'Twas the Night Before Christmas - Reloaded

I received this via email this morning from Ms. Levander - it's quite appropriate. Never forget the reason for the Christmas season.
____________________


'Twas the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.

Why the Politically Correct Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.

It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a "Holiday".
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit,
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!

CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod ,
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.

But as Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penney's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.

Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-is-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton

At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace.

The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded.
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate "Winter Break" under your "Dream Tree"
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.

Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holiday,
Our Country was founded under the Christian way
To our "guests" I can say,
If You don't like it ,
You don't have to stay!!

What Were You Thinking?

Sunday’s Titans / Texans game could not have had a more poetic ending if I wrote it myself.

Un-freaking-believable.

Well, unless you’ve actually seen Vince Young lead come-from-behind wins before, as I and a multitude of Longhorn fans have. Like, say, at the Rose Bowl last January, where I was blessed to have witnessed in person one of the greatest college football games of all time. I can’t tell you how many people came up to me after the Rose Bowl and said “yeah, Vince is good and all, but I don’t think he will make it as an NFL quarterback.” Coach Royal has a saying about players with “it”. You can’t coach “it”, you can’t teach “it”, and I can’t tell you what “it” is, but if you understand “it”, you know “it” when you see “it”.

Vince has “it”.

I was listening to 610AM on the way to the Park & Ride on Monday, and Texans fans were in mourning. They know in their hearts that the team completely screwed up by not drafting Vince, and there’s not a thing they can do about it. Take a look at the national sports media scene – the Texans have become the laughing stock of professional sports. EVERYONE is piling on (ESPN, Jim Rome, FOX, The Houston Comical, Al Michaels on the Sunday Night NFL game – the list goes on and on.)

Vince is exactly what this franchise needed, and they blew it. Completely, totally blew it. Even the Texans’ radio team was gushing after the game – Andre Ware was going on and on about him and how VY gets better every time he sees him. This is from a former QB who terrorized the old Southwest Conference with the Run & Shoot and won a Heisman along the way.

I think it represents the low point of the franchise (which is saying a lot). I feel bad for Bob McNair, because I really think he’s trying to build a good team. Gary Kubiak gets some of the blame for this one, but mostly Charlie Casserly gets to own this disaster. Do you know that he was on CBS on 12/3 and had a list of the Top 10 young QBs in the game (with less than 40 starts), and Vince was not on the list.

I’m speechless that this man, who by all accounts was headed out the door based on his disastrous management of personnel during the first four years of the franchise, was allowed to convince the Texans “brain” trust that David Carr was their man and that Vince could not help the team. Utterly speechless. I won’t go so far as to call it a ‘franchise-killing’ mistake, but it’s a franchise-changing mistake, and this blunder has extended the rebuilding and misery for the Texans for years longer than it could (or should) have.

It’s like a slow-motion train wreck that will take 10-12 years to play out, but you know it’s coming and you can’t turn away from it. You know that you could have taken a different track and avoided the accident, but you chose poorly. It’s like that.

It’s still early, but I will go on record as saying that the Texans passing on Vince will rank up there as one of the biggest blunders in the history of professional sports – right up there with the Red Sox trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees and Portland passing over Michael Jordan to pick Sam Bowie. Can you imagine the Rockets without Hakeem Olajuwon? How about the Oilers without Earl Campbell? Neither can I, but we have the next best thing.

This is going to be painful for a while - Kubiak better hope that he can get Troy Smith (he has “it”, too) in the draft next year.

Today's Chronicle has a cartoon that says it all.

Moral Equivalency

As I’m sure you’ve heard, CNN recently decided that, in the spirit of journalistic integrity, the public interest was served by showing a video (made by Iraqi insurgents) that contains multiple sniper hits on civilians and US
military personnel in Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fudKBxQyTrk

Hat tip: LST

It’s no real surprise to see CNN doing their best to become Al-Jazeera West – the cultural legacy of Ted Turner lives on and probably will never die. To me, the most disturbing aspect is the matter-of-fact nature of the narration. There is no indignation, no suggestion by the tone of the reporter that there's anything wrong with this.

It contrasts sharply with the way that most reporters in the major media describe how allied forces conduct even the most basic of operations. I suppose in someone's twisted collection of morals and values, sniping at soldiers and civilians really is considered valorous. Especially compared to something truly reprehensible, like forcing someone to wear panties as a hat or make a naked human pyramid.

I write this not to condone what was done at Abu Ghraib, but to make a point about the incessant addiction of the left to draw moral equivalencies between things that are clearly on different planes of right and wrong.

Foreign Policy Don't's

In the spirit of an impending election and the recent (and apparently successful) test of a nuclear weapon by North Korea, spoof-meister David Zucker (producer of Scary Movie 4, Airplane!, Top Secret! and other classics) has developed the following clip highlighting the folly of Democratic foreign policy.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h3GPc_yMCE

It's actually the most productive activity that I think I've ever seen from Madeline Albright. Totally over the top, and unfortunately too irreverent for Republicans to actually use during the campaign season.

Hat-tip: LST and Drudge.

Turn the Page, Reggie

Yet another reason that I'm glad that the Texans didn't draft Reggie Bush. Apparently, he still hasn't accepted that his USC Trojans were not, in fact, the greatest college football team of all time (the unprecedented hype and unmitigated fawning by ESPN notwithstanding) and that, in fact, his team was beaten by a better Texas Longhorn team in the Rose Bowl on 1/4/06.

"Reggie Bush, speaking to Bob Costas for Costas Now at 8 p.m. Wednesday on HBO, says if the 2005 USC team played the 2005 Texas team, the Trojans would win nine out of 10 times " 'cause they (Texas) got that one (the Rose Bowl)." Guess he wasn't planning any laterals in the rematch."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/barron/4161137.html


Last time I checked, Reg, the National Championship isn't decided by a 'best of 10' series, meaning that the scenario that you speculate about occurs nowhere, at no time and under no circumstance. As long as we're throwing out baseless speculation, I say that Texas would have won 10 out of 10 times. So there!

Reggie sounds like an elderly woman that we stood next to on the shuttle bus coming back from the Rose Bowl to the parking area in Pasadena. She was clearly disappointed in the outcome and boldly stated that we wouldn't have beaten last year's USC team. My wonderful wife replied "Well, we weren't playing last year's team, now were we?" Ha!

There is such a thing as scoreboard. Move on with your life, Reggie. You were beaten by the better team.

That Wacky Mahmoud, Part II

My boy is now challenging President Bush to a debate on the propriety of US/British influence on international affairs in general and, presumably, the Arab world in particular.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060829/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_debate_1

I wonder if the Kerry/Edwards people put him up to this.

Then again, he could have watched the debates from the fall of 2004 and come to the conclusion that he could wipe up the floor with W in a debate. I think my son probably could as well. Which is disappointing, because he crushed Ann Richards in the 1994 Texas gubernatorial debate.

I might even pay $49.99 to see it on pay-per-view.

That Wacky Mahmoud

My boy (as JR refers to him) Mahmoud is at it again. Aptly described as 'giving the bird' to the world regarding Iran's nuclear program (it's just for electric power, you silly infidel), Ahmadinejad has called the world's bluff on stopping him from developing nuclear weapons.

Israel, after badly mishandling the Hezbollah / Lebanon situation, will probably be on their own (again). See today's article from the Jerusalem Post.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525933028&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In related news, Israel is working out contingencies to take on the enemy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060824/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_deterring_iran

I know that Mahmoud fancies himself as some sort of revolutionary-cum-messianic statesman, but my goodness - does he really think he can defeat the Israelis? I hope we don't have to find out.

It Is What It Is

The Episcopal Church is currently holding their denominational conference in Ohio and discussing, among other things, how to address the issue of homosexuality in their denomination and how they can manage to condone such an arrangement while maintaining their relationship to the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion (the world-wide ‘parent’ organization for their denomination) has steadfastly maintained Scriptural fidelity, rejected blessings of same-sex unions and ordination of homosexual clergy and has called for a moratorium on such activity in the Episcopal Church. What is shaping up is, unfortunately, increasing momentum for the liberal positions and a widening divide between the diversity/tolerance/inclusion crowd and conservatives who want to remain aligned with the Scripturally based standards maintained by the Anglican Communion.

I know I don't have to tell you this, but Paul clearly speaks "early and often" about the prohibition on sexual immorality throughout the New Testament (Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians come to mind immediately), which is traditionally - and up until about 30 years ago - considered without question to include homosexual activity and relationships.

What I find particularly interesting in the contemporary rationalizations for acceptance of such behavior is implicit rejection of the concept of “plain language.” It's a not-uncommon basis for rejection of cases in our court system when things reach the federal appellate or Supreme Court level. In short, the case is overturned because someone (a lower court, regulatory agency or other entity) has overreached by interpreting that a particular word or statement in law means more than what it means by reading the "plain language".

As an example, I've been working on a case dealing with changes to the US EPA's main air pollution permitting program – known as New Source Review – in which the Agency made significant changes to the rule by re-interpreting a provision of the Clean Air Act and using it to weaken certain provisions of the permit regulations. I won’t bore you with all of the gory details (let me know if you have trouble with insomnia and I will send you some of my position papers on the subject), but ultimately the Supreme Court overturned the rule change by saying that EPA incorrectly interpreted the meaning of the word "all" in the Clean Air Act to mean something akin to "all, except in these other situations". In other words, the Supremes ruled that Congress meant "all" when it wrote "all" into the statute, and no one has the right to reinterpret the meaning of “all” to mean something else.

This, I think, is what we see a lot of with respect to the homosexuality issue - advocates are reinterpreting the "plain language" of Scripture through a contemporary cultural filter to include activities that have not previously been accepted or entertained. Even when they make a meager attempt to justify their position on the basis of “well, Scripture doesn’t really mean that”, analysis of the underlying etymology of Scriptural text undermines their efforts. Study of the native Greek that was the original source text language of the New Testament reveals that, in fact, the interpretations that we’ve grown up with are consistent with the context of how the language was used at the time of the writing. In other words, it means what it says (that plain language thing again).

Below is a link to a highly detailed and footnoted hermeneutical analysis by a fellow named Guenther Haas from Redeemer College in Ontario, Canada. His conclusion, after drilling down to the native Greek linguistic structure, is that:

“the arguments in defense of homosexuality surveyed in this paper fail…because they do not make their case on their own grounds.”

Haas goes on to state that:

“An examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong.”

The full analysis can be located at the following URL: http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html


At the end of the day, I maintain that the simplest (and traditional) explanation for the intent of Scripture regarding homosexual behavior is the most accurate and bears the greatest degree of fidelity to the true intent of the teachings of Christ. We are called to love and minister to these people just as we are to any other child of God; however, we are under no obligation or expectation to acknowledge, esteem, rationalize or condone behavior that is inherently sinful and undermines a legitimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...

Another pending election, another half-hearted attempt at passing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman (I steadfastly refuse to call it a ‘ban on gay marriage’ since I consider the term “gay marriage” to be presumptive of the notion that there somehow is an existing and underlying legitimacy to marriage between people of the same sex.) It’s funny how after two years go by – and numerous states pass their own constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage – the vote tally from the US Senate is remarkably similar. In 2004, the measure “passed” 50-48; while this time around it “passed” 49-48. Unfortunately, the vote needed to have 60 ‘yeas’ to make it past a procedural hurdle and see the floor for a legitimate up or down vote. Obviously there still isn’t recognition of the will of the people, even by senators that represent states where marriage protection amendments have passed.

The timing is particularly specious – I frankly believe that President Bush and the Republican leadership are frantically searching for an issue to galvanize the conservative base as the mid-term primaries start to get rolling. They clearly have fallen into the proverbial wood chipper on the illegal immigration issue (at least where the White House and Senate are concerned), only to have compounded their misery through House Speaker Hastert’s (self)-righteous indignation regarding the FBI’s court-approved search of the office of Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson. I think they are deathly afraid of losing the Senate, and they are attempting to apply a political tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

But back to the issue of the day. As with most major political issues that contain a substantial moral component, I see a clear vein of hypocrisy from opponents of marriage protection. Specifically, some who oppose marriage protection will attempt to justify their position by claiming that amendment of the constitution is not necessary since states can handle it directly through laws or through state-level constitution amendments. This is an empty argument with no foundation in reality; in fact, to succeed, it requires a suspension of an understanding of how such issues are contested in our legal and judicial world.

The problem is that when activist federal judges get into the act, the will of the people be damned and the protection of ‘individual choice’ and allegiance to the secular humanist ethos of the left becomes paramount. Their agenda is more important than that of the collective will of a constituency of multiple millions of people, and at the end of the day “gay marriage” advocates know that they can circumvent the will of the people by getting their case heard by a judge with the “correct” perspective. To buy their argument, you have to be willing to believe that the proven history of leftist judicial activism won’t really play out on this issue – really, we mean it this time. Honest.

Never mind that this strategy can be (and has been) used in the exact opposite manner when we talk about another hot-button political issue with moral implications. That’s right, I’m talking about abortion. Cynically, the left claims that states should be allowed to decide whether “gay marriage” should be legal, but they refuse to budge on the concept that other states (and their citizens) should have the right to make a moral judgment and refuse to allow abortions. They claim Constitutional protection for the right to an abortion on-demand (as if Ben Franklin, et al, really considered that when they were crafting the foundation of our government and our basic rights), but they deny that marriage qualifies for similar protection.

Another problem (and glaring example of hypocrisy from the left) is that while an abortion is an isolated event, a marriage must somehow be recognized, denied or addressed wherever you go. Other than the emotional (and potentially physical) scarring associated with ending the life of an unborn child, the decision to have an abortion doesn’t follow you wherever you go – it has a defined endpoint. Not so with a “gay marriage”. If a gay couple decides to “wed” in Massachusetts, then move to Texas and ultimately decide to “divorce”, a substantial problem has been created with how to handle the dissolution. How do you divide the assets? What about healthcare benefits? How do you handle (heaven forbid) the situation with respect to children? (Don’t get me started on this last one – that’s for another day).

The left will claim hypocrisy from conservatives, saying that we support state’s rights in one case and federal control in others. In fact, our position is highly consistent and it has nothing to do with federalism vs. rights of the state – it is based on a foundation of beliefs and values that do not change and are not influenced by worldly cultural trends. We base our positions on concepts that are protective of life and of traditional families. We base our positions on the will of the people, not the “progressive” and morally ambiguous agenda of a handful of judges. We base our position on moral standards that have been established for several thousand years – standards which were passed down from the Creator of the Universe.

No Illegal Immigrant Left Behind

Well, it has become blatantly obvious that the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only, to borrow a phrase from Dan Patrick) in the U.S. Senate have completely abandoned any pretense of having a spine where illegal immigration is concerned. As you probably have heard by now, the Senate passed their version of immigration ‘reform’ yesterday by a vote of 62 – 36, a bill that I’ve heard referred (quite aptly, I might add) to as the “No Illegal Immigrant Left Behind Act”.

This sets up a major showdown with the House of Representatives in the next few weeks as the conference committee attempts to work out a compromise in this Mexican standoff (sorry, I couldn’t resist). I will acknowledge with appreciation that our two Texas Senators – Hutchison and Cornyn – both voted against this lottery ticket.

Some highlights and lowlights of the Senate bill (along with Levander’s smarmy commentary) include:

• 370 miles of fence to be constructed along the US/Mexico border (by my math, that’s about 19% of the border length – yeah, that should do the trick)
• Social Security benefits ‘earned’ while working here illegally to be paid back when the illegal returns to the home country (so the message here apparently is that if you really want your Social Security benefits, you should move to Mexico, take up citizenship and return to the US illegally to work. Beautiful.)
• Naming English as our official language (I’ll believe it when I see English-only election ballots and clerks speaking only English when I go to the DPS office to get my license renewed)
• An annual limit on total immigrants, including dependants, of 650,000 (if the verification mechanism is impotent, then why bother setting limits? This is what we did with the 1986 immigration ‘reform’ bill – we just didn’t bother to enforce the law)
• A requirement to ‘discuss’ border fencing with Mexico before construction begins (because we all know that it’s only right that we be inclusive, open and sensitive to the needs of a bordering nation that has habitually violated our territorial sovereignty and encouraged their citizens to do the same)
• “Proof” of residency (so that you can show that you’ve been here more than five years, and consequently go to the head of the amnesty line) may be satisfied by a sworn affidavit (yes, I am completely serious)
• Illegals will be able to pay in-state tuition when they send their kids to college (if you are an out-of-state US citizen, well – it sucks to be you. Pay up.)

The thing that really burns me is that Senate RINOs and the Bush White House are playing the line of “some bill is better than no bill.” I call bull on that. An election is coming up in November, and the conservatives that elected George W. Bush and delivered him both houses of Congress will not be happy about this. It’s clear to me that Bush has decided to mail in his second term, but I would think that since neither he nor Cheney will be running in 2008 certainly someone (anyone) in the Senate would try to stake out the conservative territory. This has become a bill supported by Democrats (big surprise – they are the party of taxpayer-funded handouts) and RINOs composed of liberal Republicans (Snowe, Chaffee, McCain, etc.) and nominal Republicans who have lost the courage to say no to a mediocre bill. There are way too many Republicans that have agreed to support amnesty, and I personally believe that convictions are more important than political triangulation and signing your name to crap for the sake of a 'moral victory'.

Ultimately the House will have to play the role of racist, heartless, insensitive SOBs and kill this piece of garbage. There is nothing objectionable about securing the border first and working out a guest worker / immigration reform program afterward. To the contrary, it’s the only rational, logical and sane thing to do, and I hope they have the courage to stand in and kill this program. Sack up, fellas.

Tom Tancredo is the man

Once again, I am reminded of how valuable - and rare - it is to have elected representatives with principles. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is one of those men, and he offers an insightful take on "Illegal Immigrant Skip Day" and the true impact that could be seen if the United States really had a day without illegal immigrants.

Read and enjoy. And shudder.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBlOTVlNDFkNTYwOTg4YWYxMThkZmE2MWZhMmVjMWM


Hat-tip: Lone Star Times