Ann Coulter Says "Don't Blame Romney"

I don't!  I blame Ann Coulter.

I'm going to give just a tiny bit to Ann Coulter and say that I get it. I do, because I once held her self-proclaimed non-idiot position before I became a "pro-life badass" myself. Having stated that, my compliments stop there. See, for all the sharp-eyed political optics Coulter has (and she's got specs for sure), she and many of the GOP self-aggrandizers have one big, black hell-hole of a blind spot when it comes to the issue of abortion, and that is they become useful idiots of the Left.

The first mistake when it comes to the issue of the rape-conceived person is to pit the unborn child against her mother. The Left loves to divide and conquer along lines that should naturally constitute a bond between two equally important people in this world. By conceding the position that two lives cannot coexist just because the Left says that the one life smaller in size should only exist by the consent of the larger (and not the other way around, curiously enough), plays into the elitist trick that their narrative is the only narrative to which we should all prostrate ourselves. I'd like to know why anyone should hog tie himself at the feet of the Legion of Doom. Only the pro-death Left spins the issue into "requir[ing] a woman to bear the child of her rapist" instead of giving justice to every innocent victim of rape, born and unborn.

The second mistake is to blame GOP candidates for saying what they believe. Nowhere in the manufactured debacles of Akin and Mourdock did either of them say that the reason they were running for office was to fictionalize rape or pass legislation prohibiting abortion under any circumstance. Both men answered the obligatory pro-life questions (asked only to Republicans) by stating their positions, nothing more. It was the Left (again!) who responded in predictable fashion with the microphone that they command (only because the GOP is out looking for a spine), practically telling the public that Akin thinks rape is no big deal, and Mourdock is personally going to hold a baby in a mother's womb to prevent her from aborting. Somehow, these GOP talking heads capitulate to the straw men that the Left likes to contruct for target practice, and they all too willingly run out before the first shot to sink a hatchet into the backs of perfectly good candidates, because God forbid the other party should have to prove its accusations.

Since the finger-pointing has begun in the wake of Mitt Romney's disappointing loss, GOP bigwigs should be ready to take it as well as they can dish it out. From where I and my "badass" pro-life compatriots stand, it's mouthpieces like Coulter, Priebus, Rove, and Perino who became the Lucy to Charlie Brown and pulled the ball away just as our duly elected primary winners were about to kick. They fell, naturally, but spare us the schlepped up line that they were toxic players who poisoned the presidential race as well. Puleez.

For all the complaining about how the other party get stuff wrong all the time, the biggest favor Coulter could do for Republicans now is to quit being the unhappy lap dog of the Left when it comes to the pro-life issue of which she admittedly has a 100% flight risk for only a 1% disagreement. If the talking heads spent half as much time focused on winning seats instead of getting distracted by Obama's "lady parts," the Senate could have well been a lot closer to getting flipped today. Anyone can take losing an election if it's one step forward at a time. But there is no consolation for losing when the Party one belongs to actively pushes candidates two steps back and spits on them.

(This is a response to Ann Coulter's post-2012 Election blogpost blaming Senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock for causing Mitt Romney to lose the Presidential race.)

Abortion Coverage--It's Not Not in There

In the last few weeks, when the Democrats in Congress are racing like cats on crack to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (a.k.a. O-Care, Faux-Care, or my favorite: N-O-Care), one of the more contentious issues about the bill is whether or not it funds elective abortion with taxpayer money. Well, since I don't just identify with contentious but also conscientious when it comes to the frivolities of life or death issues, I wanted an answer. Does it or doesn't it?

I read a smattering of articles by fellow pro-lifers against the bill and articles and responses by N-O-Care supporters who accuse said pro-lifers of making things up, and then I read the sections (AND proposed amendments) to the bill about abortion funding. My findings?

The bill does not not fund abortions with taxpayer money.

Get it? Even with amendments, federal funds can be used to pay for abortions unless states individually pass legislation prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions...kinda. Someone receiving a federal subsidy to buy health insurance will probably have enough dollars in the check to cover an abortion, although that part will be done in a separate transaction outside of health care proper. Y'know, all straight up like that, yo.

The public should well understand something about the law by now: if the law doesn't explicitly prohibit something (i.e. abortion funding), then it is legal and totally exercisable by the beauracracies that be. Abortion coverage is not just a possibility, it's a plausibility. And that's enough for the family of Planned Parenthood, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to declare that the dastardly deed is done.

Pro-lifers have been told repeatedly that if they do not like abortion, they should not get one. Cute. With this legislation in mind, let's shift the shoe to the other foot. If I didn't get a woman pregnant, I shouldn't have to pay for her abortion.

Snagged Me a Photo Job!

Meet Martin Baker, candidate for MO U.S. Congressional District 1. I had a blast photographing this guy and his fiancee at the Arch yesterday. Lighting was perrrrfect!

What's Yours is Ours: Thoughts on the Christian Collective and Socialism as Policy

It's an election year, and I feel like mulling over the oft-asked question "How should Christians think about politics?" Since politics is much too broad an issue on which to focus one singular post, I'll start by narrowing down a particular issue that perhaps hasn't received enough attention among believers of late: Biblical Christian community vs. the American way-of-life.

A YouTube video tangentially touched on this subject, and a friend of mine from church obliged me a comment on the prospect of socialism existing here in the U.S. She said:

"I really wish people would stop the fear-mongering, like the quick flashes of the old Soviet Union flag, other socialist and Communist images in the video, and the menacing music. Fear-mongering promotes hatred and hostility rather than respectful dialogue in which both/all parties can learn from each other and promotes consensus. No elected official is trying to turn the US into a Communist state or even a socialist one.

That said, there is nothing inherently evil about socialism. Communism definitely is inherently evil (denial of God, mindless submission to leaders, suppression of human rights, etc.) - it's an ideology. But socialism is merely another economic system and is in itself spiritually neutral. It flies in the face of our American sensibilities of "every man for himself," but it's actually more in line with the first century church where "they had everything in common" (Acts 2:44)."

I find the point in the second paragraph the most interesting and something that I have pondered at least once or twice before myself. In all practical respects, the early church in Jerusalem did live communally and had a touch of socialist redistribution of wealth in the believers' day-to-day.

"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need." (Acts 2:44-45)

So, is this a model for Christian life today, not just in America, but everywhere? Can it be? Should it be? If it is, then it cannot be merely spiritually neutral, can it? Specifically, if we see it institutionally implemented as a transformation of society from a non-socialist status quo to one that is, should we not embrace it as a move toward that higher biblical living that we should all strive to achieve?

Before anyone objects, I'll just name an incomplete list of issues that have ushered us to this point in America: state and federal welfare programs, minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, COBRA, the National School Lunch Program, WIC, and state and federal unemployment benefits. We are also almost at the point of adding national socialized medicine to this list. Given the mandate from God Himself to exercise compassion, charity, and to care for the poor, it seems the consistent thing to do as a Christian is to support such programs in the effort to obey, or so it seems of late. As analysts continue to dissect the voting patterns of the younger generation of Christians going to the polls, they so far have corroborated what my friend Matthew Lee Anderson has said about those in the younger Evangelical segment. Younger Christian voters do tend to favor the establishment and expansion of government programs which have the stated purpose in assisting the poor financially. Orthodoxy and orthopraxis finally intertwine in idyllic unity as far as this generation is concerned. The leap, therefore, into endorsing a socialist economic system would be nothing more than taking the next step in realizing a piece of heaven on earth. It seems logical that all believers should do likewise, as maintained by many self-professed Christian Socialists. Indeed, the leaders of churches steeped in liberation theology have long preached just such a message, have they not?

Is it really that simple? Some problems with such a proposition should come to mind. The Kingdom-minded who would like to see the advancement of a socialized economy for the sake of the poor should remember objections leveled at other efforts to bring some Jesus into public life, one of which is the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Parents who have longed for the ability to send their children to superior private or parochial schools (vs. failing public schools) but cannot afford the tuition have thus far been denied vouchers on the grounds that the possible choice of schools includes those administered by religious entities. Not many who support socialism also support school choice, seeing as the latter is more a feature of a free-market system than socialism.

The limitations that socialism brings on society also pose a conflict for the Christian worldview. As with communism, socialism necessarily strips the individuality of persons and replaces it with a category or class in order to address needs through a system. The Marxist ideal of the classless society is not only unrealized but flatly contradicted as socialism must work by taking from one class to give to another. Indeed, the State defines the nature and level of compassion the needy require and determines the manner of aid distribution. Everything is quantified, even down to the worth of a human being. By contrast, the Christian worldview upholds the humanity and distinction of each human person of first importance in regarding his needs and leaves full discretion to the Christian Body on how best to exercise charity. If Christians intend for the government to render financial assistance to the poor, then when it does not on the basis of some discriminatory policy, the sacrifice for living under socialism will have been futile.

There are more limitations to socialism, but I will simply point out one additional. Socialism has always failed and left in its wake the same financial need, hunger, and poverty that it was implemented to fix, if not more. As a system, it is one that consumes and never generates the resources and wealth that it seeks to redistribute to the poor. Contrast the results with that of the U.S. record of charitable giving for all entities both public and private. In the current non-socialist system, the high wealth generation that exists has allowed Americans to fund relief work on a global scale unmatched by any other country in the world. For Christians, the command is to minister to the poor actually, not potentially. Therefore, believers should think carefully about the kind of amelioration to the poor in which to invest support.

But what about that Jerusalem Church? Its unofficial socialist-like economy did serve a definite good, but before Christians today go viral with the idea, the situation in which the Jerusalem Church found herself bears due consideration. First, the sharing of possessions and food served as rescue from a consequence of belief in Jesus Christ: persecution. Jews that embraced Jesus as the Messiah inevitably faced being disowned and homeless by their families and the greater Jewish community. To avert starvation, those with resources shared what they had to care for destitute brothers and sisters in the faith. Second, we find this specific activity in Acts 2 and nowhere else in the experiences of the other New Testament churches, particularly in the Gentile world where believers could live independent of the Jewish community for sustenance. The motivation of the Jerusalem Christians to implement communal life came about through necessity, not as a model for any ideal style of godly living. Third, the overarching point of Acts 2 starting in verse 40 is to highlight the unity and the Pentecostal movement of God within Jerusalem to bring the believers into faith in Jesus Christ. Given the narrative context of the scripture in question, the Christian reader should be careful not to make an 'is' into an 'ought' from them.

Even without this poring over actuality and context, I cannot help but sense a violation of some subtle grounding principle as believers judge what obedience to God really means in service to the poor. In Matt. 25, with eternal judgment on the line, Jesus explicitly places the believer under personal moral obligation to show compassion and make a difference toward the poor, hungry, and imprisoned. By saying it this way, He undercuts substitutions to third party providers. Why? Such substitutions often result in diminished impact and dependence on a third party. And when it fails, obedience fails, while the moral mandate remains unchanged and unfulfilled.

Christians naturally live in a collective called the Church. In it, believers have the greatest ability to copy their Jerusalem ancestors with the same values and benefits. The Jerusalem Church demonstrated the greatest amount of discretion in a collective moved by God to serve their own. Socialism has shown never to be a simple expansion of this communal life. Socialism in the contemporary sense substitutes the values of the Church for the values of the State. Believers today need to consider what surrendering this discretion to socialism would mean to the actual ability to embody the faith. In the end, the decision is a classic one for Christians living in two Cities about what must one give up to live fully in one City or the other.

The Manhattan Declaration

Not just any pro-life, pro-family, pro-ethics statement, the Manhattan Declaration is a call to civil disobedience if (when) the government legislates that people of conscience support abortion, eugenics, and same-sex marriages in their professions and with their tax dollars.

The last paragraph of the declaration states:
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s." (emphasis mine)

The question is, where will liberty lie when the leftist elites are drafting the laws of the land? The shoe has been on the other foot for almost a year; let us see what becomes of civil disobedience now. Any thoughts?

"Woe to You, Hypocrites!"

An excerpt from the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Geisler/Turek) that I found very...interesting:

The United States Congress was in a rare joint session. All 435 representatives and 100 senators were in attendance, and the C-SPAN-TV cameras were rolling. The members were gathered together to hear a speech by a descendant of George Washington. But what they thought would be a polite speech of patriotic historical reflections quickly turned into a televised tongue-lashing. With a wagging finger and stern looks, Washington's seventh-generation grandson declared,

"Woe to you, egotistical hypocrites! You are full of greed and self-indulgence. Everything you do is done for appearances: You make pompous speeches and grandstand before these TV cameras. You demand the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats wherever you go. You love to be greeted in your districts and have everyone call you "Senator" or "Congressman." On the outside, you appear to people as righteous, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness! You say you want to clean up Washington, but as soon as you get here you become twice as much a son of hell as the one you replaced!

"Woe to you, makers of the law, you hypocrites! You do not practice what you preach. You put heavy burdens on the citizens, but then opt out of your own laws!

"Woe to you, federal fools! You take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but then you nullify the Constitution by allowing judges to make up their own laws.

"Woe to you, blind hypocrites! You say that if you had lived in the days of the Founding Fathers, you never would have taken part with them in slavery. You say you never would have agreed that slaves were the property of their masters but would have insisted that they were human beings with unalienable rights. But you testify against yourselves because today you say that unborn children are the property of their mothers and have no rights at all! Upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed in this country. You snakes! You brood of vipers! You have left this great chamber desolate! How will you escape being condemned to hell!"

Of course such an address never really took place (if it had, you certainly would have heard about it!). Who would be so blunt and rude to address the nation's leaders that way? Certainly no one claiming to be a Christian! Are you sure?

Vote For Me!

My Tea Party sign is one of the top five in the Mother of All Conservatives contest, and the grand prize is a Wii. Please do me a huge HUGE favor and go to the website and vote for my sign!

Ouroboros 4: Imagine the Perfect Obama Ad

Credit: YouTube user catholicvote23

Booyah.

Trying to fight that...

nasty, bitter urge to hurl my guts out at every thought of "President-elect Barack Obama."

While I'm in the throes of the need of extra grace to pull myself back together for a proper post on America's political future, I should remind myself to be thankful that we haven't elected a Castro or a Chavez, but someone more akin to a Guevarra. God loves him, and so must I as well.

Grace and peace.

Money (is all that) Matters

In my last post, I pointed out that I haven't heard nary a whisper about the hot button political issue of abortion in these last raging weeks before Election Day. The public is freaked about the stock market and the strength of the economy as of 9:21pm tonight and it seems to be all anyone wants to hear our President-to-be to talk about, either of them. Last time I checked, the oft-shouted demand "Issues! Issues!" was plural, yet the public and the media are only hearing one issue and tossing the rest...like my child picking off the toppings on her pizza, leaving just the cheese.

It's somewhat comforting knowing that I'm not the only one noticing the heap of important issues growing by the side of the road to the White House. Today, the American Center for Law and Justice radio broadcast highlighted the numerous "normally" hotly discussed issues that have not been touched so far: Supreme Court Justice nominations, partial-birth abortion legislation, the Defense of Marriage Act, First Amendment limitations (seriously, if we have abandoned talking about the Bill of Rights altogether in favor of how much socialism ought we to tolerate, freedom has already been lost in this country), and the (Un)Fairness Doctrine, which is more legislation designed to slowly crush First Amendment rights. Foreign policy has also gotten the look-away-for-now; don't mind that Russia is test-firing long-range missiles (for AIDS awareness, I'm sure). Even--EVEN the environment and global warming have suddenly receded like a melting glacier away from public discourse.

Well. On the one hand, we're leaving our constitutional rights on the curb; on the other, we're telling Al Gore that his truths are a little inconvenient at this time. I guess it's not a total loss. In fact, I feel quite priviledged to witness all these so-called unprecedented events in my life: the biggest single-day drop in the Dow ever (twice!), followed by the biggest single-day rally ever, the simultaneous collapse of America's most successful financial institutions followed by the largest government check ever written to one man--Hank Paulson, who promises to git-r-done. Gas prices that have risen to never-before heights followed by the fastest drop that didn't require price controls. I daresay I might live to see the reconstitution of the Soviet Union, although the official language might be Mandarin by the time that happens.

What the public is saying is "Show me the money, and I'll show you my vote." If God wills it, so be it. As fast as things are changing in this country, Americans will have no problem getting used to being called "New Venezuela" in no time.

The Real Inconvenient Truth

It seems that it doesn't take a whole lot (just money or lack of it) to eclipse the abortion issue in the upcoming presidential election. As much as pro-life supporters have consistently pointed out that convenience is the driving reason for 95%+ of abortions, the media and pro-abortion advocates have consistently refused to face it.

Just six weeks ago at the Republican National Convention, it seemed the abortion issue was set to make a big impact on the campaign trail with Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate to John McCain. Her personal and family experiences with unplanned pregnancies and pregnancy with a special needs child logically would have catapulted the controversy over abortion into major media attention. But four weeks ago, Bear Stearns happened, then Washington Mutual, then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then AIG, then Wachovia, then a $700 billion "rescue" bill, and now a stock market tumble of a few thousand points--suddenly, as fast as it appeared, the abortion issue went from being near the top three to "Abortion and marriage are things that are better left to individuals' conscience," which I take to mean that it isn't even on the radar in the public eye anymore.

A tragedy indeed. Never mind the fact that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed, if elected, that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first thing he would sign into law. Never mind that he supports the total federal abandonment of crisis pregancy centers nationwide. Never mind the fact that he has voted twice not to protect an infant born alive despite an attempted abortion. And truly, never mind the fact that bad economies often turn and become good ones again in time, but babies that are aborted will never get another chance to be born.

The focus on the economy has made the issue of abortion an annoying inconvenience right now. What a sad way for pro-lifers to be right again.

Sources:
The Journey in the BBC
National Review Online
Townhall.com

Matt Damon, Comedian

The media blitz on the presidential campaigns has been exceptionally droll so far, so thank God for the comic relief I saw today. We need more entertainment like this kind Matt Damon dished up Wednesday. The fact that he could execute such a barrage of comedic lines with a straight face is golden. No one could have done better.

You gotta see this:

YouTube credit: The AP.

For instance, in the midst of the unprecedented anal exam that the entire state of Alaska is going through in search of Sarah Palin's identity, Damon jokes that he knows nothing about her, which is really funny. 'Cause, aside from the names of all her kids, that her oldest is going to Iraq, her daughter is 17 and pregnant and marrying the baby's father, she was almost Miss Alaska, has a Down's baby, her husband is First Dude, she's brought terrific success to Alaska in 24 months as governor, and the names and locations of every place she's ever step foot in since birth, I guess we really don't know a lot about her. US Weekly and Salon.com, you're falling down on the job--"Gimme More"!

I love that he jokes about how he expects John McCain to die in office. But he missed the line where McCain just might beat Dick Cheney to the grave. And you know all hockey moms are a bunch of softies, especially those from plush, beachy, fair-weathered Alaska, so that joke is right on. I mean, hockey, Barbie, what's the diff?

There aren't enough small town ("really small town") jokes floating around, especially mayor jokes. We should thank Damon for reminding us how funny people with humble beginnings really are. Does he have polack jokes, too? I wonder.

Just to make sure no one misunderstands that he's not being serious, throwing that bit in about how things might go in a McCain presidency being like "a really bad Disney movie" should get him booked on Comedy Central by the weekend.

And just when I thought he couldn't get any funnier, he unloads the very best line of all about Palin--"I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago; that's an important--I wanna know that. I really do, because she's going to have the nuclear codes. Y'know? I wanna know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago, or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, y'know, we can't--we can't have that..."

How he trails off at the end there is beyond precious! Let me add one more thing: he set this up perfectly by using the word "absurd" two or three times right before this joke. Matt Damon has just outdone Michael Richards in every way. This has got to be worth some award. I hope he wins big. Go Matt!

What James Dobson ate for dinner Aug. 29th

Crow. Did you catch that? Crow.

From a flat out rejection of Sen. John McCain in February to a possibly-maybe endorsement in July to now a full-fledged booya! in the wake of McCain's VP pick of Sarah Palin, James Dobson has made a red-faced reversal on who he'll vote for in November. Other than to make me writhe in pain on the floor from the sheer agony of it all, what was the point of all this "I hate you; don't leave me" hullabaloo?!

What if he would just say we should pray for all the candidates to do the right thing? What if he stopped picking one person to pin a blue ribbon onto? What if we all kept silent just a wee bit longer and gave objectivity a little more time to work its way through our minds? Seriously, is that asking too much?

A lesson to all of us evangelical, conservative Republicans out there stumping for a hero(ine) in politics. Open your mouth too soon and you may just discover a foot in it--your own. Rethink the idea of endorsing someone (or saying that you won't vote for a particular candidate "under any circumstances") as official position of your Christian organization and/or as the face of your like-minded community. Keep your endorsements personal and you may save yourself some embarrassment in the public eye, for you and members of the conservative Christian community. Ahem, that would be me.

Apparently, it's Barack-O Suave

If ever there opens a pit of despair in my stomach it is when I see intelligent and critical-thinking women abandoning their brains on national television to fawn over a political candidate they should interview with great scrutiny instead! As many know, Sen. Barack Obama made a widely publicized appearance on ABC's The View to talk about, well, nothing really. Aside from a casual brush off of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ordeal, Obama did a terrific impression of a male model, one that talks little of substance but everyone loves him anyway just for the way he looks.

So powerful was his appeal that near the end of his appearance, both co-hosts Sherri Shepherd and (Republican) Elisabeth Hasselbeck volunteered themselves to work for Obama's campaign. Said Shepherd, "I so appreciate you sharing your heart in the speech you just gave, 'cause I had my vote for Hillary, and as soon as I heard that speech, I changed it. And I want to leave The View to campaign for you--well, not leave The View, but you know, on the weekends." To which Hasselbeck added, "I was just thinking the same thing!" My, all this for a candidate that talks in government subsidies and nonpartisan feelgoodisms.

I guess all that is needed to win some women's votes is to be sexy and genteel (hey, "sexy" is the word Barbara Walters used).

So go ahead and watch the interview for yourself. I want to see how many other women fall under the Obama "sexy" spell too.


Credit: YouTube user kimktb

Dear Mr. Skeet

Every so often, I receive Christian chain e-mail from a dear aunt of mine. Most of them are innocent sentimental stories. Some are twit-filled propositions from the mines of Christian subculture. And some, like this one, just beg for a bulldozer.

The e-mail that I received actually comes in two parts. The first part is commentary from a secondary, tertiary, or quaternary sender (I am unable to discern which applies). The second part is a letter from "Skeet," recounting his (or her?) impressions of a recent trip to Egypt and Israel. About 3/4 through the letter is a paragraph about how Barack Obama is really a Muslim.

Now, I believe the matter of the religious affiliation of Sen. Obama has sufficiently been laid to rest for most Americans. But that doesn't prevent outside influences from reviving and sustaining a low level of Christian gossip chatter about a worse case scenario electing a potential closet Muslim to the Presidency of the United States.

Here is the first part of the e-mail, followed by my reply:
From: voloz@juno.com
Subject: Israel/Egypt
I don't know how much of this is true, but I still do believe Obama is muslim. This is a note from a person from Lubbock who just returned from Israel / Egypt . Certainly gives us lots to think about.

Dear voloz@juno.com,
My aunt has been sending me chain e-mails for years now, and while most of them go directly to the trash, I do occasionally open them. This is one such e-mail, and I am disappointed by its contents. I am fully aware that this e-mail did not originate with you, so you should send this on back up the chain to its author, Skeet.

The e-mail message is unethical and misguided. However, you are guilty of promulgating it, even if you did not write it. I do not appreciate you trying to mislead her, and in turn, mislead anyone else she forwards the message to, including myself. Please do not forward any such e-mails to my aunt again.

Thank you,
*Letitia (last name withheld)*

This is the letter from Skeet, followed by my letter in response:
Dear Friends,
We are home. I am home with this flu that is going around. I had it before we left and got it again in Eygpt. I have really been sick. Sure is a waste of time.

Our trip was physically very hard. I lost 10 pounds and got sick. I am glad I went, but would not go back to Egypt . It is a dirty, ungodly country. The smog in Cairo Egypt was terrible. There are 17 million people in that city and they just throw their trash in the streets. The Nile River is polluted. I don't know how such a people who built the pyramids regressed like they have. If the Arabs take over America , we will be a slum. And the noise pollution was terrible. They chant their muslim prayers all day.

Our tour guide was a Christian, and he was a fine young man, but the ungodliness of the population is everywhere. It was a real example of the difference of 'light' vs 'darkness.' Jesus is truly the Light!

Israel was clean and wonderful. We could eat the food and drink the water. They were kind and loved us. They may not believe in Jesus but you can tell that God is in that land. It snowed in Jerusalem while we were there and it was cold, but we still toured. The Sea of Gallilee was stormy and we went out on a boat a short distance, but came back to shore. The Bible is absolutely true about the fact that you cannot be out on the Sea of Gallilee in a boat without the danger of dying. We were amazed at the big waves and wind on that Sea or lake.

The weather cleared in Israel at the end of the week and we went to the Temple Mount on a beautiful morning. It was a time with the Lord. We stood at the Golden Gate where Jesus will return. It is sealed because the Muslims are concerned He will return! They even have one of their graveyards outside the gate thinking no King will come through a graveyard. But Jesus is coming! It shows the muslim are concerned and may believe there is a possibility He will come. I stood and looked at that Gate,and was very moved to think I was standing at the very place where Jesus will enter Jerusalem again!

We did go into Bethlehem . We had to let our Jewish guide out of the bus, and our Arab bus driver drove us through the security gate. That high wall that you have been hearing about on TV is there, dividing Palistine and Israel . We then got a Christian guide when we got into Bethlehem . I was there twice before, once in l980 and again in l999 and there is a stark difference in Bethlehem since the arabs have taken it over. There were hardly any tourists. We ate in a cafe on the square where I ate before which was packed with tourists, but today it was vacant except for us. They have killed their tourist trade. The Christians in Bethlehem asked us to pray for them, because they had no income now. The Arab men on the manger square glared at us. We did not feel safe and clung together. There were begger boys everywhere. They hate Americans and Israel !!!!

There is so much I could say about this trip. It has changed my life in some ways. I look at the lostness of the arabs and the darkness. I look at Israel ; that tiny country amidst such turmoil. If America does not continue to support, Israel I believe God will judge us severely as Americans. The Israelite soldiers were such fine young men and women. They are clean and disciplined and have great love for their land which is something that is missing in America among some of our youth. I rode back to Lubbock from Dallas on airline with an American Air Force career soldier. He said the Israelite pilots were the best in the world. They can fly planes like no one else!

Lastly, we were asked everywhere about the Presidential race in America . There was great interest. The Jews came up to us and asked us many questions. They said they do not want the Clintons again. They warned us that Obama is a muslim, not a Christian. In Egypt , the Arabs said the same thing to us; they said Obama is muslim and they are amazed that Americans would consider electing a muslim President of America!!

I came home loving America even more! Our country is a 'light on a hill.' Our streets are clean. There are no chants all day. People are kind and take their turn. People over there pushed into line and were rude. They have never heard of the Golden Rule. They will stomp all over you if they want to get in line. I can see now why Jesus' words of loving your neighbor and doing unto others, what you would have them do unto you, were strange words to the lost. We take our Christian heritage for granted here in my opinion. We have sanctity of human life. In Egypt , the Arabs don't have any hope so I can see why they would bomb people and commit suicide. They smoked cigarettes everywhere! I could not breathe in Egypt and I think that is why I came down with the flu again. The smog was so bad at the pyramids, I could tell I was getting sick. I would gag on the fumes.

We need to pray for America and this election every day.

God bless, Skeet

Dear Mr. Skeet,
Welcome home from your trip to Egypt and Israel! I found your assessment of life in the Middle East both fascinating and troubling at the same time. I urge you to think aboutthe impact of what your words have on all those who have had it forwarded to them from a friend or family member. Your letter does double duty. It serves to both accuse Barack Obama and disparage the Arabs you encountered on your trip.

First, I do not believe for one moment that Barack Obama is a Muslim, for the simple reason that he is not a Muslim. You might make a better case branding him as a black liberation Marxist, an image that he seems unable to reject.

If people in other countries believe that he is Muslim because there are Muslims in his family and that he lived in Indonesia for a time, they have a right to be mistaken. But we do not. It is decidedly a very unethical (and hence, un-Christian) thing to do to bear false witness about any person, especially to mislead another to vote a certain way. The truth is enough to warrant alarm about Barack Obama's aspiration to be President. We do not need to add falsehood to bolster the chances of his defeat at the polls. That is another politician's realm, and she is doing a fine job of lying without anyone's help.

Next, while I appreciate your observation of the poor living conditions and what I interpret as visible spiritual depravity in Arab-controlled territories in the Middle East, you assign motive for bombings as "Arabs don't have any hope so I can see why they would bomb people." That is very poor logic indeed, and erroneous, as the primary motivation for terrorist bombings comes from a particular understanding of jihad, a far cry from hopelessness.

As Christians, we ought to see that their greatest problem is not that they smoke cigarettes, pollute, and hate Israelis. They do not know the love and grace of God. Aside from the shock and disdain for the Arabic parts of your trip, I detect little pity or compassion for the Arab people in your letter. While they may look as depraved asthey are, we must not forget but for our external trappings (generally clean streets and orderly public behavior, as you have pointed out) we are equally as dark and depraved and in dire need of grace ourselves.

Finally, I hope during your days overseas that you were able to show some kindness to a Muslim man and give him a reason to rethink the general attitude toward Americans. I would hope that no illness, fear, or hostile looks from Muslims would prevent your great faith and evangelistic zeal, if not for their sakes, for the Lord's. What a shame it would have been to miss so many potential opportunities to be Jesus to people in such need of Him.

Remember that the comfortable life you now appreciate to a greater extent is by blessed circumstance only. Consider if God were to send you to Egypt to live for the remainder of your life. Would you love it then?

Yours truly in Christ,
*Letitia (last name withheld)*

Now, I did consider that "Skeet" is possibly trying to punk me, in which case, I would not have bothered to restrain myself from unleashing the satirical monster in me. Note that even the sender also expressed doubt in its authenticity. Nevertheless, there are many unsuspecting Christians like my aunt who would take this e-mail seriously, and so I felt I must keep a reply on the level as much as possible.

Feel free to discuss.

Ouroboros -2-: Hecklers Unhinge Clinton

CORRECTION: Frank Beckwith has posted a correction about the hecklers in this story. Apparently, the hecklers were not students of Steubenville, although there were pro-life students who protested but did not heckle.

Bill Clinton Comes Unhinged at Hecklers in Ohio

I've made it a point to avoid blogging on politics (or politicians). It just doesn't fit well with what I've got going on here; but when a key issue is also unavoidably political, it's well, unavoidable.

What happens when a staunchly pro-abortion politician stumps for another staunchly pro-abortion politician at a pro-life Catholic university? Blessed beauty. Last Sunday (February 17), Bill Clinton was heckled by pro-life students at Ohio's Steubenville University for his support for abortion on demand during his administration. LifeNews.com and FoxNews.com covered this event in snippets, capturing Clinton's rebuttal:

“We had the lowest teen pregnancy rate since the statistics had been kept when we were doing that. And guess what? Without overturning Roe v. Wade, or trying to keep people all torn up and upset or calling them killers, the abortion rate went down almost 20 percent on our watch.”

And then this after more heckling:

“We disagree with you. You want to criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. … If you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won’t say you want to do that because you know that, because you know that you wouldn’t have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is who, the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't.”

Bill Clinton takes credit for the decline in the number of abortions? Hmph. Michael J. New, who writes for National Review Online, lays it out on abortion decline, citing research that both in the US and globally, abortion rates are mostly influenced by moderate legistative restrictions on abortion. He writes:

Articles that have appeared in peer reviewed academic journals provide further evidence that legally restricting abortion results in reductions in abortion rates and ratios. A 2004 study that appeared in The Journal of Law and Economics analyzed how changes in abortion policies in post-communist Eastern Europe affected the incidence of abortion. This study was particularly interesting because after the demise of communism, some Eastern European countries liberalized their abortion laws, while others enacted restrictions on abortion. At any rate, the authors concluded that modest restrictions on abortion reduced abortion rates by around 25 percent. [emphasis mine]

Furthermore, a study that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 found that a Texas parental-involvement law led to statistically significant reductions in the number of abortions performed on minors (both in and out of state) and a slight, but statistically significant increase in the teen birthrate. Finally, my own Heritage Foundation research on state level pro-life legislation which utilizes data from both the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control provides evidence that informed consent laws, public-funding restrictions, and parental-involvement laws are all correlated with reductions in the incidence of abortion.

Interestingly, even some studies that have appeared in the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s own Family Planning Perspectives provide evidence that pro-life legislation at the state level reduces the incidence of abortion. [emphasis mine]

So what has he done? Clinton's real 4-1-1 toward "safe, legal, and rare" abortions reads like a locomotive ramrodding abortion down America's throat. Observe...

In 1993:
-President Clinton issues five executive orders on the same day to make abortion more available:
1. Reversed Title 10 regulations banning abortion referral by federal employees
2. Repealed the Mexico City Policy restricting federal funds to international organizations that oppose abortion laws
3. Reversed ban on funding for transplants utilizing fetal tissue
4. Mandated military hospitals to perform abortions
5. Overturned a ban on the RU-486 pill and ordered the FDA to review ways to license and manufacture it for US distribution
-The infamous Clinton 1993 Health Care Plan - provided financial coverage for elective abortion (and also nonvoluntary euthanasia)
-Clinton signs a bill authorizing government funding for tissue research on aborted fetuses
-Nominates Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the US Supreme Court (Ginsburg is a former ACLU attorney and a strong supporter of abortion rights)
-Volunteers to give $75 million to International Planned Parenthood (of course, it's not his money he's volunteering)
-Mandates Medicaid funds to be available to cover abortions when abortionists report pregnancies resulting from rape or incest

In 1996 and 1997:
Clinton vetoes the Partial Birth Abortion Ban twice, falsely citing exemptions for the lives of women whose pregnancies are life-threatening

But wait, there's more:
-Although the drug does not meet its own standards, the FDA approves of RU-486 anyway for availability to the public.
-Clinton urges passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, which, if passed, would have nullified every state regulation of abortion
-Clinton attempts to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in rare cases
-Clinton orders family planning clinics receiving federal funds to refer women for abortion
-Clinton reinstates funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which helps manage China's forced abortion policies
(info credit: Jill Stanek's blog)

Egads, do I need to go on? Clinton must have an earthmover sized hole in his head if he thinks that greenlighting abortion as he did would result in a decline. Instead, new reports, like this one from National Right to Life, show repeatedly that the increase in informed consent laws, parental notification laws, and the efforts of pro-life organizations to educate young women on fetal development and abortion risks have had significant influence on pregnant women carrying their babies to term versus obtaining abortions. And it is no secret that Bill and Hillary have opposed such legislation and measures to educate young women at every turn. Given the facts, it is utterly clear that abortion decline has been occuring despite the efforts to promote it by both Clinton politicians.

And what about his dig at pro-life students about not really being pro-life on account of not wanting to prosecute abortion-seeking mothers as accessories to murder? Frank Beckwith dealt with this at length on his blog, pointing out that he did not address the pro-life students' questions, but rather questioned their integrity for asking. What a surprise. Do note that I reserve the right for my logical brain not to accept that kind of smack. Although, Clinton did give away a bit of the store in his little outburst by admitting that women are indeed "mothers" to their unborn children.

Brush off aside, Beckwith feels that the hecklers shouldn't have heckled. I say they darn right should have heckled! You don't get that true Kodak color out of Bill Clinton otherwise. It's priceless. Bet you're dying to see it:


(Credit: YouTube user mikejmon333)