The 4 Conservative Guys Blog

The Great Global Warming Farce

2007-08-07T12:59:00.000-05:00

That’s it – I can’t take this crap any longer.

As someone who has followed this issue in a professional capacity for nearly 15 years, I am compelled to weigh in. I have read (and actually own) both Earth in the Balance and An Inconvenient Truth, and I have read numerous scientific studies regarding climate change and the relative influences imparted by both mankind and natural factors.

After careful consideration, I have come to understanding that Albert Gore is one of two things: 1) a well-meaning and earnest, but scientifically (and critically) inept man who has been duped into believing the charade of manmade climate change; or 2) a complete fraud who knowingly and blatantly distorts scientific findings to support a preconceived (and scientifically unsupportable) conclusion for the purpose of achieving radical social change.

If you’d like to read evidence on this, take a look at “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” by Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. You’ll have to read past some of the snarky commentary (which becomes a bit tiresome), but if a rhetorical vivisection of AIT and the contrivances used to support the premise of manmade climate change is what you seek, ye shall find it here - replete with copious documentation.

That is all.

Decatur, AL Chamber of Commerce PSA

2007-02-01T10:37:00.000-06:00

Relative to my planned trip to Decatur, Alabama next week, JR asked me yesterday whether there was a band of some relevance that Decatur produced. After confirming that R.E.M. was in fact from Athens, Georgia, I wanted to update the discussion.

As best I can tell, no musical group / band of consequence hails from Decatur. However, I thought you might be interested to know that Decatur did produce Mae Jemison (the first black woman in space), famed Disney actor Dean Jones, and San Diego Chargers QB Philip Rivers. Wikipedia is the bomb.

On the topic of bands that come from towns where my company has power plants, I did confirm that Local H is from Zion, Illinois.

Reprise

2007-01-31T11:47:00.000-06:00

What we feared the most about Iraq is beginning to become reality, in my view. It is becoming Vietnam for this generation. Despite the best efforts of anyone with the slightest appreciation of why fighting this war the right way and winning it was so critical, it has become what it’s detractors claimed it would be.

Let’s review the players:

Southeast Asia / Indochina – The Middle East
USA – USA
Communist Expansion – Islamo-terrorism
South Vietnam – Iraq
North Vietnam – Iran
Viet Cong – Mahdi Army
Punji Stakes - IEDs
The Ho Chi Minh Trail – The Iranian and Syrian Borders

And, reprising her role from 40 years ago, it’s Jane Fonda, playing the role of anti-war gadfly. Jane joined in with the usual leftist Hollywood crowd (Sarandon, Penn, et al.) to attend and speak at an anti-war rally in Washington D.C. last Saturday. In keeping with the 60’s motif, the rally was complete with anarchist ‘pacifist’ college students who apparently consider spitting on wounded servicemen and defacing government property and landmarks to be an appropriate and considered form of protest and dissent about the direction of our nation's foriegn policy.

I’m waiting for Ms. Fonda to show up for a photo-op at one of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fancy new uranium enrichment facilities.

We have the grumpy and dissatisfied populace. We have a Congress that has turned on the war - even within the President's own party. Speaking of, we also have a President running the show who, for reasons inexplicable:

- waited for his party to be humiliated in the mid-term elections last November, largely because of his reluctance to act decisively in the management of the war, before deciding to shake things up and really get serious;
- cannot elucidate his vision for this war or its larger implications beyond the next few months aside from the same tired sound bites;
- waited until a completely unfriendly Congress was sworn in before deciding to replace military and civilian leadership, in an effort to get more results;
- waited for 3 ½ years and until after said de-pantsing at the voting booth before bothering to acknowledge that this proxy war is largely being equipped and supported by at least one (if not two) belligerent antagonist neighbor state; and
- continues to try and stay in the middle ground of this issue, neither admitting the unmitigated disaster that this has become and cutting losses nor acknowledging the mess and resolving to commit all (and I mean ALL) necessary resources to win.

Except that this time, it’s worse. In Vietnam, we didn’t really have to worry about the export of communism to our own soil. It was a proxy war with the Soviet Union and China, and we were able to fight it at arm’s length, choosing to sacrifice 58,000 or so of our own as a wager against the Red Menace - a way of taking out our frustrations, I suppose, without having to go "all in" and fire up the nukes.

This time, unfortunately, the stakes are much higher. Because Americans have short memories, delicate sensibilities, an aversion to reality and a fetish with unbridled idealism, we’ve already forgotten about 9-11. We (or some of us) have already given into the idea that perhaps there’s a way to negotiate with the enemy. (Maybe Paris can host again, just for old time's sake.)

It might be different if we made the commitment to seal off our borders and walk away from Iraq – I’d actually be in support of that approach if we actually had the stones to follow through. Yet we don’t have the stones. We won’t follow through on anything, even the security of our own nation and the safety or our children.

One of our pastors made an interesting, insightful and unnerving observation a few weeks ago – he said that if you want to see what America will look like in 10-15 years, look at Europe.

Our future.

This scares the hell out of me. And I don't think we have the courage to do a damned thing about it.

Sieve

2007-01-30T14:40:00.000-06:00

Yet another example (as if you needed more) of why we need to take border security seriously. I won't say 'more' seriously because to use the modifier 'more' would imply that we have established some basic foundation of 'seriousness' in how we treat border security.

Mr. President, I believe it's safe to say that in this context, family values do, in fact, stop at the Rio Grande. That is, unless you consider organized crime, drug trafficking, murder, torture, extorsion, kidnapping, etc. to be emblematic of what our nation stands for.

Where He At?

2007-01-30T11:15:00.000-06:00

The other day, I received one of those quasi-spam emails from someone. You know, the ones that include links to nice, feel-good stories about our humanity and asks you to pass it along to 10 other people. For some reason, I decided to click the link – Ms. Levander got the same email from someone else at the home email, so we both saw it. Perhaps you also received it – it was a CNN video clip about a young girl who painted images of God. The story is a couple of years old, but bear with me.

Certainly, this doesn’t seem all that significant – we and our kids all have (probably) painted some picture of what God looks like to us. What’s interesting is the fact that this girl (named Akiane Kramarik) is the child of an atheist/non-practicing parents who never mentioned God, who home-schooled, didn’t attend church – basically, there was no discussion or reference to God or opportunity to experience him. A link to the story is provided below.

Youtube Link Here.

A written interview with the same girl and her mother was published on ChristianityToday.com, linked below. Take a read.

Text Link Here.

It’s a really fascinating story of how, in spite of so many obstacles, God’s love managed to break through and touch this girl and help her and her family understand that he is, in fact, real.

But I’m not blogging about this because of Akiane’s story – I’m writing this because of something that we noticed about the differing presentations of the same story from two different resources.

Did you notice it?

In the interview from ChristianityToday.com, Akiane speaks about Jesus Christ, about how he is on her mind and in her words ("I always think about Jesus and talk about Him," she says.), as well as how she searched for a model to assist her in a painting of Jesus. Oddly, however, the CNN story never mentions Jesus. Not a single time, which seems a strange omission given Akiane’s self-described proclivity for thinking & talking about Christ.

Which leads me to the question - where he at?

I’ll preface my comment by clarifying that I wasn’t in the room during either of these interviews, but I’m willing to say that Akiane and/or her mom probably mentioned the name Jesus at least once during the CNN video, considering her statement about Jesus in the ChristianityToday.com interview. That, and the fact that one of Akiane’s signature paintings (“Prince of Peace”) – which was displayed prominently in the CNN video – was undeniably in keeping with our traditional image Jesus.

This begs a number of questions. Why did CNN seemingly scrub references to Jesus Christ out of the interview? Were they attempting to offset their public perception of being unfriendly / indifferent to faith by doing a safe human interest story on God to ‘balance their portfolio’ under the guise of fairness? Were they surprised that Akiane talked about Jesus when they thought they were doing a nice, safe story about just plain ol’ God (the ‘safe’ God, mind you – not that personal God that those Christian nut-jobs prattle on about)? Did someone back in Atlanta tell the producer to tone down the Jesus-talk so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the CNN audience?

Curiously, the segment of the CNN video that pertains to the Christ painting is matched with a description of what God looks like, and they clearly don’t match. What’s ironic is that, despite their efforts, it appears that the producers have succeeded in reinforcing one of the primary points that they were attempting to side-step – that God and Jesus are one in the same, and that by engaging God we also engage Jesus Christ.

A New Leaf

2007-01-30T09:05:00.000-06:00

Levander is turning over a new leaf.

METRO has opened a new Park & Ride near my house, which has presented me with a quandary. The new location is less than two miles from Casa de Williams, so I can make the trip from sitting in my kitchen to sitting on the bus in less than 10 minutes, which improves significantly on my previous pre-commute of about 25 minutes to reach the old lot. All good, right?

Unfortunately, the HOV lane doesn’t extend far enough out to allow my bus to bypass a big chunk of the traffic on 290, so with the new Park & Ride I’m forced to sit on the bus in traffic for 25 minutes or so until it reaches the HOV entrance.

Fork in the road – drive farther and catch the bus that gets right on, or drive less and sit in traffic? Decisions. Choices. Options. Conundrums.

I digress.

Considering the ability to save gas, limit the amount of miles that I put on “Nick” (my kids’ chosen name for the new ride), and the ability to operate “hands-free” for the first half-hour of my daily commute, I’ve elected to stick with the new Park & Ride. The other – and hopefully you’ll agree – significant benefit is that I should have some dedicated time to contribute to the blog. So, in the spirit of the Cingular commercial (excuse the cheese), I’m “raising the bar”. Feel free to groan, roll eyes, etc. I’m hopeful this arrangement will lend itself to more frequent posts, and maybe some that aren’t so cumbersome.

Now if I can just get JR to remember the link to 4conguys. Geez, man.

Learn Your Place, Missy

2007-01-22T13:21:00.000-06:00

Mini-Fidel is at it again.

Hugo Chavez is doing his level- (or flat-) headed best to convert Venezuela into the new and improved Cuba. The Rich Man’s Cuba, I suppose, since Venezuela is blessed with a substantial quantity of petroleum reserves, which gives it substantial (and unfortunate, thanks to our unquenchable jones for oil) leverage to jack with the United States whenever he feels the urge. Hugo is running headlong into reforming the nation into the Western Hemisphere’s next evolution of communist dictatorships – the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (a reference to Simon Bolivar, a Latin American revolutionary who, not coincidentally, focused his ire against the nasty gringo imperialists).

Recently, Hugo’s been given the authority of “rule by decree,” basically making him the sole and unquestioned voice of leadership in Venezuela, and he’s also launched his mission to nationalize various sectors of his nation’s economy ‘for the good of the people’, including specific goals of nationalizing the oil & gas industry, electric power generation, telecommunications, and as recently as last week, the media. This latest stroke of consolidation of government control was marked by Chavez’s refusal to renew the broadcast license of Venezuela’s second-largest news channel - RCTV, which is the nation’s last remaining major opposition news outlet.

Then, just when you think you’ve heard it all from Hugo, he lets fly with another quotable quote, telling us gringos to “go to hell” and further insulting our secretary of state. See the story below.

Hat-tip: Yahoo! News

Through confidential sources, the crack “4conguys Double-Secret Black Ops” team has acquired a secret audio tape of discussions about Sec. Rice from the Presidential Palace in Caracas. Click the link below to listen.

Wow. I guess diplomacy really is still alive and well in Latin America.

'Twas the Night Before Christmas - Reloaded

2006-12-19T08:13:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-12-12T11:13:00.000-06:00

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

2006-10-24T08:16:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-10T16:26:00.000-05:00

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.

OK -- It's Official. The Apocalypse Is Upon Us.

2006-09-21T13:01:00.000-05:00

Charlie Rangel AND Nancy Pelosi Defending President Bush:

Hat tip to Drudge:
RANGEL (on Fox News today): AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS... 'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'

I think I actually hear the locusts coming and the seals being opened as I'm typing.

Turn the Page, Reggie

2006-09-04T21:05:00.000-05:00

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

2006-08-29T14:36:00.000-05:00

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

2006-08-24T16:29:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-15T10:27:00.000-05:00

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...

2006-06-07T12:22:00.000-05:00

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

2006-05-26T08:53:00.000-05:00

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.

The Ant and the Grasshopper -- A Cautionary Tale

2006-05-05T14:21:00.000-05:00

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
(CLASSIC VERSION)
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays in the summer heat. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
(MODERN AMERICAN RETELLING)
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, CNN and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. "America" is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so ?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green". Hillary Clinton makes a special appearance on the CBS Evening News to tell a concerned Katie Couric that she will do everything she can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the Reagan summers, or as Bill refers to it as "Temperatures of the 80's".

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing "We shall overcome." Jesse than has the group kneel down to pray to God for the Grasshopper's sake. (while making certain that the cameras are rolling). Al Gore exclaims in an interview that the ant has gotten rich off the backs of the grasshopper and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share". Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Ant Act", retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients who can only hear cases on Thursday between 1:30 and 3:00 PM when there are no talk shows scheduled. The ant loses the case. The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow.

And on the TV, which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Hillary Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America

A Bad American -- Count Me In!

2006-05-05T14:16:00.000-05:00

I cannot substantiate whether or not this actually came from George Carlin (though it sounds somewhat like him):

YES, I'M A BAD AMERICAN
by: George Carlin

I Am Your Worst Nightmare. I am a BAD American. I am George Carlin. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid level governmental functionary be it Democratic or Republican! I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it makes you a smart American. I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, try to do it in English. I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to. My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time arguing about it. I've never owned a slave, or was a slave, I didn't wander forty years In the desert after getting chased out of Egypt. I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So, shut up already.

I want to know which church is it exactly where the Reverend Jesse Jackson practices, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one? I think cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are. And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it's good..... and I'm proud that "God" is written on my money. I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years. I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents. And what is going on with gas prices... again?

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American. If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.

We need our country back!

Tom Tancredo is the man

2006-05-03T06:59:00.000-05:00

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

Houston Texans...get real....

2006-05-01T08:16:00.000-05:00

Not being a Houston native, but being a football fan, i was real excited about the Texans having the #1 pick in this year's NFL draft. Being there are legitimately 3 potential superstars + this year made the #1 pick a harder choice, granted. BUT, COME ON...Mario Williams over Reggie Bush. shouldn't it have been Bush vs Young or Leinart or even Mr. Ferguson who could help protect the miserable offensive line we have.
I mean come on, couldn't we at least picked Bush up and then traded him later if we couldn't come to negotiations with him?
Couldn't we have had made a serious impact on offense w/davis and bush out of the backfield in split back position or even put bush in the slot or even had bush return punts or kickoffs. Doesn't his 4.3/40 speed beg a serious consideration for the #1 pick. But no, we go with a DE that will make MORE of an impact than Bush can?? Come on Texans ARE YOU SERIOUS??
The Texans plunder has culminated with this pick after the last 4 1st round picks they have had have produced the same results.
The GM Casserly should have been fired along w/Dom Capers especially if this pick turns out to be a bad one or even worse, WHEN Bush makes the Pro-Bowl for the next 7 years straight!

Overplaying Your Hand!

2006-04-28T09:26:00.000-05:00

The illegal immigrant community has overplayed its hand.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Pro-immigration activists say a
national boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood America's streets with
millions of Latinos to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants and shake the
ground under Congress as it debates reform.
Such a massive turnout could make
for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, though not all
Latinos were comfortable with such militancy, fearing a backlash in Middle
America...

They vow that America's major cities will grind to a
halt and its economy will stagger as Latinos walk off their jobs and skip
school...

..."This is going to be really big. We're going to
have millions of people," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, director of the Latino
Movement USA. "We are not concerned at all. We believe it's possible for
Congress to get the message that the time to act is now."

Fine -- you want to prove that American society will grind to a halt without you!!! Here's what I propose -- I will oblige you by making sure that:

...anyone reporting to a hospital or emergency room will be denied service unless they can prove citizenship.

...you are arrested for trespassing if you dare to protest on streets or in parks that your tax dollars don't pay for.

...you are denied any permits or police protection for your protest or any of its undocumented participants.

...your criminals (that take up a substantial portion of space in US prisons) will not be provided food or water.

...do not rely on the US Congress or any branch of State or Federal Government to represent your interests. They are sworn to uphold the US and respective state constitutions and protect the interests of US citizens. You are a guest (or a trespasser) and are not in a position to demand anything.

...you are not afforded the Freedom of Speech and Assembly under the US Constitution as you are not US Citizens.

These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. But please give the vast majority of Americans time, we will think of more. The point is simple. Closing the borders is non-negotiable! It is a matter of security and survival for America.

OK -- Enuff-z-Enuff!!!

2006-03-31T12:36:00.000-06:00

Unbelieveable!!! I was caught behind some of these pint sized advocates for illegal aliens (er, ah) undocumented workers on the SW Freeway earlier this week. It's a given that many of these kids were just looking for a reason to ditch school, though school was the one place where they needed to be.

Case in point: they marched on CITY HALL -- a place that has literally nothing to do with immigration policy -- instead of the FEDERAL COURTHOUSE. They would know this if they were in their CIVICS CLASS AT SCHOOL instead of playing Marco Polo in the City Hall reflecting pool.

Here's one of the gems from yesterday's Houston Comical outlining the mentality of these "protestors":

"There's no other way to be heard ... It's not the best way or the right way, but it's our way," Reagan freshman Jose Lopez, 14, said of the effort.

Well, thank you Cicero, for your laser sharp command of civics!!!

Let me get this straight -- you're going to prove what an asset you are to American Society by violating its laws, assaulting its values, and then pretending like it's your only method of recourse.

Let me school you -- YOU ARE NOT ROSA PARKS!!! Our history is replete with acts of civil disobedience that are revered. This is not one of them. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was designed to make a place for black Americans at the table of American society. Much needed and well deserved. But these stunts are about what you can take off the table for yourselves, without the responsibility of giving back to society.

Bottom line -- we are a coountry of laws, beginning with the basic law of citizenship. Do not demand a voice in a country that you are not legally entitled to be in.

And my mesage to all of the folks out protesting this week is:

Isn't your time better spent in school learning to legally use our system of government to bilk huge entitlements for yourself courtesy of the US taxpayer. That is, after all, the AMERICAN way!

NOT THAT YOU ASKED

2006-02-08T10:15:00.000-06:00

(Reprint from 1/2005)

What is it in us that makes us look for salvation in everything temporal?

Like many believers, I spent hours on my face in earnest prayer over the 2004 election. Somehow truly believing that God would be more glorified if George Bush were re-elected rather than John Kerry.

Somehow, President Bush represented all that was holy – biblical values, respect for life, defiance of tyranny, and Senator Kerry represented the whole of what was wrong with America – moral relativism, secular theology and liberalism run amuck. My concern is that the conservative movement in America runs dangerously close to becoming the Sanhedrin of our day. Obviously we have the duty to hold ourselves and other who call themselves believers accountable, but we must be careful to pepper our need for righteousness with grace. We must also lay the blame for America moral decay where it truly lies – within.

Please don’t misunderstand my, I proudly voted for Bush, and would do so again. And I still believe his values are more in keeping with mine. My point is much more fundamental – Christians in America need to stop looking to Washington DC for salvation. The halls of Congress will not deliver anyone from the prince of darkness. Likewise, we need to not spend so much energy bemoaning the erosion of values in Hollywood. Put simply, our salvation did not arise from Southern California. I fail to see why we would look to them to begin a revival of values that are so foreign to them. The success of films like The Passion of the Christ are indicators of a world that is hungry for the message of salvation – it is not salvation itself. No. A revival given by Hollywood or Washington could be taken away by Hollywood or Washington.

My point is that salvation arose from the dusty roads of a Roman outpost, not from Rome itself. The Savior of Mankind was not a politician or a filmmaker. He was an itinerate preacher who never traveled more than 50 miles from his home, led a band of social outcasts, was executed at the age of 33, and was resurrected and appeared to a handful of followers. But true to form and always defying man’s expectations, the impact of Christ doesn’t end there. After his resurrection, Christ could have appeared in courts of Herod, Pilate or Caesar himself. Instead He began his Church in the homes and basements of the faithful.

For many years I struggled with this concept. Why didn’t Jesus simply show himself for the deity he was – couldn’t we have avoided all of this mess? The answer is no. When Satan tempted Christ to throw himself down from the temple, only to be caught by angels and gather to himself the praise, devotion and adoration of all who saw, he resisted. Because Christ knows the heart of men. Those who rely on the “magic show” will lose their faith as quickly as it came. Miracle and hyperbole lack the real transformational power that a relationship with Christ has.

For this reason, he chose to begin his work in the locked rooms of Jerusalem and not the marble courts of Rome. It is no different today – We cannot rely on Hollywood or Washington for revival. It must begin in churches, schools and homes from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. America will have godly leaders in when the American people are more godly themselves. Right or wrong, our leaders have always been a reflection of ourselves. And if a sitting president is impeached because of infidelity with an intern, maybe we need to examine the attitudes of Americans at-large toward adultery and the marriage vow.

Is this a call to abandon personal responsibility or to have Christians disengage from the political process? Not at all. We need to see more men and women of faith and conviction seeking public office. And we need to hold our leaders accountable for laws and policies that reflect our values. But these folks have been and will always be a reflection of the state of believers in America. If America has less than ethical politicians and entertainers, perhaps we have a few people with those same qualities in our churches or even in our mirrors.

2006-02-07T15:44:00.000-06:00

Tacky --- Tacky --- Tacky!!!

Former President and full-time failure is at it again:

Thanks for saving us, Jimmy. Never mind that a good deal of this Middle East mess is YOUR responsibility. What else is to be expected from man (and I use the term loosely) whose best idea for foreign policy is mutually assured destruction.

Carter clearly cares more about the imagined constitutional rights of terrorists collaborators than about the American public in general:

Hat tip to the Drudge Report:

KING FUNERAL TURNS POLITICAL: BUSH BASHED BY FORMER PRESIDENT, REVEREND Tue Feb 07 2006 15:49:48 ETToday's memorial service for civil rights activist Coretta Scott King -- billed as a "celebration" of her life -- turned suddenly political as one former president took a swipe at the current president, who was also lashed by an outspoken black pastor!The outspoken Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, ripped into President Bush during his short speech, ostensibly about the wife of Martin Luther King Jr."She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said. The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation.A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably."But Coretta knew, and we know," Lowery continued, "That there are weapons of misdirection right down here," he said, nodding his head toward the row of presidents past and present. "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!" The crowd again cheered wildly.Former President Jimmy Carter later swung at Bush as well, not once but twice. As he talked about the Kings, he said: "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." The crowd cheered as Bush, under fire for a secret wiretapping program he ordered after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, again smiled weakly. Later, Carter said Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America. Some black leaders have blamed Bush for the poor federal response, and rapper Kayne West said that Bush "hates" black people.Developing...

More Pearls of Wisdom from ex-President Carter

2006-02-07T09:39:00.000-06:00

By KATHLEEN HENNESSEYAssociated Press Writer
HENDERSON, Nev.

Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.

"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision _ we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."

One wonders where Jimmy's outrage was when this program was instituted under the CLINTON administration. Evidently Jimmy takes his foreign policy agenda off the front page of the New York Times.

Our resident foreign policy failure continues...

"It's a ridiculous argument, not only bad, it's ridiculous. Obviously, the attorney general who said it's all right to torture prisoners and so forth is going to support the person who put him in office. But he's a very partisan attorney general and there's no doubt that he would say that," Carter said. "I hope that eventually the case will go to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that when it's over, the Supreme Court will rule that Bush has violated the law." The former president said he would testify before the Judiciary Committee if asked. "If my voice is important to point of the intent of the law that was passed when I was president, I know all about that because it was one of the most important decisions I had to make."

It escaped the peanut-oil soaked grasp of former President Carter that this sort of program is not being utilized to eavesdrop between domestic phone calls between you and Aunt Betty but to listen in on people already identified by Federal Authorities as belonging to a terrorist watch list and communicating internationally. Under the War Powers Act and authorization of the US Congress in 2001 -- perfectly permissible.

2006-01-23T13:32:00.000-06:00

(reprint)
To the Victor…

Proving once again, that the Op/Ed page at the “Old Gray Lady” is open to any liberal with an agenda and a community college degree, Maureen Dowd’s latest vitriol lives up to all expectation. In her latest screed, Maureen mourns the failure of the Bush administration to surround itself with naysayers. As proof, Dowd openly laments that there is no one to openly disagree with administration policies on Iraq. Obviously ignoring that the role has been played with particular aplomb by the whole of the media, who pompously tout themselves as the “fourth estate” of our Federal Government. Yet somehow she decries the lack of presidential confidants with the secular gift of exhortation.

So Maureen’s biggest complaint is that President Bush chooses people without her particular Manhattan sensibilities for his cabinet posts. And though one wonders why this same criticism wasn’t given to the likes of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton … Oh, wait, that’s right, Maureen Dowd was a sports reporter then.

My point is that while she decries the fact that no one in the Bush administration is representing her liberal worldview on matters of state (I myself typically only consult liberals on foreign film directors or what prescription drug goes best with Chianti) but she ignores two realities – one obvious, the other even more obvious.

Reality number one – we won! Do the liberals who spent so much time reminding us about the popular vote after the 2000 election really expect the President to adopt the worldview of the minority of America (see Red States v. Blue States).

Reality number two – liberals suck at foreign policy. Oh, I know, you’ll harken back to the days of old when liberal icons like JFK booked foreign policy triumphs the way that Clinton booked interns. But I would remind these glossy-eyed liberals that JFK hardly fits the mold of today’s liberal and many of his foreign policy victories are simply the undoing of the mess he himself made (see Bay of Pigs). From the hostage crisis to North Korea, I am at a loss to find one example of lasting peace brought about by the liberal approach to foreign policy. Yet, recent history is replete with examples of successes cheerfully brought to you from the “dark side”.

One needs not look any further than the Cold War to see the perfect example of why liberals are inept at foreign policy. While former president and full-time idiot Jimmy Carter’s answer to the Soviet threat was “mutually assured destruction” – didn’t that make everyone feel better at night, Reagan had a different philosophy – beat them. And he did. The addle-mindedness of living the uneasy peace of a Soviet stalemate was not the hallmark of great leadership, but identifying and eliminating the growing threat was.

Enter Maureen Dowd, newly minted foreign policy expert, fresh from the City Page at the Times. Ms. Dowd cannot fathom why President Bush, wouldn’t reach out to the liberal establishment for counsel – given their myriad of success in the last four decades (that’s irony for you folks with liberal arts degrees).

It seems to me that when you boil down this argument it goes something like this: “The President doesn’t have anyone from Bel-Air, Manhattan, or The Bay Area informing his policy decisions. That’s not rule by consensus and that’s just wrong.” No, Maureen, not if you have reason, based on history, not to respect the opinions of those in the minority.

If the foreign policy geniuses on the left could take the time to look up from their skim-milk lattes and tantric sex articles in the Village Voice, they’d notice one peculiar fact. We are WINNING this war. The reason Osama Bin Laden sent a videotape this week is because he couldn’t send a bomb. Does anyone with a pulse really believe that if he could have sent a bomb he wouldn’t have? Ask the people of Madrid.

Whether President Bush builds his cabinet by nepotism, cronyism or mysticism (see Nancy Reagan) it is the cabinet that he was authorized to build by the majority of American voters. And his refusal to insert a representative from the party of foreign policy failure is not just wise … it’s a mandate.