On The Murder of Dr. George Tiller

Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed in church by an as-yet-unnamed assailant today. Dr. Tiller, frequently called "Tiller The Baby Killer" was one of only few doctors who still perform the late term abortions. According to news reports he was serving as usher for his church and his wife was in the choir. The suspect (though with so many witnesses, how one could call him just a suspect) was being brought back from Witchita to be charged. Hopefully this person will receive a speedy trial (something pretty much unheard of these days) and be put away. Abortion, even though it is undeniably murder, it still legal in this country, and what this person did, thought for the best of reasons, should be punished under our laws.

Having said this, though, I have to say Dr. Tiller reaped exactly what he sowed. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. The man murder countless numbers of babies and even flaunted it, and so has brought upon himself precisely the result. I am sorry that his family has to endure this loss, especially when there was so much they could have done to prevent this.

I was very disturbed that the church he attended had so little conscience that he was serving in a capacity other than just a member of their church. The family said its loss "is also a loss for the city of Wichita and women across America. George dedicated his life to providing women with high-quality health care despite frequent threats and violence." I couldn't disagree more with their characterization. As far as I'm concerned, any abortionist has violated the Hippocratic Oath and should have been prohibited from practicing medicine. That he is no longer destroying human lives is not a loss to the city, nor to women across America. That is LIFE has been ended IS a tragic loss, however.

By the way, if you've never read the oath, here it is (modern version) -- note the part that should be directly applied to both abortionists and to practitioners of euthanasia:

I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.

More Fiscal Malfeasance From The President

I'm one of those who, years ago, strongly supported the national sales tax instead of our current income tax. My primary reasons centered on two important points. First, those who have, for so long, found ways to avoid paying taxes (smugglers, organized crime, anyone who operated on strictly a cash basis) would end up paying taxes simply because, regardless of how they got their money, they bought stuff with it. The other was the fact that our current tax system punishes success and drives people to hide their wealth. A national tax replacing income taxes would mean that we--and the government--would benefit most from encouraging as much growth and wealth as possible if the government wanted to fund things. Common sense, really...or one would think. But, of course, that's been lacking in most of our legislatures for some time (not to mention about half our citizenry).

Fast forward to 2009. Now the Obama administration seems to be warming up to the idea of a national sales tax. But here's the major problem. They want the national sales tax imposes in addition to your income taxes. Do you hear me, people? Because he wants to fund all these socialist programs he has no choice but to confiscate more money. What he, from his den of lies, is calling "health care reform" is nothing of the sort. He's not capable of reducing the cost nor improving the quality. In order to give everyone some tiny piece of health care (I can absolutely, without a doubt, guarantee your coverage will be MUCH more limited), he has to confiscate money from everyone and spread the cost over all of us to pay the humongous bill he's going to run up. That's a fact.

Double taxation, folks. Actually, more than that. Since he's also talking about taxing at every level of the product life cycle it means that the price of a product will grow many more times because, for instance, the manufacturer will have to pay this tax to get the raw materials, and the wholesaler will have to pay this tax on the product, the retailer will have to pay this tax on products to stock the shelves, and you, last of all, will shoulder the final insult.

And you're going to lay there like a lump and take it all, because that's what you do. Get your Galt on, people. It's time to start shrugging.

Growing Persecution of Christians

In the early church the most common meeting of Christians was in believers' homes. Today, many churches use this same practice to extend and personalize their Sunday services to best minister to their congregation. Our church has an extensive home group, or cell group, ministry. While it is an extension of the Sunday service, it is very loosely structured, often involving a shared meal, etc., and discussion, revelation, etc., of the subject at hand.

This is the setting for Pastor David Jones and his wife, Mary, in San Diego. They hold such a home group meeting. However, on Good Friday they had an unexpected visitor in the form of an official from San Diego County who essentially informed them that since their Bible study was religious assembly they had to cease and desist or pay tens of thousands of dollars. This, in order to conform to county code regulating "unlawful use of land". They are required to purchase a permit.

The couple is planning to dispute the order, of course. So, many of you have called me alarmist or paranoid in the past for warning of this type of thing. Well--and I'm quite happy to say this--I TOLD YOU SO. This is yet another in a string of examples of how secular humanism is working quite hard to shut down Christians. If this particular offense against the free exercise of religion is successful, you can bet many cities will be looking at similar opportunities to stifle us pesky Christians. Mark my words. Of course, none of this is a surprise to God. Jesus said, "They hated Me before they hated you". And in the last days, this is very much what Scripture says to expect, so it shouldn't be surprise to believers, either. Let me say this again, folks...the hot and the cold are being defined, the wheat is being separated from the tares.

No surprises with Sotomayor

Okay, first, let me say that I get angry when people won't take the time to respect a person enough to learn how to pronounce their name correctly. I do my best to reduce the chances that I'll massacre someone's name, even if I completely disagree with them.

Now that I have that out of the way, there is nothing on this earth that can convince me that Sotomayor, Obama's pick for the Supreme Courts, is prejudiced. And, in my opinion, based on her own statements, she doesn't seem to like men all that much. I do not believe she is capable of separating her clearly liberal philosophy from the single most important responsibility she would have on the Supreme Court: protecting the Constitution. Here are some examples of her decisions:

1. Judge Sotomayor has claimed that judges play an activist policy-making role. In a speech
that has been well-reported on in the press, Judge Sotomayor said that the “Court of Appeals
is where policy is made.”

2. As a federal appellate court judge, Judge Sotomayor claimed that she “would hope that a
wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a
better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. . . . Personal experiences
affect the facts that judges choose to see.” In fact, she “accept[s]” that there will be
differences in her judging “based on [her] gender and [her] Latina heritage.”

3. In the same speech, she further questioned if “by ignoring our differences as women or men
of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

4. In a 1996 article co-authored by Judge Sotomayor, she wrote that “change—sometimes
radical change—can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social
policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often
unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving,
society.”

5. Of the six opinions of Judge Sotomayor’s that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court,
four of those opinions have been reversed.

6. In a short unsigned opinion, Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues upheld a district
judge’s determination that 18, 17 white and one Hispanic, firefighters could not sue the City
of New Haven for racial discrimination when the City threw out the results of two
promotional examinations after the exams failed to yield African-American firefighters who
were eligible for promotion. The opinion that Judge Sotomayor joined was criticized by her
colleague and fellow Clinton appointee Judge Jose Cabranes, for adopting the opinion of the
district court with “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at [t]he core of this
case.” Judge Cabranes explained, “The questions raised in this appeal … are indisputably
complex and far from well-settled.” The Supreme Court, which recently heard arguments in
the case, could overturn the decision of Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues.

7. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the
Second Amendment espouses an individual right, Judge Sotomayor has read that decision
narrowly, claiming that “[t]he Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal
government seeks to impose on this right.”

8. Her book, "The International Judge", suggests that international law and policy should be considered in some cases.

The only thing I can say in her favor--and this is a stretch--is that she upheld the government's right to NOT use taxpayer money to pay for abortions...even though our Marxist-in-Chief promptly removed the restriction and babies are now murdered overseas at my expense. Her decision was based on legal technicalities rather than a truly substantive, thoughtful application.

However, even though she will, without a doubt, be another horrible liberal justice, the bottom line is that she will easily be confirmed and she won't change the balance of the court since she's replacing another liberal. Her "compelling story" as all the Obama News Networks like to call it, doesn't impress me a bit. Were they impressed by Alberto Gonzales' even more compelling story? No--he wasn't liberal, even though he was a minority. It only counts with liberals if YOU are a liberal...THEN your story counts. It doesn't impress me that she's female or hispanic. You see, I don't care what your race, ethnicity or gender are. What do you believe? That's infinitely more important to me. I have WAY too many friends across the spectrum--yes, even gay ones--for anyone to gain any footing calling me a bigot. It's the content of your character and whether you have a Biblical world view.

Sotomayor leaves me convinced that both are lacking in her world. What will the Republicans do? They've gone so far off the reservation, they largely have less integrit than the Democrats (whatever happened to the "most ethical Congress", huh?---LIARS), so it's anyone's guess. What should the Republicans do? It would be political suicide to vote against her. I think it would be better if they didn't vote at all. They do it all the time on other issues. Both sides do. This would be a case to simply play hookie and let the Democrats prop up their liberal hack without resistance OR support. Of course, as liberal as many of the Republicans are, political suicide might be exactly what the doctor ordered...after all, the Democrats seem to like doctor-assisted suicide.

"Reaching out vs. Ideological Purity"?

I caught part of an interview on Fox News on 25 May where some strategist was discussing the rift in the Republican Party and how they might recover from their stunning losses (which I predicted) in November. He stated--correctly--that the split in the party right now is between those feel the party needs to "reach out", "find a way to speak to Hispanics and African-Americans" and those who feel the party needs to get back to and stick to its ideological purity. It was the strategist's opinion that the Republican Party simply won't be a player until it can include others.

Well, my friends, the fact is that the Republican Party has strayed from the "ideological purity" for some time and has been, essentially, Democrat-Lite. But here's what angers me about people like this strategist...and those who are on the "reach out" leg of the Republican Party. Do you realize that the Democrats ARE sticking to their own ideological purity? What Obama is doing now that he has full control should make it quite clear what that ideology is, and I pity your ignorance if you don't see it for what it is.

Let me ask you this: Do you think God sticks to ideological purity? Let me help you out, here...YES, He absolutely does. And He expects no less of us. Our execution of this ideological purity--that is, holiness--sucks most of the time, but we are no less responsible to strive for it.

Here's what people like this strategist totally miss: We shouldn't be relaxing our ideological purity, but rather we should be helping others understand what that means and show them that they actually benefit from that purity. We make them believers. Folks, I am far from perfect--I miss God's mark so badly so many times I am probably one of the chief abusers of His grace. It's not for lack of trying, though. The thing is, God makes exclusive claims, is very exclusive on the criteria for salvation, a relationship with Him. But the invitation is decidedly inclusive. I don't think it's anything amazing or damaging for a political party that believes in certain core, traditional--usually quite Biblical--values to decide to adhere to them. What they need to do now is develop the message that explains in sensible terms why those values mean something and why others benefit from them.

Sadly, the reason I have been an Independent for a few years, now, is because the Republican Party has NOT stuck to those values and, in some cases, has outright misrepresented itself. I remain convinced that in these last days the hot and the cold are becoming more defined, and the lukewarm are being spat out. It's about time.

Californians...beginning to Go Galt?

Has Atlas begun to shrug? The Governator tried to convince voters in California that they needed to agree to tax increases to keep the state from going bankrupt....and they overwhelmingly said "NO". Now, before you all get excited, the fact is that they have just handed Obama more power. Power that he craves. Obama will not let California fall apart -- the "they're too big to fail" syndrome again, kids -- and will end up lumping another bunch of billions in taxes upon ALL of us.

We're about to be screwed even more, folks, make no mistake. But, because the voters in California, who are mostly liberal, did something remarkable by actually telling government "no more taxes". It may be that, from the least likely place, Atlas has begun to shrug....

....or has it? I recognized immediately that the gesture was ultimately symbolic since there's absolutely no way Obama can resist the opportunity to put on his "savior cape" and swoop in and save them from theirselves. As I thought about that aspect more I've come to suspect that, when the dust settles, we will discover that this was actually a very calculated effort by Californias...one that actually furthers their socialist ideology. Think about it...you are an unrepentant liberal. You believe that the nanny state is utopia. You've spent your life and political capital make your state the liberal bastion, almost competing against the northeastern states for that bragging right. Unfortunately, this agenda is economically unsustainable by California alone. You know you have a socialist in the Presidency who has a savior complex. You know that if the governor of your state wants to keep funding your socialist state the tax increases will have to be huge. "Spread the wealth", anyone? You vote to deny the governor the chance to significantly raise your taxes, knowing Obama will spread the cost across ALL of the country.

So, this is a very dangerous time. Will the John Galt's of this country truly rise up?

Obama's Socialism Grows weekly

Obama has led our government to take over banks (and the ones that received bail-outs are not being allowed to pay it back so that he can keep control of them), push cap-and-trade, and now the new emission and mileage standards solidified the government's ownership of the car industry. This will force car companies to make only certain vehicles in order to meet those requirements. Would you people PLEASE look at the history of the Soviet Union? Do you not see the parallels? The Communist Party in the USSR determined what industry would make and how much to make. Just wait, folks, the disaster known as socialized medicine is right around the corner. This means even higher taxes and a LOT fewer treatments and procedures. We can't afford Obama. Period.

Bill O'Reilly nails it again

On The O'Reilly Factor tonight Bill takes a shot at the ACLU and gets it right. He correctly named that disgusting organization as "the most dangerous, anti-American organization in the country". I, and others, often refer to the ACLU as the Association of Communist Lawyers Union, which accurately denotes their origins as well as the majority of all their efforts. Stand against this organization and resist giving them a foothold in your area.

Your Children To Become Slaves of The State

Well, as if taking over the banking and automotive industries wasn't enough, the Obama administration now wants to reel your kids in by offering to cover their college. Oh, of course, you'll owe The State. And the way you'll pay it off is to serve in one of their community programs, absorbing the liberal indoctrination.

People, if you don't see the parallels to Marx, Stalin and, yes, even Hitler, you are simply ignorant.

On the so-called "nude" photos of Carrie Prejean

I'm a conservative Christian. I'm not a Christian just because I say "I believe in God". Heck, even Satan "believes in God". I'm one of those people who actually accepts as fact the claims by Jesus that He is the Messiah, God made flesh, and the Word of God as well. I understand what sin is, and that anything that deviates from God's design, His intent, His will, is sin. Anyone--and I mean ANYONE--who says they are without sin is a liar and the truth is not in them.

However, all though a born-again Christian will undoubtedly sin, we are also the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. This means we have redemption. This is NOT a free pass to continue sinning.

Having said that, let me ask you something. If you know I am a habitually liar and I tell you the sky is blue, does that mean the sky is NOT blue? Of course not. So any argument (which I've already heard from the liberals) that Carrie Prejean's assertions against gay marriage are invalid because she got breast implants or posed semi-nude for lingerie ads are simply ludicrous. Those arguments are simply without any legitimacy.

Now, pageant officials have said that Carrie Prejean may be stripped of her crown because her semi-clothed poses (which, of the ones that have been published on the web, actually show nothing your wouldn't see in a number of women's magazines with lingerie ads) violate a clause in the contract. If that is indeed true, then, yes, Carrie should lose her crown. The sad part is that this is largely because the unGodly secular humanist people behind the pageant hate what Carrie stands for, NOT because they have a problem with her posing for lingerie ads. This is simply a means to an end for them---to disgrace Carrie Prejean.

Personally, I don't see how a real Christian can rationalize doing anything that detracts from their witness, whether that's going out and drinking, smoking, posing for lingerie ads or strutting around a stage in material that mounts to nothing more than underwear all for an earthly crown. It detracts from her witness. The fact that she got breast implants also detracts from her witness (though the clear hypocritical statements from the left should be disgusting to us all). But her stand is nonetheless valid and Biblical. The sky is still blue, no matter what the liberals try to tell you.

How hateful and nasty can (MS)NBC and liberals get?

You know, I don't care how bad some right-wing extremists get, they can't touch the horrible behavior of liberals. Carrie Prejean answered a loaded question by that hatefuly human being, Perez Hilton, and she gave a Godly answer. There was no malice in her answer, just as there is no malice in what the Scripture says about homosexuality. It's the truth, period. He went on to do and say some of the most disgusting things on his blog. He is exemplary of the left, particularly the homosexual activists. NBC has completely abandoned any pretense of objectivity by their frequent, nasty, hateful remarks against all things conservative and of traditional values (e.g., Olbermann, Shuster, Maddow).

One of the most disappointing things about all this is that people like Perez Hilton perpetrate intellectual dishonesty by claiming that we, who believe marriage is only to be between one man and one woman, are somehow bigots, that we are denying them "their rights". They're not our "rules", people. They're God's. It conforms to the design of nature (even in the face of the fact that the earth was cursed because of man's sin and, as a result isn't even perfect). God hates sin. He loves people. He expects us to shun sin. What is so blasted difficult to understand about that? There is redemption from all vices, but the sad thing is they don't think that homosexuality IS a vice. And, to make themselves feel better about it they want to shut the Christian voice, malign people like Carrie Prejean, and pretend that their agenda is somehow equal to racism. You can't choose race (besides, in the beginning there was only one race), but you can choose your sexual preference (hence why it is called a "preference"). As far as their "rights" are concerned, they can marry anyone of the opposite gender they want (and who says "yes", of course). Against such there can be no law. And it is simply a lie to lay down the argument that you can't help who you fall in love with. That's a lie straight out of the pits of hell. You EXACTLY choose who you fall in love with, just as you choose to continue loving that person for the rest of your natural days.

We should be sick and tired of the nastiness of BOTH sides, but the left is infinitely more horrible about their disagreements.