity of life as a virtue. Values change with situations, virtues do not. Hard work, honesty, accountability, responsibility, etc. are virtues, and so, does your candidate reflect those things that do not change for you?
4. True to America: Our constitution is not a terribly complicated document. Our country was established to promote religious and political freedom in a republic-based government founded upon real, true biblical principals. Inherent in that design was an understanding that personal responsibility would be key to making it all work. Mutual respect. Putting others first. The American spirit shines brightest when you see hard working people sacrificing for others. Is your candidate truly in line with the basic tenets of the constitution, or do they give you the feeling they would like to rewrite the whole thing? Do they really prize the wonder of democracy, or do they seem to long for another type of government, more reflective of other countries? It is incredibly naive to think that every presidential candidate is loyal to the basic foundational principals of this country.
5. Is this all they can see? The best leaders are those who have leadership thrust upon them, rather than those who seek it out with all their being. Now, no one is running for the office of the president unless they want the job, but some (AlGore, for example) reveal that without that position, their life has no purpose. If all a candidate can hope for or apply themselves to is the obtaining of an office, then if/when they get it, they will live to protect their position, rather than use their position to benefit the people of this great country. That is a simple fact. Anyone in a high position who can walk away from that position, is in a very favorable position to lead properly. Got it?
6. Finally, have you prayed about all this? Jesus said to His disciples that those in government are there by God's will, and we are to submit to their authority. In all of history, God has used both good and bad leaders to do His will, but that fact of sovereignty does not absolve us of the need to both pray and vote. This is number 6 on the list, but it should be # 1. However, you still need to be informed and think this all through logically as you pray for guidance. And while we're at it, let's all pray that God will give us a godly leader who will bring virtues and godly principals to the white house, in the hopes that we can remain a strong symbol of good and decency in this world.

Liberals love to show everything that burns or bleeds, but turn aside from their sadistic telecasts and look at the true America. Sure, we have problems, but we are also still a country comprised mainly of decent, hard working and conservative people who believe in virtues and in God. We give more than any other country in history, and our military is one of the strongest and yet most benevolent in history as well. We should be both thankful and proud to be Americans, and we must see the need to preserve this nation by being active in the political process. So, pray, and vote!

Why Do We Care?

There are many times in life when it is wise to step back and see the trees in the forest...

It has been almost 2 years since Hurricane Katrina ripped the gulf coast, destroying countless homes, flooding dozens of counties, and sparking a huge political debate.

Huh?

Only in American can a natural catatrosphic weather event be politicized ad nauseum. While left wing pundits continue to try to make it a reason to bash the current party holding the white house, the trees in the forest are being ignored, and for good reason. After all, no self respecting, whining left wing liberal extremist wants to see the trees of good sense and responsible thinking. All they want to do is color the forest in a dark shade of gloom and irrational, emotionally charged misthinking.

First, let's examine the "fair" city of New Orleans, which received the lions share of press coverage. Why do we care? Because New Orleans, and the destruction thereof, was populated heavily with citizens that the Democrats and their liberal press soldiers consider "their constituents." But a closer look at the "trees" in New Orleans reveals a story that was totally ignored by the left wing press. First of all, government studies revealed that approximately 80% of New Orleans residents were receiving some form of government assistance. Translation: 80% of the population was getting either free food, free room and board, free utilities, free paychecks, or some combination of any of these. That number is almost unthinkably high, even in some of America's poorest cities. New Orleans also had a very high crime rate (and still does) whereas considering the major categories of crimes (Larson, theft, murder, etc.) New Orleans routinely average about 1.5 times greater the national average. New Orleans also had a high number of citizens who were disabled or elderly and poor. Reflections of this fact was seen nightly on the news for weeks after the hurricane, and yet many polls indicated that the vast reason given as to why people did not leave New Orleans when told about the approaching Hurricane was, "I just didn't want to leave." EVERY person who lived in New Orleans represented a precious life that Christ gave His life for, and that fact arises higher than any other. But it is always very wise for us to consider all the facts, and see the trees in front of us. So why did New Orleans receive almost all the press coverage, and other areas and town were basically ignored? Was it for political reasons? Since the mainstream press is overtly liberal, what agenda did they have in mind?

Another oft repeated phrase in the liberal media and in their coverage of the hurricane aftermath was, "how could this have happened?" Or, "the unthinkable has happened." Well, pity to those who had the poor sense to say such a thing. Here are the facts in that forest!
1. New Orleans is bordered by 3 major bodies of water. First, lake Pontchartrain to the North, the mighty Mississippi to the East, and then the Gulf of Mexico to the South. Lake Pontchartrain is basically a huge swamp that has an ever-changing shoreline and is very susceptible to follow the Mississippi in its flood stages, which happens routinely all year round. Of course, the gulf of Mexico is like a giant funnel, sucking in hurricanes at the rate of about 5 a year. So, New Orleans isn't exactly what you would call a "dry city" by any means. Damp, moist, and humid, the city of sin invites water like Paris Hilton invites photo's.
2. New Orleans is, on average, 6 feet under sea level. Mind you, that sea that is so level is basically on the southern doorstep of the big easy. Find another U.S. city that is 6 feet under sea level. Surrounded by 3 massive bodies of water, and 6 feet under sea level. Yep, hard to imagine flooding happening in that situation!
3. New Orleans has been totally dependant upon levee's and bilge pumps for its very survival for countless decades. Every day without major flooding was a gift from God. A good analogy would be to try to build a city on the very edge of an active volcano, and then declare after a major fire, "how could this have happened?" How, indeed.

Two years later, New Orleans has become synonymous with Hurricane Katrina, and yet the rest of Louisiana and all of Mississippi's shoreline residents get nothing but a footnote mention, ever. Why? Decide for yourself. While inhabitants in these other areas quietly rebuild and return on their own, the whining and complaining about the alleged "injustice" in New Orleans continues. And just recently, a special report shows that crime is rampant in the big easy once again, as the police force works out of trailers, trying to bring order to a city that has been known for decades as the best place in America to "go slumming."

Why do we care if that wretched place is ever rebuilt? That is a really good question. New Orleans was always dirty, crime-ridden, and slummy, on its best day. Full of crime, prostitution, and drug use, it was hardly the envy of any other town in America. It had little charm, unless you consider going to see topless women dancing in store and bar windows "charming." However, good, decent people died in that horrible hurricane, and as hard as it may be to imagine for anyone who knows what it is to grow up in safe, clean, law abiding neighborhoods, it was "home" to hundreds of thousands of residents. No one wants to see their home destroyed. No one wants to see elderly citizens drown, suffer, or be displaced. The city as a whole was a nasty place to live by almost any standard, but every person in that city suffered in some way -- not at the hands of the government, but because of a natural disaster that will, given time, return to visit New Orleans once again.

It is not the government's job to secure safety for residents who choose to live anywhere within 10 miles of the gulf coast. Sooner than later, anyone with enough sense to breathe had better understand that building, or choosing to live on the gulf of Mexico (not to mention the panhandle and entire state of Florida, much less the entire east coast area) is an open invitation for disaster to strike. If you build on the gulf of Mexico, you will, sooner or later, be significantly impacted by a hurricane. No exceptions. So roll the dice, and don't whine when your number comes up. It's no one's fault but your own. And by the way, don't forget that New Orleans is already under water, technically, metaphorically, and literally. It might not be your wisest first choice for a gulf coast home location.

Aspire to visit areas on the water, but get smart and move inland. A good suggestion might be somewhere near a forest.

A War of Words

Recently, Ken Burns' latest documentary on World War II has been running on PBS-type stations, and it is an excellent piece of work. In typical Burns style, he includes personal testimonies and historical data and mixes it with tons of never-before-seen footage to give a comprehensive look back in time at one of the greatest wars of all time. Historically, it is an important documentary that should be preserved into the foreseeable future.

Some advocate not looking back, telling others to "forget the past, and move on," but such advice is idiotic at best. It is true that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes we all made prior if we do not examine them in the present, and learn from them. Those who want to forget the past are either hoping for a magical future, or are trying to run from the markers they have left behind. Either way, they are proving their lack of cranial competence, but this group of people are dwarfed by those who refuse to live in the present.

Take for example this little war we have going on now, called the Iraq war. Actually, to be perfectly honest, that war was won within 100 hours, essentially. American military dominance simply shut down and shut up what was considered the 4th greatest military regime in the world in a matter of days. It was totally embarrassing to those on the opposing side, and for the next 50 years, no one in the Islamic world will ever forget or be able to deny the absolute dominance of the American war machine. So, that much should be settled in the history books. But of course, the war of words rages on, as both liberals and conservatives try to record history that is being made right now, each vying for the chance to post the truth. Conservatives are at a disadvantage in this struggle, as some of the worlds most latent liberals control the NEA (National Educators Association), and that organization will only sanction text books that give a truly liberal slant.

The war of words continues on Capital hill, where our representatives and congressmen fight for the right to discourse about the war in their terms. Democrats cry out that this is an unjust war, opened up under false pretenses, and blantently refuse to admit that they voted for it. Republicans are searching for a solid place to stand in support, afraid to put their convictions first, lest that yields a losing race to be re-elected. All the while, our brave troops battle on, fighting insurgencies and visiting terrorists from other countries who pop in to Iraq for a little shootin'. The war is won, but Iraq was so devastated by Saddam and his regime that it is going to take time to bring forth a decent measure of civility and stability to this country. In the end, what we may end up with is a benevolent dictatorship, or a hybrid form of democracy, but it will take decades to know for sure what Iraq is post Saddam. It took him decades to turn it into a military state, after all.

The war of words sometimes is fought in local and national papers. The doggedly liberal press cannot bring themselves to print one positive word about the growing infrastructure in Iraq. To their shame, they will censor any positive publicity, based soley on their hatred for President Bush. During the Vietnam war, the liberal press owned the airwaves and print media, and American got a steady diet of reports from "men" who would surely blow off a hand or foot if they ever tried to handle a gun of any kind. So called journalist like Rather walked around in disgust at the conditions and all the loud banging of those guns, unable to believe that such a thing could ever exist in his white bread world. His bread and butter report was painted with the same two colors each and every time: black, and red. His reports always included lots of doom and despair, and lots of blood, to make sure people back home only knew of defeat and horror, and nothing of victory and hope. Any war ever fought has those four basic elements, but liberals like Rather and Cronkite simply "forgot" the latter, and heaped on the former. Finally, after 6 or so years of such reporting on the big 3 networks, Americans of every kind began to buy in. That war was not unwinable, it simply died in the forum of public opinion. 40,000 American lives were given so that Liberals could make their point that all wars are bad, and should be avoided, along with eating beef, driving gasoline powered cars, and going to church. Shame on anyone in America for ever allowing godless, whining liberals to influence their better judgment.

Which brings us to the present conflict, war, or whatever you may want to call it, in Iraq. Bottom line is this: America continues to go to ballgames and shop in malls and go to church without a thought or mention of the hundreds of thousands who are fighting for their lives half way around the world. No less than Germany and Japan in the mid 40's, the terrorists who inhabit the eastern part of our world would like nothing more than to wreak havoc on America and ultimately destroy us, and our fighting men and women are staving off that attack by giving of themselves. What's more, they are winning, have won, and will continue to win out over the black forces of Islamic extremism as long as they are needed. Schools are reopening, bridges are being built, free marketing is taking over in both small and large towns, and families are starting to know what it is like to live in relative peace for the first time in memory. Our soldiers are proving to be some of the most loving and honorable forces to ever walk this earth, showing compassion and diligence to work to help the Iraqi people carve out a new life in freedom. It is not beyond the scope of human consideration to believe that our military, if given proper time to gear up and amass, could indeed subdue practically any country in the world, and all this without a draft. We are a force of the highest power, and yet, our troops have something more powerful to tout: dignity and grace. The people of our armed forces are by and large far more interested in aiding and helping than killing and destroying. Germany and Japan will forever be known for their horrible atrocities in earlier wars; America will forever be known (among other countries, at least) as having one of the most benevolent armed forces in history. THIS is the side of the story the liberals refuse to report or admit, to their chagrin. Decades from now, images and words alike will prove that the American armed forces were an awesome military that showed tremendous gentleness and class. It is such a privilege to say that about your military, at any time in history.

Is It Warm In Here?

GLOBAL WARMING IS A THEORY.

Did you cringe when you read that? Did you stop and think? Did you wake up? Maybe all three of those responses would be appropriate.

Global warming is a theory, and nothing else. Just like evolution and relativity, theories are in fact unproven ideas that are generally accepted as true by some, and untrue by others. Theories abound in our world, from why the Mets can't win a championship, to why some people always drive slow in the left lane, but in the end, they are only theories.

The "debate" over Darwin's evolution theory was always misled. Rather than forcing proponents of that misguided and totally humanist theory to prove how it is true (arguments such as, 'show us one animal in the midst of evolving' come to mind) and placing the onus upon them, creationists tried to argue their views with superior rationale and proof. In the end, those who generally want to discount God see creation as a theory as well. Of course, they must then examine all the data and see which makes the most sense. If they would do that, they would find that it takes more faith to believe an old decrepit man who doodled on paper, than to believe the one and only God who made all things. Oh, and by the way, the earth is not millions and millions of years old. That too is just a theory. The old "carbon dating" answer is about as reliable as a high mileage Yugo. Anywho, the same ideas should be applied to the so-called global warming debators. No one has to prove it's not happening, because if no one had ever postulated the erroneous idea, it would never be discussed. Warmer? What?

The main thing is this: global warming is a catch phrase assigned to a radical theory that is not clearly defined, other than "the world is getting warmer." How much warmer, and how quickly is hotly debated even among global warming supporters. Most scientists who adhere to this theory can't even clearly define how it has supposedly happened, or what can be done, if indeed anything needs to be done. However, of late, there seems to be a growing consensus among the "warmists" and those who disagree, that it is possible that the earths mean annual temperature average has risen approximately 1 degree in the last 100 years. But even this is fraught with misinformation and grand calculations that must estimate, due to the fact that global temps haven't been tracked or even properly recorded until very recently. So, for any group of scientists to come to a conclusion as to the mean temperature of our atmosphere for one year in 1907 would be tantamount to Michael Moore and Newt Gingrich agreeing on health care.

All kinds of questions and statements are now properly posed in the frenzy of the claims of global warming, including, "is the earth really 1 degree warmer? Even if you can prove this one claim true, is it still warming?" "What real effect will this have on anyone in the next century?" "Would we be better off if it were cooling off?" "If global warming is occurring, and if it's so horrendous, then why are we able to produce 100 times more produce today, than 100 years ago?"
The point is, that a few scientists think that maybe the earth's mean temp has risen an average of 1 degree in the past century, and from there they are spouting off all kinds of dooms-day theories (theories stacked upon other theories is a very unstable place to be) that may or may not correlate to the alleged rise. We might as well be sweating what will happen when that giant asteroid impacts the earth. Actually, that is a greater threat.

AlGore notwithstanding, and all the other tree huggers who have attached themselves to this train of fabrications, they are all missing one very important point:

THE WORLD DOES NOT NEED PROTECTING FROM US

WE NEED PROTECTION FROM THE WORLD

Case in point - just pack your bags, and leave your house for 6 months. Lock the doors, turn off all the electricity, and have no one lined up to deal with the yard. Return in 6 months and what will you find? The yard will be a jungle, vines and vegetation will have taken over your house and deck, and all kinds of critters will have taken up residence inside. It will take you another 6 months to rectify what nature has done in your absence.

Another experiment: just go out into the woods and lay down. Lay down for an extended period of time, for say, 10 days. Don't move and disturb the fragile nature around you. What will happen? You'll be worm food, my friend! You will not have impacted nature -- nature will have impacted you, by starting the process of breaking you down into the basic elements God used to form you.

God created this world with processes and systems. He did so to ensure the survival of the world until it is time for He to end it. And only God will end this world. Sure, mankind can have negative effects upon the world, but in the end, if one day doomsday comes (refer to the 3 "Terminator" flicks) and all humanity is wiped out (which will never happen -- God says so in Revelation), plant and animal life will reappear and will flourish in no time. The character played by Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park said it best when he said, "Life finds a way." He didn't say it this way, but what that means is, God's systems and processes cannot be thwarted by anything man can conjure.

So, are we to pillage and pollute this world? Of course not. Are we to monitor our impact and try to be good stewards, wasting not and finding new ways to limit pollution? Sounds about right. Are we to believe that man is a naturally caustic element on earth, and will by his very presence will eventually spell doom to all that God has created?

If you believe that, I've got some prime swamp land for sale just south of...

Massive past civilizations lie under tons of overgrowth and dirt even today, as yet undiscovered. They are hidden by natural processes and systems that man cannot overcome or conquer. Everything in your life requires constant maintenance, just to extend the life of it. No car lasts forever, and every building will eventually crumble back into the same elements it was made from. This doesn't happen because man is here. This happens because God has always been, and it's the way He created this earth to function. Man is not about to change that.

So, start protecting yourself from the nature God created. Wax that car, put some fresh paint on the house, spray for bugs, use that lotion and sunscreen, and make sure you're buried in an air-tight, waterless vault so that the worms have to work harder to eat you. Oh, and the temp down there remains at a steady 65 degrees, year round.

Principals.....or Elections?

The general's report is in, but.....already, those on the left politically (Democrats, mostly) are wagging their heads in disbelief, disgust, and denial. Surely this surge can't be working, right? Well lefties, it is working, and to accuse the general of "cooking the books" only makes you look more like what you are.

What everyone must come to grips with is the reasons the Democrats are so disenchanted with this Iraq war. Listed below are the top 5 reasons why the left can't find anything good about our current war on terror:

• It is seen as George W. Bush's war. Liberals hate George W. Bush, so they hate the war he is presiding over as Commander in Chief.
• It seeks to liberate people from a dictatorship, to a democracy. Liberals admire dictatorships, autocracies, and other models that give most or all of the power to the government. They won't come right out and say it, but they are all about big government, and the government taking over most of life. That is undeniable.
• Liberal Democrats have a long history of disenchantment with the military. You just don't find many liberal (politically, financially, socially, etc.) generals, commanders, and so on. For at least 75 years, Democratic presidents, senators, and congressmen have done very poorly in military situations. Churchill ensured allied victory in WWII, NOT Roosevelt. It was Johnson that got us into Vietnam, and he is the one that escalated that war. Nixon inherited Johnson's quagmire, and then got tagged with the blame for the whole shin-dig. And let's not forget slick Willie and his debacle in Mogadishu. Made a movie about that one. Funny how they failed to mention his ill fated and limp wristed policy of "presence without intervention." It's like being in a boxing ring, but keeping your hands in your pockets.
• It is win-able. It hasn't been a smooth road, but then again, exactly how long is it supposed to take a violent, 3rd world country with decades of internal war and genocide to turn around to a peaceful, productive democracy? Jury is out on that one, but common sense says more than a few years. Even so, grand strides have been made in restructuring and setting up infrastructure that counts, like businesses, schools, hospitals, and trade. The liberal press has basically reported not a stitch of this, and sadly, the one conservative press outlet we commonly see has done poorly in this area too. Shame on them for not drowing their airwaves with all the true positive stories that need to be shared.
• Finally, it is embarassing for them. Many of the most liberal democrats voted for proceeding with the war. Many of the same had access to the same information as Republicans, and they felt it was warranted. What is rarely shared is the immense amount of time Saddam had to hide and destroy his WMD's (which we know he had, because he used them all the time on people groups he hated, like the Kurds) with all the resolutions that President Bush felt necessary to offer. If he had just drawn the line earlier, even by a week or so, it would have made a huge difference in terms of discoveries and tactical advances. Either way, the liberals went for it, and then had to eat their words and do what they do best: change positions. And now, it's finally out that real progress is being made, and President Bush has no intentions of caving or leaving until he is good and ready. The democrats are once again left trying to peer over a fence that separates the men from the boys, whining, crying, and backstabbing.

Democrats don't oppose the war because of philosophical or religious principals, nor do they oppose the war because they are genuinely worried about our soldiers. They oppose the war because it makes President Bush look like a real commander, a real man willing to take on real issues in a really scary world. They are intimidated and feel left out. They are desperately afraid the American public will see the positive side of all this and, horror of all horrors, elect another Republican next go around. Having a Republican president wage a honest and needed war (and winning it!) makes democrats feel like the geeky, skinny kid who is picked dead last for dodgeball -- left out, useless, and totally out of sorts.

Liberals hate President Bush because he is in office, he is conserative, he is a Christian, and he is guided by principals, not polls. Democrats are not led by principals -- they are led by the consuming desire to be elected, or re-elected. A president like George W. makes them look fake, shallow, and souless, by comparison.

So, as the liberal media (directly tied to liberal politicans, without doubt) continues to try to banter on about how horribly this war is going, and how unfit our President is, be informed enough to brush aside their asceine arguments and get at the heart of what they are saying -- get at their heart -- and realize that they would rather see America "lose" a war, any war, than to see a Republican President be successful.

Where's the Value?

Where did Anna Nichole Smith come from? What did she contribute to society that makes certain elements within the pop culture media desire to Elvis-ize her ad nauseum? I wish I knew.
Turn on your TV and you are overwhelmed with images and stories about Anna, Brittney, even Michael Vick (at least he had a real story behind his name) that seem to go on and on about not much of anything. More time will be spent on this subject in later installments, but for now, a few words about the Vick situation and trial.
Short and to the point: Animals are not people. Animals are not equal to people, in terms of worth, eternity, value, or destiny. Animals are here for our use, not for our worship. God told Adam in the garden of Eden that he was in charge of the animals, and they would be used by man for his purposes. God has a purpose for animals, but that in no way implies that they are equal to us, any more than sand has equal importance to mankind. Both were created by God, but for very different purposes. Oh, and then there's that comment made by God that the secular humanists and tree huggers seem to overlook, "we will make him in our image." The triune God does not speak those words about any other part of creation.
I (and most other sane people) do not see any value in dog fighting, rooster fighting, or other "blood sports" relating to animals. There is no excuse for mutilating animals for financial gain. So, that's a settled argument. However, the other night I saw an interview of a woman who shot her husband and less than a year later, is talking about it on TV, apparently a free woman. No public outcry, no green flag waving protesters lined up to be in the video shot. Yet Michael Vick was castigated and universally maligned as the utmost in criminal depravity, having been a part of dog fighting for wager and financial gain. Everyone who reported on him and the activity he was in purposely cast a dark cloud upon the report, showing their utter contempt.
So, the comment made here is that when some "poor dogs" are "forced" to fight in a ring, it's all hands on deck to destroy the animal (person) responsible. BUT, when one of these "poor dogs" that are bred and designed to be killing machines (they have no other useful purpose in nature or society) mutilates or even kills a human being, people respond in support of the dog. WHERE DOES SUCH MISGUIDED AND INSANE RATIONAL COME FROM?
Believe you me, any dog that bites any human needs to be a dead dog. End of discussion. Fine the owner for complete recompense for any medical bills, and an additional $1,000 for neglect, and wrap it up by burying the biting dog. This makes perfect sense to me, because I value human life far above and beyond any animal life. Humans are made in God's image, animals were made to serve man, and to serve a purpose in the balance of life here on earth. No comparison. Humans are eternal, animals are temporal. Sorry, but "Cujo" isn't "going to heaven."
The aforementioned misguided rational comes from people who find it much easier to show love and affection to a dog (or any other pet or animal), than to another human. There are millions of Americans (I won't comment on people in other countries) who are too cowardly or inept to build meaningful human relationships, and so they channel their love and affection to a dog, cat, bird, etc. This, of course, is sick, improper, and destructive, but rather than take care of their own issues that keep them from reaching out, they reach down to temporary, soulless animals as substitutes, and interestingly enough, they defend their choice with unmatched vigor and viciousness.
Leona Helmsly: does this really require comment? Millions left for a dog? But some in the media said, "well, maybe her grandchildren were mean to her!" I don't think anyone mistook Leona for a big wad of cuddly love, so let's keep that in mind, shall we? Again, choosing an animal over people. Just think what those millions (I actually don't know how much it was, so I am guessing) could do for orphanages in some of the poorest parts of our world. Instead, a stupid, soulless dog with no inherit value is soaking up gourmet meals. Gee, wonder why Brad and Angelina didn't make a public statement about that? Instead of the public crying out at this outrage, they turn their rage upon the grandchildren, assuming that they didn't "deserve" the money, based upon some alleged, assumed conduct unbefitting an inheritance.
OK, so it's easy to get affection from a dog. Feed and water them, and they're yours for life. Cats........well, that's another story. Point being, that animals give in proportion to what they require to hang around, and that's basically little to nothing. They lay in your lap, soak up your heat or A/C, shed nasty hair all over your house (bringing on all kinds of allergies that you try to blame on something else), chew up your valuables, poop on your carpet, and infest your dwelling with fleas. In return, well...........what was the point? Oh, yes - animals are so much better than humans! So why go through the bother to value human life above animal life? So what if God commands us to love one another (note there is no prescriptive charge to love animals), al la 1 Corinthians 13? Shouldn't we just show insane deference to animals, regardless of the command of our Lord or the eternal status of our souls?
Time to wrap this up with a few closing summations and comments:

• Treating animals with impunity and violence for sport or amusement is not being argued here.
• Animals were placed upon this earth to be used of, and serve man, and not the other way around.
• Animals do not have souls. Christ did not die for your cat or dog. He died for you. There may be animals in Heaven, but don't count on seeing Binky there because "he was such a good dog!"
• Human life is above all other life on this earth, as evidenced by the fact that Christ died for people, and for nothing else.
• People who either "can't," or refuse to learn to love and bond with other humans are not solving their problems by bonding with an animal.
• We say nothing while hundreds of innocent, unborn babies are mutitated and killed by doctors through abortion each day, but cry out when a few dogs are killed in a dusty arena.
• God speaks throughout His word about how we are to show love, forgiveness, and grace towards each other. In contrast, only in one or two instances does He give instruction on how to handle someone who viciously mistreats a animal, and even then, the instruction refers to restitution of the animal's owner.
• If your natural inclination is to take the side of an animal, rather than another human being, you have serious spiritual, moral, and relational problems that need to be dealt with. No exceptions. The loose definition of a physcopath is someone who has lost all value for human life. Where are you on that continuium?
• Michael Vick did offer a good apology. He assumed responsibility for his actions. People associated with such activities need to be reprimanded, of course, but we all need to keep our focus upon the big picture, and value human life above all else. Otherwise, we will continue our downward slide towards isolationism and antagonism towards each other, and ultimately, towards the God that created us.