DEAR FRIENDS,

ALL OF CAL SAMUEL AUGUST'S MATERIAL WILL NOW BE APPEARING ON THE SITE MYVOICENEWS.COM

FOR A SAMPLE OF CAL'S WRITING, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PERUSE THE MATERIAL BELOW, BUT IF YOU WANT TO READ HIS NEW MATERIAL GO TO THE MY VOICE NEWS SITE. 

FROM NOW ON, THERE WILL BE NO NEW MATERIAL AT THE "CAL'S WORLD" SITE HERE AT TOWNHALL.

TO THOSE WHO HAVE READ MY POSTS, THANK YOU. 

THIS EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN A PLEASURE.  SIGNING OUT. -CAL SAMUEL AUGUST

I am not one who supports the idea of Evolution in science, believing that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, but "evolution" is a useful word when used to denote "change over time." 

In a way, people go through political evolution.  Sometimes in various posts I have been accused of being a partisan.  I make no claim on being objective, because everyone has a perspective and viewpoint.  For example, if the "fairness" doctrine is ever reimposed, it will be one of the most hypocritical things politicians in recent years have done.  No one can deny that he or she is free of bias.  A bias is a preference, and EVERYONE has his or her preferences: politically, socially, religiously, etc. 

I have often considered myself an Independent, though oftentimes being more partial to the Republican side than the Democrat side, mostly because Republican ideas make more sense to me: when I reason things out, Republican ideas usually appear to make more sense. 

In previous years, I had more political skepticism.  I was more predisposed to distrusting politicians.  In more recent years I have tended to place more trust with the Republicans.  Having reasoned the situation out, I am returning to I think a healthy skepticism with a tinge more distrust for all politicians.  Politicians are a slippery, slidey brand.  When it comes to political maneuverings, we should always have out our baloney detectors. 

In the last few days, it seems more Republicans are falling from supporting the war in Iraq, basing their attitudes more on what seem to be prevailing attitudes in the media, the "Beltway," what have you, rather than doing what they think will be best for a people (the Iraqis) who are depending on us and our own people (the contituents) who are depending on them to make political decisions that will be best for our interests as well as theirs. 

We cannot take a complete laissez-faire approach to the Iraq situation.  We must support our troops and their mission.  We must allow them to utterly humiliate and annihilate Al Qaeda and other organizations like it wherever they rear their ugly, evil heads.  Some believe that taking action (as opposed to being laissez-faire) means that we should pull out and cut our losses.  If we are to do so, the consequences for a people who are caught in a bad situation (the people of Iraq) and our nation's international interests could be quite dire.  I think it quite reasonable to suggest that Al Qaeda is hemorrhaging heavily.  Rather than stanching the flow, I think it our duty to bleed this organization and others like it to death. 

Questioning my line of thought here?  I know I don't go into a lot of evidence here, but if you are wavering yourself, please go and check out the podcast or listen on your computer to Hugh Hewitt's broadcast from July 10.  Listen to the President's speech, and the speeches of those supporting the war.  Winning this war is imperative!

If your politicians are getting weak-kneed, and wishy-washy tell them you will be voting for the opponent with the strongest stance in the next primary.  Keep the pressure on them,  keep out your baloney detector, and reserve the right to a healthy political skepticism.  And truly support our troops and their mission.  Had the original Revolution been cut off because war was hard, we would not be the United States of America--we might even be French, Spanish, or English held today--instead of this present great nation.  -Cal Samuel August

Conservatism won when the immigration bill went down last week.  There are certainly things that need to be done, but certain things like border enforcement and the building of a fence must be completed.  On top of that, a simple, easy-to-read bill must be created to deal with our immigration problems.  It should not be a 500 page bill, but a five page bill at the most.  If the Founders could get this great nation created with a few short documents, why can't we solve our immigration problems in less pages?  

Democrats and Republicans alike understood that their political futures depended on that bill going down.  Some of them on both sides of the aisle sincerely agreed with their constituents, while others, taking the elitist track decided to condemn anyone critical of the bill.  Republicans who voted to go with the immigration bill should be punished by not being elected again.  We can't trust them; they don't want to listen to their constituents, and are out of touch with mainstream America.  If they are determined to be RINOS, Americans who want conservative Republicans must find alternatives.  

I would like to think that Republicans who disagreed with the bill were able to garner the support of like-minded conservative Democrats (some recently voted in) who generally disagree with their party.  That is the kind of bipartisanship conservatives can live with.  Out of touch elitists OF BOTH PARTIES who think they know what's best for our country better than WE THE PEOPLE we can do without.  

I wanted to cover one other item today.  TO HECK with biofuels like ethanol.  In my e-mail I recently came across a news item about a new invention that will literally change the world.  Imagine that instead of going to the gas pumps, all you had to do was put some water in your car, and off you went.  It's happening.  An inventor has created a car that runs on gasoline and water.  OK, water AND gasoline, I know.  Hopefully, a car that runs on water alone-especially salt water-will soon be coming.  

This will change the world.  The hope is that it will bring middle-eastern tyranny to its knees.  When gasoline goes the way of the dodo, so will OPEC and its hold over our economic interests.  No longer will we be subsidizing tyranny.  Support every effort to free us from the tyranny of gasoline.  The company that capitalizes on this revolution will be bigger PERHAPS even than Microsoft (unless of course, Microsoft capitalizes on it). 
-Cal Samuel August






 

Conservatism has lost its way in the last few years.  While Democrats seem to have been unified leading up to last year's elections, Republicans have proven to be far from unified.  It seems that many of them took their constituents for granted. 

Conservatism is the fuel of Republican winning.  Wishy-washy non-conservatives sometimes win, but as Rush Limbaugh regularly argues, true conservatism fires up the base. 

While Newt Gingrich has not entered the percolating presidential race, and probably will not judging from what seems to be his near disappearance from the public stage in recent weeks-though I heard he recently distanced himself from the sinking Bush ship as most Republicans seem to be doing at this stage-he has set forth a manual of conservative principles that you may want to read.

Republicans must recall what they stand for.  True conservatism is a rallying cry that has the power to fire up the Republican base.  Unfortunately, there has recently been a difficulty seeing the forest for the trees.  

The handbook and manual for true conservatism that I'm talking about is one you've probably heard about, and hopefully even read.  In "Winning the Future" Newt lays out smart principles for a 21st century America.  Newt, like or dislike him, is a great idea person, and many of the ideas are principles Republicans can unite behind.  

Republicans can find their way again by taking a close look at this book, and reading the concise "21st century Contract for America" at Newt.org    Don't miss it.  -Cal Samuel August
 

Last fall there was a great amount of disgust with Republicans.  Too much spending.  Tired of Iraq.  Disgusted with the immigration debate.  I used to be apolitical, thinking that politics doesn't matter.  Unfortunately, it does.  You see, now that Democrats have been elected to congress . . . and should you stay home and not vote for the Republicans because they have been spotty on some views in the past, you can be assured that Democrats will without a doubt encroach on YOUR FREEDOMS.  Yes, for all they railed about your civil liberties being taken away by Bush policies, THEY will now begin taking away your freedom. 

Let's talk about a few of these freedoms.  First of all, everyone who has to pay taxes ought to have the right to keep more of his or her hard earned money.  We can be assured that as Democrats spend more to make corrupt, bloated, and wasteful government bigger, you can kiss more of your hard-earned dollars goodbye in the form of taxes.  For those of us who don't have huge salaries to begin with, this should really tick you off.  Tax cuts weren't just "for the rich," I received a tax cut at a time in my life when I really NEEDED IT, and by no means could I have been considered rich! 

Here's the other one.  I had been listening to Public Radio for years.  I like some of the programming on Public Radio; Science Friday on NPR, and the Car Talk guys on Saturday morning were a few of those things that I really enjoyed.  But after 9/11, as I listened to news anchors that seemed to come with very anti-American views, it angered me.  There were also a lot of anti-Republican views too.  [In spite of being somewhat apolitical, hearing a constant barrage of untrue "I hate Bush" rhetoric had the effect of making me go out and happily vote for him even after I didn't vote the first time he was on the Presidential ticket.]  

When my wife introduced me to Talk-Radio, I was able to listen to programming that was more pro-American, more in line with what seemed to me mainstream America, and for the first time in years, I really took an interest in my country, civic life, and various other sundry topics.  I have learned so much in the last few years from Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett, and others that I don't want to go back.  

The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech.  Now Democrats are pushing to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine."  I want the freedom to listen to radio that interests me.  Otherwise, I will be happy to turn the radio off for good (or until Talk-Radio should return), and find these great people wherever I can find them, even if I have to listen to recordings of them that I subscribe to via internet or some service or whatever.  Radio advertisers, are you paying attention?  Those who didn't vote for Republicans last time around, are you paying attention?  If you like Talk-Radio don't stay home next election day.  Vote for anyone who will stand up to these short-sighted and out of touch Democrats, even if they hold to a few things you don't agree with.  These are just a few of the things that happen when Democrats get in power.  So why do you stay home and say my vote doesn't matter? 

AND BE SURE TO CALL PELOSI ON IT!  See the short Hugh Hewitt article linked: 

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/60df1e98-f14f-4a1c-a1cc-8432da89b759
 
-Cal Samuel August

For any talk of two Americas or more (John Edwards style) when times were less grave, in times like these when push comes to shove the people of the United States come together. It becomes a time of reflection, a time to put down the less serious everyday tasks. On 9/11 I'm sure for many days there was that terrible sickening feeling in the stomach among many people. I know I felt that way. Though the Virginia Tech event was not of the magnitude of the events of September 11 we certainly do feel a measure of the sadness that we did on that terrible September day a few years back. In times like these, for a certain time, we drop what we are doing and stand at attention.

When I heard of the terrible massacre on Monday, I truly did a double take. It was not two people, but thirty- two people who were murdered on Monday. These things will surely happen, whether by the course of a natural catastrophe or brought about by people carrying out acts of evil in the world. We could board up every room, lock every door, put up line after line of security, but when someone is determined to carry out a random terrible deed, they may not always be thwarted. Such was the case on Monday.

It is the randomness, the unexpected quickness, the not being able to say goodbye that makes things like these so difficult. It brought to mind when I was at seminary, and my mother called to tell me that my uncle had passed away as a result of a terrible traffic accident. When the funeral was all said and done, it was time to go and tell my almost-ninety year old grandmother, who had been in a nursing home for several years as the result of a debilitating cerebral hemorrhage. I wasn't sure how she would take it, but as the matriarch of our family, a woman not unaccustomed to her own measure of suffering, my mother told her and asked her if she understood. She did not shed tears, but simply nodded her head in knowing. She carried on.

In times like these, we must all face the noble task of carrying on. Many will be tempted to talk gun control and security, to pass the blame to various administrations at various levels, but a better way is simply to keep our eyes open, stand tall and strong in the face of evil, to carry on and live our lives to the fullest, in freedom and full defiance of anyone who would intend us harm. This is a noble thing. In Matthew 10:16 Jesus Christ tells His hearers that He sends them out as sheep in the midst of wolves, He exhorts them to be as crafty as serpents and as innocent as doves. This exhortation is to all who must look evil in the face.

Now for those who mourn and remain for a time in sadness, there is comfort in the Scriptures.
Many passages come to mind, but I will share only a few.

I think of King David who mourned his dying infant son. His servants mentioned the fact that he fasted and wept while the child was alive, but once the child had died, David got up to eat bread. This puzzled them. David responded simply that he did so while the child was living, hoping that God might be gracious and spare the child, but in the time of death there was nothing more for him to do. He said simply, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."
(see 2 Samuel Chapter 12).

Truly this is the case for all of us. Those who have passed cannot come to us, but we have the promise that we will go to them. Consider what Job said in his own day (Chapter 19) knowing that His redeemer lived, and that even after worms destroyed his skin, he believed truly that at the last he would stand on the earth, in the flesh, face to face with that redeemer.

And that redeemer is Christ, about whom the Apostle Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14 (King James version):

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.For those who believe in Christ, there is hope. We shall one day be again with those who have died in Christ. This is most certainly true.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Virginia Tech. -Cal Samuel August

What's the main issue now, and who seems to be the strongest candidate thus far? 
"It's the economy stupid" may have been a catchphrase coined by James Carville and used by the Clinton machine to win the 1992 election, but is it the full equation today?  No.  A good economy depends on stability and security; in the post 9/11 world we can see how concerns about those issues can really weigh heavily and drag down the most robust of economies.  However, the American economy is amazingly resilient as time as shown, and the will of the American people will always be make a comeback even in the worst of times. 

As for all the candidates, Rudy seems to be the strongest thus far (I know Hugh Hewitt seems to like Mitt Romney, but I think Rudy is still stronger).  Rudy has "it" on the economy front and so far on the security front, though I'd like to know what his policies with the overwhelming illegal-alien situation will be.  If he's any bit as tough as he was governing New York, I think he would find the right balance.  For his economic views see his Townhall posted article.  I think you'll like them: 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RudyGiuliani/2007/04/11/my_four_pillars_of_american_prosperity

Even in '92 "It's the economy stupid" was a bit simplistic, and of course, a bit insulting too.  In the 2008 election "security" and "economy" will be the major issues.  Moral issues will be important too.  In the post-Clinton era, let alone post 9/11 I think many Americans are tired of Oval Office bad personal behavior and want a president who will focus on the job at hand, above all.  That's why some Americans are questioning Rudy's past social behavior as he presently runs for office.  They don't want more Clintonesque shenanigans.  But Rudy isn't the only one who has personal morality issues to deal with (especially when we consider how long it took O'Bama to take the law seriously and pay off his parking tickets and the-what many perceive as-the shady past of Mrs. Clinton.)  If Rudy was able to handle the overregulation and prune down the strangulating New York City bureaucracy, I think he will be willing to prune Washington bureaucracy as much as possible back to health.  In the meantime, economics and security are still his strongest issues.  If he wants to keep conservative support he MUST hold to putting forward strict constructionists justices should he get Supreme Court appointments, and of course, keep his head on straight morally.  -Cal Samuel August

No, this is not an article about words banned by the FCC from use on public airwaves.  Here's the deal.  One of these days we're going to have to have two dictionaries: the one with sanctioned words and the underground supplemental with all the words that are no longer allowed to be used because of political- correctness. 

Every time someone brings up a concern about something serious that liberals don't like, there seems to be a scramble for new words to reinterpret the situation, to euphemize, sanitize, and redefine the language surrounding the otherwise hairy expression.  Here are a few words and phrases that seem to be banned these days: 

banned word: terrorist (see American, patriot)     sanctioned word: insurgent, freedom-fighter. 

When terrorism seriously reared its head on 9/11 the mainstream media quickly found words to sanitize what terrorist thugs really are.  People who prey on innocent people by using bombs among crowds, anthrax sent to congress-to Democrats or Republicans-are simply terrorists. 

banned words: American, patriot    sanctioned word: terrorist, oppressor

Just when you thought "terrorist" was a banned word, it has just been reapplied.  To liberals it seems that Americans are the terrorists and oppressors forcing our will on the world.  That is why we have to sign on to treaties and conventions that weaken our country and prevent us from acting when we are seriously threatened (or go to the UN). 

banned phrase: war on terror    sanctioned phrase: law enforcement issue

Increasingly, many liberals are trying to rephrase and redirect language to make the problem not sound as serious.  Many confused people are saying, "We can't really have a war on terror."  "Terrorism in Iraq is not really the issue."  "We should be fighting in Afghanistan (if at all)."  The joke about calling terrorism a "law enforcement issue" is that many liberals don't really want to enforce any laws concerning terrorism; they wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's "civil liberties."  

banned words: crime, obscenity        sanctioned words: expression, civil liberties, rights

When it comes to crime that should be punished with jail time, we can't actually punish criminals because it would be a violation of their civil liberties.  When it comes to disapproving of obscenity or inappropriate television material that kids could see and try to emulate, it has to be allowed because the makers of that material are just "expressing themselves."   

banned words: illegal alien        sanctioned words: undocumented worker

Since breaking the law doesn't mean anything, "illegal aliens" must be redefined as "undocumented workers."  They're just these random people floating around in society doing jobs Americans don't want to do and costing our society billions of dollars in taxpayer money.  They don't mean any harm. 

banned word: evil        sanctioned word: ?

Call evil whatever you want.  In the liberal world, there's no such thing as evil.  Well, unless of course you use it as a substitute for "conservative," "Republican," or maybe "American."

banned word: liberal    sanctioned word: progressive

"Liberal" has negative connotations.  Those connotations include being a bit naiive about the reality of evil, uncontrolled permissiveness, or the desire to live in a world where all their own bad behaviors will never be frowned upon.  Instead, "progressive" must be used.  If you try to step on a liberal's toes, you're disallowing progress, and that's bad. 

Are you confused yet?  That's the idea when it comes to political-correctness.  Anything absurd goes. 
I'm sure you can add lots of your own words to the list.  Many of you will be tempted to use sanctioned language instead of the banned terms.  Just go ahead and use whatever language you need to express the reality of the situation.  We can't keep burying our heads in the sand, or can we?  -Cal Samuel August

This past week on Hugh Hewitt's show, Newt Gingrich suggested a pretty amazing move for the war on terror.  He basically said, take out the one oil refinery that Iran has and put a naval blockade on them to cut off oil supplies, and it would shut down the Iranian economy in weeks, if not sooner.  

According to the Hugh Hewitt show, the Brit soldiers who were recently taken as hostages were not allowed to fire back at those who were about to capture them.  In actuality, the British navy could easily accomplish "The Gingrich Maneuver" and perform this action on their own--maybe even get their hostages back as a result--and put the tyrannical Iranian government in a real bind with their own people. 

The Iranians, who have taken this desperate measure of capturing these hostages may well be on the ropes as a result of the surge in Iraq.  It seems to be working, but America is TOO impatient. 

Those in government who back the soldiers and would allow them to do something about the Iranians (as efficiently as Gingrich suggested) and clean up things in Iraq have their hands tied now.  Those of you who voted for Democrats last Fall because of "corrupt" or "inept" Republican policies have begotten a monster.  And the monster is the Democrat majority.  My only hope is that two years will be enough for the American people.  We can only hope.  -Cal Samuel August 

 The firing of 8 US attorneys.  What a shock.  I'm so angered and disturbed by this travesty of justice.  Why didn't President Bush fire them all and hire new ones?  No, he should have cleaned out as many Clinton cronies as he could have when he first got into office.  He's been paying the price since then.  How about this?  He could fire them all now.  And of course, pardon Scooter Libby while he's at it.  

Obviously being defensive all these years when the media has attacked hasn't helped.  So, the Democrats were allowed to make many false charges about a "Culture of Corruption" which of course anyone who was paying attention knew was "the pot calling the kettle black."   

In the meantime, Tom DeLay will be defending charges that were brought against him about corruption.  He of course bowed down and stepped out of congress.  Why?  Especially when he didn't do anything wrong?  He complains about the "criminalization of politics."  Why didn't he fire back?  Why didn't he take it to every Democrat who actually had done wrong, and expose their tactics.  Check out his article if you didn't read it already.   

http://townhall.com/columnists/TomDeLay/2007/03/19/the_criminalization_of_politics

Now the Bush administration seems to be letting the Attorney General twist in the wind during all these recent accusations.  The president all these years has tried to take "the higher road" morally, I guess.  Instead of being defensive, he should have turned the tables on media and congressional thugs who kept firing at him. 

And the "Right-Wing conspiracy" is alive and well?  Wait, did Hillary Clinton really mean that as she complained about it in a recent speech?  Didn't she mean "Left-wing" conspiracy?  Let's consider charges against Republicans for everyday, not at all out of the ordinary political happenings.  Isn't postmodernism interesting?  A person can redefine anything benign, mundane, and commonplace and paint it as criminal, conspiratorial, malignant whatever you want.  (Do we really want 4 or 8 more years of a Clinton?  Especially the less likeable one?  Come on, Hillary's quip here is pretty absurd and laughable.) 

DeLay was on the Laura Ingraham show today, and was concerned about the direction of conservatism for the next several years.  He said that unless conservatives get organized soon, we may well be seeing another Clinton presidency.  Then why did YOU quit Mr. DeLay?  Conservatives shouldn't quit in such a crucial times.  Conservatives should be fighting back and fighting hard.  

Negativity and defeatism do not define our nation.  Conservatives are tucking in their tails, and sulking in their own self-pity.  (Chad who commented on the last blog here, don't be discouraged-Repubs are still our best bet-we can't be isolationists).  In the meantime, liberals own another kind of negativity and defeatism.  Every day they are attacking the president.  When will they actually have something to offer America other than I can scream and complain vote for me!  America will vote for a positive agenda.  America is still the "City on the Hill" don't give up on her!  -Cal Samuel August


 

Someone I am acquainted with, conservative by nature, suggested that it would be difficult for her to choose from the most popular Republican candidates for president right now. We’ve learned a lot of dirt about the political candidates available, sometimes things we may remember hearing about a few years back, but perhaps would like to forget. Conservative Republican voters seem to place a great deal of import on traditional moral integrity and values, whereas it seems that on the side of left-leaning Democrats there is a wholly different set of values—let’s just call them nontraditional.

Without completely excusing it, let’s face it: due to the nature of the job, the moral lives of many politicians Republican and Democrat are reprehensible. Plain and simple. How is this the case? In trying to get to the top of one’s field, it sometimes means stepping on the backs of others. Ever watched the CBS show “Survivor”? Have you ever seen someone win that game and fully maintain his or her integrity? Arguably, it’s a very difficult proposition. Now think of a profession where that kind of game is on 24-7, year after year. Public figures will undoubtedly make mistakes, and in many cases commit enormous hypocrisies in order to further themselves or their desired proposals. In other instances, sometimes politicians lose their humility or forget humbler origins in their rise to the top, taking on an elitist mentality.

When a person gets to the level of the presidency, especially in today’s 24 hour media environment, and with the near-microscopic scrutiny of the details of people’s lives, who won’t have skeletons in the closet, foolish gaffes, tainted political relationships, egos and the like? In other respects, who won’t be painted a certain way by the media in order that someone else they prefer might look better?

So you see, amid a field of “bad”, “unpleasant”, “dull”, “foolish”, “tainted”, “narcissistic” choices, you’re going to have to pick someone. In some cases the labels stick; in other cases you will be choosing the lesser of evils. What you are picking though, is not necessarily someone without skeletons in his or her closet, but someone who can lead. Some of the best leaders have had to learn from the worst of mistakes.

I want to vote for someone who will:

1. Be tough on terror and our nation’s enemies.
2. Pick good judges, especially for the Supreme Court (I prefer strict constructionists who hold to the original intent of the Constitution, not see it as a “plastic” document, stretching it beyond recognition).
3. Make our nation economically strong.
4. Improve communities nationwide.
5. Represent our country well across the world.
6. Be a strong check versus the other powers of our government.
7. Be able to make tough decisions in the face of adversity.
8. [Fill in other virtuous presidential leadership qualities here . . . .]

If we stick to it, our system works. Are there some candidates with personal moral problems? Yes. I’m not sure there is one without issues or personal problems. That doesn’t mean that candidate can’t be a good leader, in spite of the fact that he or she may have some blemishes, even serious ones that will have to be explained. Some “good” people in moral terms make lousy leaders politically. As elections roll around again, I want a strong leader. That’s what our nation needs and who I’ll have to vote for. In spite of personal flaws (and all people have them), may God use that person for good. –Cal Samuel August

 As an observer keeping tabs on the situation over the course of the last few years, something seems not right. Let us make an analogy. In the story of the Count of Monte Cristo a man is wrongly accused, and his life is made a living hell when he is put in a jail from which he can probably never expect to escape. Except that he does. And when he gets free he seeks revenge on all the enemies who put him there.

There is another count this day, and his freedom unfortunately may be a long time in coming. The count of Monte Plameo. His real name is Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Libby will be the fall guy for the whole “Valerie Plame” scandal which if you know anything about it should really not be considered a scandal at all.

Some might say this proves Iraq was wrong, and of course as Democrat Howard Dean is indicating it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Meaning that “Plamegate” (as it is so ridiculously called) can be followed all the way up to the highest ranks of the Bush Administration. Joe Wilson, was quoted (as I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show) as saying that now Valerie can rest. Yes, poor Valerie. Her sleepless nights end. Except, we can only imagine the living hell of Mr. Libby. Our laws dictate that a man is innocent before being proven guilty. Right? In reality, it seemed like the man was guilty with no possibility of being proven innocent.

The trial was really supposed to be about the Bush Administration “exposing” Valerie Plame as being a covert agent of the CIA. All the prosecution could really get was small potatoes. Libby, all in all, is small potatoes. The witch trial libs really wanted Cheney, but all they got was “Scooter.” And he was not guilty of actually “exposing” Valerie Plame – what all the investigations were really supposed to be about, but a “crime” of a procedural nature having nothing to do with the real issue.

If we actually believe that Mr. Libby is guilty of the procedural crime—let’s hold out that hypothetical—is Mr. Libby going to get 25 years jail time for this—the max? Does this punishment really fit the crime? Those who are lobbying for such a punishment shouldn’t we really think about this? Couldn’t this happen to anyone in politics? Couldn’t anyone be investigated, and then have charges trumped up for misspeaking? Yes, it could happen to anyone—as it seems to every couple years—even a Democrat. To use language a liberal can understand, this really seems mean-spirited. This is someone’s ego trip.

To use language that reasonable people can understand, this is not justice. This is tyranny. Murderers and drug dealers frequently walk free released on “procedural grounds,” and now are we going to put someone in jail on “procedural grounds” (spending probably millions in taxpayer money), over something that isn’t even the real issue? If he really did lie here; at the most treat him like Sandy Berger.

So I believe in some odd way that Libby is the count of Monte Plameo. What a waste of taxpayer money. President Bush, if he isn’t exonerated please free this man before you leave office. –Cal Samuel August

For more soon, go to: mythoughtworld.com

After some technical difficulties this week, my full detailed article and opinions on the Discovery Channel's upcoming documentary about a spurious Jesus tomb find have been posted at Mythoughtworld.com.

Please feel free to check out that article, or read some much briefer thoughts in the article below this one.  -Cal Samuel August

 

One thing I like about blogging is that you can remain somewhat anonymous. But with sharing our opinions there is responsibility. Critiquing our American cultural life is a passion of mine; I try to do so in an informed manner. Learning about the world around me is a passion of mine. However, blogging is not my occupation. Few people make a living that way.

My living is made as a pastor. My training is that of a pastor. My undergraduate days were spent studying various areas of history at a public institution. After that time, I underwent serious theological training at a seminary for another four years, studying Hebrew, Greek, church history, theology, and the practical aspects of pastoral training such as preaching, performing liturgy, and administering sacraments.

I say these things not to hold them over anyone’s head, but to share with anyone who reads my work that I am not at all naive about my faith. My faith is a serious faith, an informed faith, not a shallow one. I say this so that my readers can understand that I offer my thoughts not as any old “Joe Schmoe” but as a person who has been extensively trained to reason and to think, especially on matters concerning Christianity.

Some in the mainstream media and others of their ilk like to dabble in subjects bordering on theology and matters of faith. This past week, I noticed an article on my e-mail service home page by an Associated Press writer that mentioned a new documentary chronicling the sensational. What about? Here it is . . . stay seated: the possible tomb of Jesus.

Let me just tell you straight off, that as a theologian and pastor I’m not planning to get a new job. For years there have been books upon books concerning all manner of “Jesus theories.” For the tender-hearted who might take something like this seriously, we offer consolation: the reality of this is highly unlikely. Even according to the filmmaker, the odds were not at all very good. All that can be said is that those who stand to make a buck from something like this should really be ashamed of themselves. Pastors are accountable to their congregations here on earth, and to our heavenly Father. Those who propose such outrageous ideas as a spurious Jesus tomb hold themselves accountable to . . . no one but perhaps . . . the producer who expects the making of a quick dollar.

Linked is a Townhall article that provides more details.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=what_bones_of_jesus&ns=BrentBozellIII&dt=02/28/2007&page=1

For further commentary on this and other topics, please visit:

http://mythoughtworld.com/

As Christians have claimed throughout the centuries, the real tomb of Jesus, wherever it is to be found is simply . . . empty. The Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell us why. –Cal Samuel August

 

This week many conservatives have gleefully watched the fireworks between the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Mike Gallagher pieces together those events, and suggests that Obama is quite possibly on his way to becoming the Democratic nominee for president. 

http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=obama_vs_hillary&ns=MikeGallagher&dt=02/23/2007&page=1

At any rate it's fun to speculate about the behind the scenes fireworks.  So far, the best card in Obama's hand is his remaining calm and directing Hillary's campaign to speak with the proper parties (i.e. David Geffen.)  

Once in a while we get glimpses of people, we hear of little vignettes in their lives that tell us who they are and what they are like.  For years we've heard horror stories about Mrs. Clinton being the kind of creature who would eat her young . . . and her mate too.  Her speaking style when she gets fired up only feeds that image.
A person tends to get the impression that Hillary doesn't really care about people; she only wants to have the power of the presidency.  So, it seems, that the image she projects is only a facade of what she really is.    

And we're seeing Al Gore again, the despised closeted robot coming out of the shadows like a busted up C3PO (but more obnoxious).  We've also heard Al Gore get fired up, whipped into a frenzy by supporters.  If he casts his hat into the ring, it would be interesting to see an ex vice-president battling a former first lady.  

Obama's opponents could make him look very good to Dem voters in the time to come.  But does his temperament match and appeal to enough of the kooky left base (so far, his ideas seem to)?

For Republicans, the political cannibalism that will surely be taking place on the Democrat side will be a good opportunity to regroup.  Don't give in conservatives--this is not the time to be sitting back.  Put together a good plan.  Get your heads together and win back congress.  Republicans, don't be pansies.  We want you to stand up to Democrats and do the right thing.  And the right thing is to fight for a strong America, not to go along will ill conceived plans that will surely give our enemies the message that we are paper tigers!  -Cal Samuel August 

http://mythoughtworld.com/