Hot Air

It appears that Allahpundit has once again banned me from Hot Air. 

I tried to post this:

The very notion that one would respond to an argument in a political thread by citing biblical verses is ludicrous, but some seem to think that all debate must be formulated within the confines of a book which is itself filled with internal contradictions and ambiguities.

Annar on May 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM

You don’t know much about how our politics and Constitution were based on concepts from Bible verses. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible.

Try reading
American Political Writing During the Founding Era, 1760-1805

And I was met with this:
You are not allowed to leave comments.

Once again, those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it.

This Is An Outrage

$10 million of our taxpayer money was sent to a Communist country so that a member of the Communist Party (who, by the way, claims that if you don’t want him to work on it, you are racist…sound familiar?) could create a Mao-like sculpture of “colossal scale and Social Realist style” to become the centerpiece of a memorial in our nation’s Capitol.

I’m glad this is being investigated. I want to know who is/are the Communist(s) in our government who intentionally gave this work to Communists instead of Americans. This is an outrage no matter how you look at it. Do you want a 28-foot high Mao sculpture just off the National Mall in Washington? And we paid $10 Million in taxpayer money to help make this happen?

Wake up, Neo.

P.S. Additional comments about this issue can be found here.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

The web site of SwiftVets and POWs for Truth is still up, and John Kerry still has neither answered their questions nor signed the one page form to release all of his military records. I’d love to see the voters of Massachusetts demand answers from Kerry and refuse to re-elect him to the Senate if he continues his stonewalling.

I believe Kerry should not even be allowed to be a Senator without receiving a two-thirds vote of each House of Congress. I quote part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Communist Threat is Real

Originally posted at HotAir.com on April 4, 2008 at 12:53 AM

The threat is real. The Marxists/Socialists/Communists didn’t give up when the Berlin wall came down. Far from it. They are patient and have infiltrated our college and university faculty, all branches of our government, and our defense industry. There really are people who want to bring our country to it’s knees.

Here’s one:

Chinese Spy ‘Slept’ In U.S. for 2 Decades

Here’s another:

But my journey is part of a larger journey - one shared by all who’ve ever sought to apply the values of their faith to our society. It’s a journey that takes us back to our nation’s founding, when none other than a UCC church inspired the Boston Tea Party [a revolution] and helped bring an Empire to its knees.

A Politics of Conscience
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
Hartford, CT | June 23, 2007

The Communists in the USA have a game plan and a new constitution that they would like to use to replace our Constitution which has been in place for over 210 years.

Hillary’s 2008 Presidential Game Plan

Originally posted at HotAir.com on March 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM

I don’t get it…What am I missing here?
posted at 10:03 am on March 14, 2008 by Allahpundit

Take a step back and look and look at the bigger picture.

Then take another few steps back and look at the much bigger picture.

The answer lies in understanding Hillary Clinton.

Hillary has had a lust for power her entire life. Witness:
- her Wellesley thesis,
- her passionate involvement in the Nixon impeachment process
- her high-powered law career,
- her sitting on the board of directors of powerful companies, and
- her drive for “Supreme Executive Power”

She first sought “Supreme Executive Power” through the use of her husband. Remember how one of the first things she did as First Lady was try to drive health care reform?

When “we the people” rose up and refused to allow her to wield “Supreme Executive Power” as First Lady, she was forced to step back, but she probably still tried to run the show behind the scenes. At worst, Bill was a puppet President with Hillary pulling the strings. At best, Hillary still had significant influence behind closed doors. That’s probably been the arrangement of their marriage: he gets to sleep with whoever he wants; she gets the power. It’s no surprise that she’s running on her “experience” – she thinks she already ran the Presidency for 8 years. It’s no surprise that she says she can “hit the ground running day 1”. She wants to be only the second president to serve four terms in office.

She probably began strategizing and game planning for her rightful ownership of “Supreme Executive Power” shortly after her (whoops! I mean Bill’s!) 1996 re-election. She’s been strategizing for well over a decade.

What do you think was the most embarrassing and humiliating time of Hillary’s entire life?

I’d say it was the public disclosure of the lurid details of Bill’s “inappropriate” relationship with Monica and his subsequent impeachment trial. It wasn’t the infidelity that bothered Hillary (she’d been accepting that for years), it was that Bill got caught and this time (thanks only to the DNA evidence on a blue dress) they couldn’t just use character assassination to make it go away.

It is supremely ironic how the impeachment Hillary fought for (Richard Nixon’s) was never an “official” impeachment (because Nixon resigned before he was tried by the Senate), while the impeachment she fought against (Bill Clinton’s) was official, even though he was acquitted by the Senate. The impeachment wasn’t about the sex, it was about the high crimes committed during the cover-up: perjury and obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton, while acquitted by the Senate, was disbarred. He was guilty of those high crimes…no matter what your definition of “is” is.

Hillary stood by her man and fought for his senate acquittal for the same reason she always put up with his years of infidelity…the same reason she did her best to destroy the lives of those who made his infidelity public…the reason?…her own lust for power.

Bill’s downfall would have been her downfall. Bill’s removal from office would have been her removal from office. Bill was a sexual predator elected to the highest position of power in this country. But Hillary was OK with that because of the power it brought to her.

Again, she is notorious for destroying the lives of women who told the truth about Bill’s sexual conquests (at least one of those being a rape). Now she is ready to destroy the life of a man in who would stand in the way to her coronation as President and “Supreme Executive Power”.

Most of you think I’m talking about Obama, but it’s bigger than that… Read on…

Step back to 1996 and the beginnings of the Hillary Clinton for President game plan. She knew that she couldn’t win in 2000…She had too little “official” experience, and Al Gore was the presumptive Democrat nominee. So, Hillary ran for Senator to have a position from which to run for President later. Hillary and Bill did very little to help Gore in 2000, and probably actually wanted him to lose, to pave the way for a 2004 run by Hillary. This was duly noted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

What Hillary didn’t expect was 9/11/2001 and how that would impact the 2004 race. Everyone knows this country doesn’t voluntary change its Commander-in-Chief during wartime. In late 2003, with the country still at war, Hillary was smart enough not to run against the incumbent president. She helped John Kerry go up against Bush, and she started focusing on her 2008 run. In 2004, Bush got a greater percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat has gotten since 1964 (LBJ). If you discount 1964 (because the country wanted stability in the wake of the JFK assassination), you have to go all the way back to FDR to find a Democrat who got a greater percentage of the popular vote than George W. Bush got in 2004.

Back to Hillary…the “smartest woman in the world” formulated a very detailed game plan for the 2008 election.

As part of her 2008 game plan, Hillary needed to select a VP. Someone without too much experience (so they couldn’t compete against her) but who could, by way of identity politics, help her win the general election. She chose Barack Obama. More about that later.

Her game plan included both offense and defense. Think about who the Democrats consider their biggest enemies, and don’t limit yourself to just thinking about individual people… also think about groups of people and media organizations. Remember that the Clintons know the best defense is a good offense. They learned a long time ago that your opponent has a difficult time responding when your fist is in their face. They went into attack mode very early. Case in point: the “hit piece” interview with Bill Clinton on Fox. Go back to the Hot Air “Vent” archives from September 2006 and lookup “Slick Willie’s Day of Rage”. That interview was not a “Fox hit-piece” on Clinton, it was a “Clinton hit-piece” on Fox.

Hillary’s ego did not allow her to even consider a challenge for the Democrat nomination. She was, after all, “the inevitable candidate”. In her mind, she had been the de facto President for 8 years, so who would have the gall to run against her?

She didn’t think her challenge would be winning the Democrat nomination, she thought it would be winning the general election. She needed to find a Republican candidate that she knew she could beat, and ensure that that candidate got the Republican nomination.

Hillary picked John McCain as “THE CHOSEN ONE”. Now, before you LOL, hear me out…

McCain, the “maverick”, would be liked enough by Democrats that they could actually consider voting for him in a Republican primary if they were given a strong reason not to vote in the Democrat primary.

McCain, the “maverick”, was disliked by groups that are Hillary’s “enemies”: pro-lifers, strict constructionists, evangelicals, those against amnesty, etc.

A win for McCain would be a win for Hillary and a defeat for Hillary’s enemies. She would have the last laugh on the people she believes engaged in “the politics of personal destruction” to impeach her husband. And oh, by the way, McCain is one of those who voted “Guilty” on the Bill Clinton impeachment. Crushing John McCain in the process of winning the presidency would be cathartic for Hillary.

McCain would need some help to win the Republican nomination, and helping him was part of Hillary’s game plan. The Clintons still yield significant power within the DNC and the MSM. To ensure McCain got the Republican nomination, she needed him to get a big delegate lead early, and then use the MSM to incessantly repeat the mantra “McCain is the presumptive nominee”. That part of her strategy worked to a “t”.

She honestly thought that she wouldn’t need the delegates from FL and MI in order to secure the nomination, so they became part of her plan. I don’t know why MI was chosen, but I do know why FL was chosen. Moonbats are still angry about FL 2000, and still believe that Bush “stole” the election and was “selected, not elected”. Human nature is such that if a person truly believes that someone else “stole” something from them, it’s morally justifiable to “steal” it back. I don’t endorse that thought-process, but it is human nature. In the eyes of Hillary and her “inner circle”, stealing the 2008 election by using Florida was brilliant and morally justifiable.

They moved the FL and MI primaries up, said the Democrat primary wouldn’t count, and got a significant number of Democrats to vote in the Republican primary (exit polls showed that fully 20% of the voters in the FL Republican primary weren’t Republicans). McCain won the primary, and most of McCain’s competitors dropped out shortly thereafter. The MSM media did their job well. The MSM told Florida voters that one of McCain’s top competitors had “left the state” on the weekend before the primary (implying an acknowledgement of defeat), when that was not the truth – the candidate was still campaigning in Florida but the press refused to cover it and lied saying he had left Florida. The “McCain is the presumptive nominee” mantra was repeated ad nauseam. Other candidates were told that it was “mathematically impossible” to win when that was not the truth…neither Romney nor Huckabee had to get to 1191, they just had to prevent McCain from reaching 1191 and it would go to a brokered convention. A debate originally scheduled for February 28th was cancelled because McCain didn’t want to face an opponent 1-on-1 before the March 4th primaries. Voter suppression at its finest (or most despicable). Hillary succeeded in helping John McCain win the Republican nomination.

What Hillary didn’t count on was her protégé challenging her for the nomination. Her intense anger towards Obama stems from the fact that she “made” him – she helped propel him to his senate seat by giving him a speaking slot at the 2004 convention. I watched both 2004 conventions on TV and I distinctly remember the commentators all reading their talking points about how Barack was the “rising star” in the Democrat party. The game plan was for him to win the senate seat in 2004 and then be Hillary’s VP in 2008. The game plan was perfect: First woman President, first black Vice-President. What could go wrong?

What went wrong is that George Soros and some other big players decided they liked Obama better than Hillary. Maybe it’s because of Hillary’s stand on the war. Hillary, ever with an eye on running for President, had no choice but to support the current Commander-in-Chief for the first year or two after 9/11/2001. Barack has the luxury of not having been Senator until 2004, so he never had to vote in favor of the use of military force. Hillary’s biggest opposition in the Democrat party has come from the anti-war far-left.

But whatever the reason, some “big dogs” decided that they wanted Obama, not Hillary, as President. Obama, in his own lust for power, was only too happy to accept the offer.

It’s been a cat fight ever since. Early on, Hillary rounded up certain “black leaders” (which is really a stupid expression…who are the “white leaders”? Why do Democrats think dark-skinned people need similarly dark-skinned “leaders” to lead them?) She got them to say things like, “I want Barack to be President…in 2016”. So, “black” people were told that they could support Barack, but only after he went to the back of the bus and let “Miss Hillary” sit up front for eight years.

There is a great civil war going on in the Democrat party – people are being forced to choose sides, and many of the superdelgates caught in the middle feel like they are on a stretching rack, being pulled in two directions.

Obama was being groomed to be Hillary’s protégé. Now he wants to “steal” the Presidency from her. She is furious at him. Her “offer” of the VP to him is nothing new, and is laughable to general public because she is making that offer publicly when she is in second place! It’s possible that her making the offer publicly may be her way of saying to Barack, “This is your last warning. Get behind me as my VP or else.” It’s sad to say, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Hillary is preparing to move from mere character assassination to Vince Foster action. If that happens, expect her to blame it on a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that couldn’t stand the idea of a “black” president and ended the life of the Democrat front-runner.

Hillary will do whatever has to be done for her to win the Democrat nomination. The end justifies the means. For now, it means doing whatever it takes to seat delegates from FL and MI in her favor. She’d like to just seat them as-is, but there is no way that will happen because Hillary cheated in both of those primaries. In MI she was the only Dem candidate who didn’t remove their name from the ballot. In FL she campaigned in the state, even after promising not to. Democrats as a whole would not support seating the delegates as-is.

So she goes for plan B (do-overs in FL & MI) because she needs those delegates in order to have a shot at winning the nomination. She is trying to setup rules that allow her to cheat once again and manipulate the outcome in her favor. Obama supports the do-overs because 1) he doesn’t want to be a party to “suppressing the vote” in those states and 2) he thinks that he can win them, and have “moral” victories by winning states Hillary previously claimed she had won.

The problem with any do-over plan is that it allows anyone who voted in the Republican primary, and subsequently changed party affiliation to Democrat, to now vote a second time in the Democrat do-over. I’ve raised that issue before. A large number of Democrats crossed over and voted in the Republican primary and could now vote a second time in a Democrat-only do-over. Republicans who change their party affiliation now to Democrat could vote a second time in a Democrat-only do-over.

Voting twice is illegal.

The only way to ensure that people don’t get a second vote is to wipe the slate clean on both sides and hold do-over elections for both parties. While any do-over is not fair (the FL & MI results impacted the race in ways that can’t just be “undone” by a “do-over”), a Democrat-only do-over would be a travesty to our electoral process and a travesty to the rule of law. I’m no attorney, but wasn’t the 2000 election Supreme Court decision based on “equal access”? How can it be equal if some voters get to vote twice (in both Republican and Democrat primaries) and have twice the impact on the 2008 Presidential election?

Don’t interpret this as an ulterior motive, but I must point out the truth that if anyone other than McCain won a do-over in Florida, that could re-open the Republican race and force a brokered convention.

You can interpret the following as an ulterior motive if you so desire, but I believe that if McCain remains the nominee, Hillary’s game plan is ready to defeat him in November…

The Clintons used the power of the IRS to audit their enemies. They used the power of the FBI to get files on their enemies. They could dig up dirt on anyone they wanted to. All of us have skeletons in the closet. All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No one wants their sins broadcast to the world. Remember how bitter Hillary is about Bill’s impeachment. Remember how McCain voted “Guilty” on that impeachment.

I believe Hillary has dirt on McCain.

What kind of dirt? I believe she has some irrefutable evidence of an affair between John McCain and Vicki Iseman.

Take note of the following:
Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman”, but then later was forced (by the blue dress DNA evidence) to admit that, “I did have a relationship that was inappropriate”.

McCain said that he and Vicki Iseman did not have a “romantic” relationship. I’m sure that if asked the same question, without any other convicting evidence, Eliot Spitzer would have responded that he and “Kristen” did not have a “romantic” relationship.

No one ever asked McCain if his relationship was “inappropriate”, only if it was “romantic”. McCain is parsing words as well as Bill Clinton ever did. If we don’t ask him now if his relationship with Vicki was “inappropriate”, the Democrats will use it to their advantage in October. If Hillary is successful in getting the Democrat nomination, count on this being her “October surprise” for McCain. At least some of McCain’s flights on Paxson’s plane were alone with Vicki, with no one else on board except the pilots. But move along, there’s nothing to see here…

It would be the sweetest of revenge for Hillary Clinton. Win the Presidency and take down a man who once voted against her and her husband in the impeachment trial.

Pulling Back The Curtain To Reveal…

2008 appears to be the year of pulling back the curtain to reveal the truth about the great and mighty Oz…

It’s happening to the Democrat party.

It’s happening to the Darwinists.

It’s happening to Planned Parenthood.

It’s happening to the Anthropogenic Global Warming fanatics.

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32

Pro-Bible, Pro-Science

I am Pro-Bible and Pro-Science.

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

Proverbs 25:2 (New International Version)

The Bible is not anti-science.
To the contrary, the God of the Bible tells us that scientific inquiry is a royal pursuit.

What is sad is that the people in charge of today’s scientific community are spreading lies and ruining the careers of those who dare to speak the truth.

Top Five LIES Being Spread By Today’s Scientific Community:

5) Intelligent Design (ID) is just a deceptive name for Creationism.
[It’s not; all Creationists support ID, but not all supporters of ID are Creationists]

4) Creationism is not scientific.
[It is - Mitochondrial Eve is just one example]

3) Anthropogenic Global Warming is scientific.
[It’s not - it’s taken by faith]

2) Darwinian Evolution from no life to all current species is scientific.
[It’s not - it’s taken by faith]

1) Belief in God is delusional.
[Richard Dawkins wrote The God Delusion and brags on his website about “deconversions”, but there is more scientific evidence to support the Bible than there is to support his beliefs.]

First Chief Justice John Jay

How much do you know about the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America?

I have received permission from the publisher to reproduce the following text from pages 182-187 of the book Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States:

John Jay

As a Christian legislator, statesman, and judge, exerted a large and active influence in the Revolution, and in founding and administering the civil government of the United States. In private and public life he was an eminent Christian. His recognition of God and belief in the Christian religion were striking elements of his character.

“Whoever,” said he, “compares our present with our former constitution will find abundant reasons to rejoice in the exchange, and readily admit that all the calamities incident to this war will be amply compensated by the many blessings flowing from this revolution.

“We should always remember that the many remarkable and unexpected means and events by which our wants have been supplied and our enemies repelled or restrained are such strong and striking proofs of the interposition of Heaven, that our having been hitherto delivered from the threatened bondage of Britain ought to be forever ascribed to its true cause (the favor of God), and, instead of swelling our breasts with arrogant ideas of our prowess and importance, kindle in them a flame of gratitude and piety which may consume all remains of vice and irreligion.”

During a most gloomy period of the Revolution, when New York was in the hands of the British, and Washington was retreating through New Jersey, with an almost naked army, and the country desponding, Jay animated his countrymen with such stirring words as the following—

“Under the auspices of divine Providence your forefathers removed to the wilds and wilderness of America. By their industry they made it a fruitful, and by their virtues a happy, country; and we should still have enjoyed the blessings of peace and plenty, if we had not forgotten the source from which these blessings flowed, and permitted our country to be contaminated by the many shameful vices which have prevailed among us. It is a well-known fact that no virtuous people were ever oppressed, and it is also true that a scourge was never wanting to those of an opposite character. Even the Jews, those favorites of Heaven, met with the frowns whenever they forgot the smiles of their benevolent Creator. They for their wickedness were permitted to be scourged; and we for our wickedness are scourged by tyrants as cruel and implacable as theirs. If we turn from our sins, God will turn from his anger. Then will our arms be crowned with success, and the pride and power of our enemies, like the pride and arrogance of Nebuchadnezzar, will vanish away.

“Let a general reformation of manners take place; let universal charity, public spirit, and private virtue be inculcated, encouraged, and practised. Unite in preparing for a vigorous defence of your country as if all depended on you. And when you have done all these things, then rely on the good providence of Almighty God for success, in full confidence that without his blessing all our efforts will inevitably fail.

“Rouse, then, brave citizens! Do your duty like men, and be persuaded that Divine Providence will not let this Western World be involved in the horrors of slavery. Consider that from the earliest ages of the world religious liberty and reason have been bending their course towards the setting sun. The holy gospels are yet to be preached to these western regions; and we have the highest reason to believe that the Almighty will not suffer slavery and the gospel to go hand in hand. It cannot, it will not be.”

In September, 1777, Jay, as Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, delivered a charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster county, on the political condition of the country. It was given at a time when the Assembly and Senate were convening, and the whole system of government, established by the Constitution of New York, about being put in motion. The grand inquest was composed of the most respectable characters in the county. In that charge are found the following Christian passages—

“Gentlemen—It affords me very sensible pleasure to congratulate you on the dawn of that free, mild, and equal government which now begins to rise and break from amidst those clouds of anarchy, confusion, and licentiousness which the arbitrary and violent domination of the King of Great Britain had spread throughout this and the other American States. This is one of those signal instances in which Divine Providence has made the tyranny of princes instrumental in breaking the chains of their subjects, and rendering the most inhuman designs productive of the best consequences to those against whom they were intended—a revolution which, in the whole course of its rise and progress, is distinguished by so many marks of the divine favor and interposition that no doubt can remain of its being finally accomplished. It was begun, and has been supported, in a manner so singular and, I may say, miraculous, that when future ages shall read its history they will be tempted to consider great part of it as fabulous. Will it not appear extraordinary that thirteen colonies, divided by a variety of governments and manners, should immediately become one people, and, though without funds, without magazines, without disciplined troops, in the face of their enemies, unanimously determine to be free, and, undaunted by the power of Great Britain, refer their cause to the justice of the Almighty, and resolve to repel force by force—thereby presenting to the world an illustrious example of magnanimity and virtue scarcely to be paralleled? However incredible these things may in future appear, we know them to be true, and we should always remember that the many remarkable and unexpected means and events by which our wants have been supplied and our enemies repelled or restrained are such strong and striking proofs of the interposition of Heaven, that our having been hitherto delivered from the threatened bondage of Britain ought, like the emancipation of the Jews from Egyptian servitude, to be forever ascribed to its true Cause, and, instead of swelling our breasts with arrogant ideas of our own prowess and importance, kindle in them a flame of gratitude and piety which may consume all remains of vice and irreligion.

“The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live. While you possess wisdom to discern and virtue to appoint men of worth and abilities to fill the offices of the state, you will be happy at home and respected abroad. Your life, your liberties, your property, will be at the disposal only of your Creator and yourselves.

“Security under our Constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left. Every man is permitted to consider, to adore, and to worship his Creator in the manner most agreeable to his conscience. No opinions are dictated, no rules of faith are prescribed, no preference given to one sect to the prejudice of others. The Constitution, however, has wisely declared that the ‘liberty of conscience, thereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state.’ In a word, the convention by whom that Constitution was formed were of opinion that the gospel of Christ, like the ark of God, would not fall, though unsupported by the arm of flesh; and happy would it be for mankind if that opinion prevailed more generally.

“But let it be remembered that whatever marks of wisdom, experience, and patriotism there may be in the Constitution, yet, like the beautiful symmetry, the just proportions, and elegant forms of our first parents before their Maker breathed into them the breath of life, it is yet to be animated, and, till then, may indeed excite admiration, but will be of no use. From the people it must receive its spirit, and by them be quickened. Let virtue, honor, the love of liberty and science, be and remain the soul of the Constitution, and it will become the source of great and extreme happiness to this and future generations. Vice, ignorance, and want of vigilance will be the only enemies that can destroy it. Against these provide, and of these be forever jealous. Every citizen ought diligently to read and study the Constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free.”

“Providence,” said he, “has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Mr. Jay, from 1822 till his death in 1827, was President of the Bible Society, and at each annual meeting delivered an address. He demonstrated the divinity of the Bible, showed its relations and results to civil government and human society, and urged its universal circulation as the means to illumine and regenerate the world. He was an active and devout member of the Episcopal Church, but eminently liberal and charitable in his Christian views. His life was a beautiful exhibition of Christian faith, and his public career a noble illustration of the value of Christianity in forming the character and acts of a Christian statesman. Webster said of this eminent Christian jurist, that “when the ermine fell on him it touched nothing less pure than itself.”

He was eminently a man of prayer, and drew up a form, full of spirituality and of Christian truths, as an extract will show—

“Enable me, merciful Father, to understand thy holy gospels, and to distinguish the doctrines thereof from erroneous expositions of them; and bless me with that fear of offending thee, which is the beginning of wisdom. Let thy Holy Spirit purify and unite me to my Saviour forever; and enable me to cleave unto him as unto my very life, as indeed he is. Perfect and confirm my faith, my trust, my hope of salvation in him, and in him only.

“Give me grace to love and obey, and be thankful unto thee, with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, and with all my strength, and to worship and to serve thee in humility of spirit, and in truth. Give me grace also to love my neighbor as myself, and wisely and diligently to do the duties incumbent on me according to thy holy will, and not from worldly consideration. Condescend, merciful Father, to grant, as far as proper, these imperfect petitions, these inadequate thanksgivings, and to pardon whatever of sin hath mingled in them, for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Saviour, unto whom, with thee and the blessed Spirit, even one God, be rendered all honor and glory, now and forever.”

In his dying hour, he was asked if he had any farewell counsels to leave his children. His reply was, “THEY HAVE THE BOOK.”

Electoral Compass: Who Is The Most Conservative?

I found my way to a very interesting site called Electoral Compass USA.

It asks you some very direct questions, by way of making statements and asking whether you completely agree, somewhat agree, neutral, somewhat disagree, completely disagree. Then, it shows you where you fall on a grid compared to the 2008 U.S. Presidential candidates. Here’s the picture of where I fall relative to the candidates (the pencil points where I fall, the circle shows which candidates fall within a certain range of my viewpoints):

[Click the picture to enlarge it]

The only statement/question that I thought was off-base was:

Creationism should be taught in science classes in school

I think this is off-base because it focuses on the wrong thing. It asks whether one faith-based belief (Creationism) should be taught in science classes without asking whether another faith-based belief (Darwinian Evolution) should be taught in science classes.

In my opinion, a standard should be set and then that standard applied consistently. Either allow all faith-based beliefs to be taught in science classes in school, or allow none. Don’t ask, “Is Creationism science?” without also asking, “Is Darwinian Evolution science?” Both are accepted by faith, as clearly shown in the debate over the new movie Expelled, which has set a new record for comments over at HotAir.com, with 178 unique commenters leaving over 2300 comments. Either allow faith in science classes in school, or keep faith out of science. Natural Selection is scientifically proven, and results in a loss of genetic information in a species. Darwinian Evolution is taken by faith, and would require an increase in genetic information in a species (going against the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Back to Electoral Compass…while Fred Thompson was my first choice early in the election cycle, I now think that showing Fred Thompson as more socially conservative than Mike Huckabee is wrong in at least one area: The Human Life Amendment. Mike Huckabee agrees with our Founding Fathers that it is clearly obvious (self-evident) that life is a God-given (Creator-endowed) unalienable right:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Fred Thompson does not support the Human Life Amendment because he thinks it is a states’ rights issue. That means that he does not believe it is a God-given unalienable right, and he is less socially conservative than Mike Huckabee. You don’t make a states’ rights issue out of an unalienable right.

And as for John McCain, there is no way that he should be placed anywhere near Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. John McCain should be placed next to Hillary Clinton. They are two peas in a pod, and McCain’s is no Conservative, as evidenced by:
1) His leadership of the Gang of Fourteen (to block judges/justices that were “too conservative”)
2) McCain-Feingold (which unconstitutionally limits free speech)
3) McCain-Kennedy (which would have provided Amnesty for those who have broken our immigration laws)

Here are my comparisons of McCain vs. Huckabee on several issues:

Judges:
McCain was the father of the Gang of Fourteen that was intended to block nominees who were deemed “too conservative”. McCain called Alito “too conservative”.

Huckabee committed in writing that he would appoint nominees who had proven track records similar to Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

Taxes:
McCain does not support the Fair Tax.
Huckabee supports the Fair Tax.

Life:
McCain does not support the Human life Amendment.
Huckabee supports the Human life Amendment.

Immigration:
McCain co-sponsored McCain-Kennedy!
Huckabee committed in writing to secure both borders with fences by July 2010.

Free speech liberties:
McCain co-sponsored McCain-Feingold!
Huckabee fully supports 1st Amendment rights.

Second Amendment rights
McCain’s position is….
Huckabee fully supports 2nd Amendment rights.

Faith:
McCain called certain Christians “Agents of Intolerance”.
Huckabee is tolerant of people of all religions.

Intelligent Design:
McCain has yet to take a stand (that I know of). He should be asked if he supports open and honest debate in science, or if he is an “Agent of Intolerance” who believes that any dissent from Darwinian Evolution should be Expelled.
Huckabee supports open and honest debate in science.

Gore-bull Warming:
McCain is in the Al Gore camp.
Huckabee believes that we should be good stewards of the Earth that God has given us. Based on the following, he is not in the Al Gore camp:

“A conservative Republican and devout Christian, Huckabee believes he has a biblical responsibility to protect God’s planet from climate change, even though he’s not convinced that climate change is largely human-caused.” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/19/huckabee/

“don’t try to get into the middle of the science of global warming. … There may be [a human role in climate change]. But whether there is or there isn’t, it doesn’t release us from the responsibility to be good stewards of the environment. It’s the old boy scout rule: you leave your campsite in as good or better shape than how you found it. It’s a spiritual issue. [The earth] belongs to God. I have no right to destroy it. I think we work toward alternative energy sources. [We need to make it] like the Manhattan Project or going to the moon. We need to accelerate our energy independence. — Newsweek, March 7, 2007″ http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html

In an October 30, 2007 letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal, at page A17, Huckabee clarified his position:

I believe that we must be good stewards of our environment and support many paths to reducing our emission of greenhouse gases, such as more nuclear power and alternative sources of clean energy. As part of our overall effort, I also support a cap and trade system, which has worked well for reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions. However, I do not agree with those who want all allowances to be auctioned off because I believe that will create too great a burden on businesses. The alternative to cap and trade is a carbon tax, which I don’t support.

http://www.carbontax.org/progress/us-presidential-contenders/

Code Words, Just Code Words?

William Ayers = terrorist bomber 

First, read Why the Obama-Ayers connection matters.

Then, consider these observations:

1) Obama has shown on many occasions that he can do a great job of delivering a speech that someone else has written, but when he’s put on the spot in person (whether that be while eating a waffle, during an interview, or during a debate), he has shown that he can’t think very well on his feet.

2) The speeches prepared for Obama seem peppered with terrorist code words. Follow these links to Obama speeches and if you search the text you will find the word shown:

bomber

hijacked

I don’t have the time or the desire to go looking through all of Obama’s speeches, but please post a comment if you find more examples.