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/

Yesterday a Townhall.com article pointed out how the mainstream media--in this case the New York Times--has sometimes misrepresented Christians and their viewpoints.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2007/02/21/the_new_york_times_and_the_gospel_truth

At Mythoughtworld.com, Cal Samuel August makes an attempt to explore the deeper misunderstanding between the secularist and those of a religious persuasion, and why they will continue to grapple.  Check it out:
 
http://mythoughtworld.com/

 

Any outrage over the Tim Hardaway comments about homosexuals in the NBA is the result of a deeper culture clash.  That culture clash is affecting life in the American Church.  Find out what Cal August has to say at:

http://mythoughtworld.com/

 It's far too soon to guess that this will happen.  However, it's not out of the realm of possibility. 
There are four main horses so far:
Hillary and Obama for the Dems.  Guiliani and Romney for the Republicans.  It could be very interesting to say the least. 

Here's a key phrase: Go 'Bama beat . . .
How's the phrase end? 

http://mythoughtworld.com/

 As a child I had various collections of things, be it stamps, insects, train sets, or yes, coins. In spite of the fact that I would say I do not seriously collect any of these things now, I have a real appreciation for the fact that the US mint has in recent years been making new coins. I have enjoyed the quarters of various states. I could name some of my favorite images offhand. I really like the quarter for Texas, even though I am not a Texas native. If I went through the rest of the quarters I know I would be able to find others. I really like the new nickel with the image of Jefferson on one side and a buffalo (yes, I know, it’s bison) on the other. Now they are coming up with the new dollar coin.

There has been much teeth gnashing over the ill-fated Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea coins. The problem with both of the coins is that they were both a little too close to the size of the quarter, but there’s something else involved too.

Hmm. What could it be? When I was a young Cub Scout and the Susan B. Anthony’s were being circulated, every young person had to ask, “Who the heck is Susan B. Anthony?” Really. Did Susan B. Anthony do something important? I think many could agree she did. Others might not care as much. But, I can tell you that most men are going to have trouble getting excited about coins that depict a champion of women’s suffrage. This is not because we are necessarily against women’s suffrage—to get my anti-chauvinistic caveat in there to satisfy the politically correct crowd—but because it’s downright boring.

Well, how can I say it’s downright boring and not be a chauvinist? Let’s see, how many books and articles have you read about women’s suffrage in the last week, the last month, the last year? I can tell you that probably most women’s studies classes don’t talk about this subject, because they seem to focus mostly on psychology, correct me if I’m wrong.

Women don’t dwell on Susan B. Anthony, they just vote.

What about Sacagawea? Well, definitely more interesting, but more difficult to spell. The artistry on the Sacagawea dollar is simply put, beautiful. It’s just that Lewis and Clark will always get more attention, in spite of her important contribution to history.

The new $1—I am going to make a prediction—will be much more popular, I venture to guess wildly popular, simply because it has George Washington on it. Who and his brother’s cousin doesn’t know something about George Washington? That’s a figure Americans can get excited about, no offense to women’s suffrage and temperance lovers, and lovers of Native American Indian women. It’s just that men can relate to the story of George Washington, and have actually been to historic sites where George Washington was involved. Many others will have the same experience.

Just one thing. It may already be a done deal, but if the coin is going to be the same size that it has been, it might be better to make it thicker (if feasible), more like the English pound. Now the pound, that’s a coin!

Check out the new $1 coin at the following link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17169177/

We’re looking forward to some of the other presidents that will be featured too. I’m guessing more will want Lincoln than ahem . . . Jimmy Carter (whenever that one comes out). –Cal Samuel August

Mythoughtworld.com Check it out.

http://mythoughtworld.com/

 Since the beginning of human life as we know it there have been kings, emperors or rulers who wielded the scepter in a menacing way, some we might characterize as “noble” or “good” or even “great,” and others who did so in a way that struck fear into any enemies, whose names were synonymous with fear but strangely enough, a kind of admiration.

In the Bible we get a glimpse of such a one who was a powerful man. We might joke at the name that sounds silly to us, but the Bible describes “Nimrod as a mighty hunter.”

It almost sounds like positive description, but there is a darker side to Nimrod that the Bible doesn’t talk about.

The ancient historian of Roman times, Josephus, explained that Nimrod was a tyrant, who held terrible contempt for God, and was the originator of the “scheme” to build the tower of Babel in chapter 11 of Genesis. Josephus also suggests that Nimrod wanted the people to be dependent upon him (as opposed to God) [see Antiquities of the Jews 1:4:2:114 of the William Whiston translation.]

If you are willing to be fair here—rather than automatically saying they were stupid and ignorant and didn’t know what they were talking about—and trust the ancients on their own history, it’s a fascinating commentary on the Middle East. I understand they had their agendas, but that’s no different from any of us, from me as a blogger to Joe mainstream-mediaman. Fast forward to today. The tower of Babel should be located in what is modern day Iraq. Considering a history that goes back a few thousand years, why should we shake our heads at the Middle East where dictatorships and tyranny abound?

Many people of the Middle East may long for something new, for Democracy and freedom, but the greatest challenge is teaching them how to wield it. If you allow the prospect of the truths of the ancient stories—as a historian I have no reason not to believe them, though you may—old habits die hard.

The Nimrod Syndrome runs deep in the veins of these ancient peoples. When a new Nimrod arises, they fearfully find ways to live under them, or it’s death for them (as it was under Saddam) simple as that. It’s not hard to find examples of what I’m talking about. According to a recent article, any aide of the “popular” Iraqi militiaman al-Sadr (another little Nimrod) who starts to get too popular is hurriedly put aside. (Note final paragraph of linked article):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17164516/

There are unprecedented, amazing things happening right as we speak; we are on the brink of something. . . . If we hold out for victory, we just may get it, if we can stifle the spoiled defeatists of our country. The hearts and minds of these people living under the darkness of tyranny are worth fighting for. –Cal Samuel August

For Cal's thoughts on a host of various issues go to Mythoughtworld.com
(If you don't want to type it in to a search engine, just click the easy link from yesterday's blog.) 

 State religion--if I'm not going too far in saying this--is being promoted in Kansas.  One might disagree with what my perception of "state religion" is, but in essence I believe it's true.  Rather than closing down debate on the topic, I hope to stimulate some debate here.  For my full thoughts on the issue check out my weekly article at: http://mythoughtworld.com/

 Mona Charen writes a fascinating article on Rudy Guiliani. I’ve linked another article too.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2007/02/09/is_giuliani_a_conservative

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_rudy_giuliani.html

I read a story a number of years ago, maybe it was even an article for that matter, speculating what should be done about New York City. Frankly, the City had become unlivable.

Many conservatives have had trouble with Guiliani, but he exhibits many characteristics of conservatism. Certainly, Guiliani is capable of making the left squeal. Anyone who knows anything about Rudy Guiliani knows that before he became mayor of New York, New York was quite a hole. The state of New York is beautiful. When you think of New York you should think of beautiful green vineyards, the Niagra River, and the like. New York City was not so pretty. Years ago, my parents and I took a vacation—I think just after the fifth grade—and being in New York, I wondered if dad would take us through the City.

The answer at the time was: we don’t want to go there. The policies of liberal politics had devastated New York. Rudy Guiliani, through many actually conservative policies turned it around. Conservatives may paint Guiliani as a bad guy for a few main reasons—his views on abortion the highest on the list (the topic certainly can't be minimized)—but his fiscal policies, his views on terrorism, and crime deserve a second look.

Guiliani is thoroughly electable and likable too. If he can get the Republican nomination, he has a good shot at winning it all. In a debate, I believe he can rip Hillary or anybody the Democrats put up to shreds. And a Guiliani-Gingrich ticket would probably be one of the best/smartest tickets for the conservative-minded since Ronald Reagan (and let’s admit, the elder Bush as vice president really didn’t add much to that ticket.) But any support of Guiliani comes with a caveat and a grave plea—you’ll read it below.

The “Evangelical”-minded might ask, “Would a Christian vote for Guiliani?” Well, to dodge the question, a lot of Christians would reject Mit Romney outright just because he is a Mormon. Against Hillary, he would still be the lesser of two evils in conservative minds, but he could face a rough road in the primaries. If push comes to shove, and it’s Guiliani versus Hillary, you do the math among Evangelicals. Perhaps Guiliani would have some respect for the anti-abortion crowd, and he has already said that he would put up Roberts style justices if elected.

A few more thoughts though. You may notice in the Mona Charen article Hillary’s response to Guiliani’s tough measures in New York City, saying that Jesus was a homeless person. This comment, and much of the false logic of the left show how ignorant they really are. The Bible may say, “The Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head . . . .” but not in the sense of homelessness that Mrs. Clinton is talking about. Jesus also expected personal responsibility, and that is something the left has trouble with, including Mrs. Clinton.

While we’re on the subject of Hillary, I think she is rather unlikable, even in Democratic circles. A lot of Democrat voters could be swayed to vote for someone like Guiliani. Just beware though, O’Bama could be a contender, much because of the golden-boy publicity he’s gotten. Who would have ever thought the not-so-known governor of Arkansas could be elected as president? As sad as it is, the charisma factor can’t be ruled out, and pound for pound, Guiliani has probably the most charisma of all the candidates.

Candidates aside, there’s one thing America really should deal with. That would be America’s love affair with abortion. The honest truth is that abortion is one of the most disgusting, vile human injustices humanity—or inhumanity if you will—has come up with. Many people would change their minds about abortion if the practices surrounding it weren’t so “hush, hush.”

It is still talked about as a “fundamental right” in spite of the fact that it is fundamentally wrong. No, it’s not just “a little bit of tissue or flesh.” So, Guiliani, Hillary, all would be candidates and supporters of abortion, when can America stop this terrible injustice, that has destroyed more human lives than the Holocaust, this abomination worse than slavery ever was? -Cal Samuel August

Cal writes his insights about various topics at Mythoughtworld.com

 Science can go astray when the wrong presuppositions are applied to experimentation. True science on the other hand is a good thing, but it can sometimes get a bad rap. Often the media can throw a monkey wrench in things when it mass markets bad information.

We are well familiar with the ideas—even mythology—of global warming being propagated heavily by the mainstream media right now, but there are numerous cases where bad/harmful information has been sent out by the media with no apology or correction.

Here’s a case in point. There are some wonderful advances being made with genetically engineered corn. Higher crop yields are the results of naturally produced pesticides that come from the plant itself, and have no adverse affects on humans or animals, well, except for some insect pests.

In 1999 Bt corn, a genetically engineered corn that inhibits/kills terrible corn pests became a villain of the mainstream media.

According to a USDA website, the first Bt corn was registered with the EPA in 1995. In 1999 it was reported by the journal Nature that Bt (“Bt” short for Bacillus Thuringiensis) corn pollen could harm monarch butterflies. I remember broad forecasts of the imminent extinction of the monarch butterfly in the mainstream news media.

Having enjoyed the beauty of the monarch for years, I was saddened to hear of this potential catastrophe. According to USDA data, the controversy was grossly overblown. Strangely enough, some important details were not reported in the media in follow-ups.

According to the USDA:

1. The Bt tests were under lab conditions not field conditions.
2. Furthermore, in the lab, practically, impossibly high amounts of the toxic pollen were applied to the leaves of the food of monarchs which is the milkweed plant.
3. The window of potential exposure is very short and Bt pollen spread is rather limited.
4. Field tests showed that any effects were negligible when applied to black swallowtails. (Although not monarchs, they are another kind of butterfly that could have been adversely affected but weren’t.)
5. A wonderful benefit of this technology is that there is no need for pesticides, meaning all the adverse affects of pesticide flow into water supplies, human, and animal habitats can be greatly avoided.

Pesticides have often been vilified too, and there are negatives with the positives that they bring, but genetically modified corn may have greater advantages for any downsides. Yet, here is another case where media gone wild can do damage where damage is not necessarily due.

To read about the controversy in a university article from the time, versus USDA findings based on actual research, check out these two sites.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html

http://www.ars.usda.gov/sites/monarch/

While harping about valuable science, the media often advocates some strange science to the detriment of society. Some of the most controversial science is glorified by the media. Read about some of the controversy and the ethical debate in the Townhall related article linked below. –Cal Samuel August

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=2655

For commentary on science, politics, religion and a variety of other topics, check out Mythoughtworld.com

 There was much said about how great it was that two African-American coaches were able to get into the Super Bowl.  Being the caucasian that I am, frankly, Tony Dungee's skin color didn't and still doesn't matter to me.  It doesn't add or take away from my admiration for his great accomplishment.  Dungee is a champion. 

We can't deny that there are descriptors that help us to identify people, but in a great deal of cases, using those descriptors is not necessarily "racism."  Often we use skin color as a descriptor, along with other personal characteristics.  Examples: see the pale dude over there?  See the bald guy, the guy with blue eyes, the guy with the beard?  But discrimination doesn't make sense.  I hope it has become a thing of the past.  A great person, intelligent, athletic, talented, what have you is what they are.  Skin color should never subtract from that. 

Race too, should be irrelevant.  Definition of "race" is often based simply on skin color.  "Race" is really an evolutionary concept.  When it comes to evolutionary talk, I have heard talk of the different "races" having evolved from different kinds of monkeys/apes, what have you.  Yet, scientifically, I believe evolution is outmoded, unscientific bunk.  I came to the conclusion at the end of my college days that it just didn't fit with what I see in the world around me--despite the fact that I am a Christian.  If I belonged to other religion or even if I was non-religious I would have to come to the same conclusion.  Belief in Evolution is a kind of faith.  So often, it is the religion of Communism, Socialism, Nazism--many other -isms.  Science it is not.  True science must be experimentally verifiable, and observable.  Evolution is not. 

Years ago, Evolution was used to discriminate.  Using evolutionary justification, certain whites were judged "superior" based on their "racial" characteristics.  We are well familiar that the Nazis used evolution as a justification for many of their horrific experiments.  

Some may try to say that the Bible provides justification for discrimination, but it does not.  A Christian is a Christian.  If we believe what the Bible says, we are reminded that we don't belong to races, but are descended from one man and one woman, and later, one family.  All the skin colors and variations were present from the very beginning.  Biblically, the idea of "race" is a fallacy.  We are simply God's creatures.  

It is amazing how much is made of race these days.  In the mainstream media, Christianity is so often labeled with derogatory terms.  Christianity is so often labeled as that which holds society back.  In reality, it is a secularism based on evolutionary concepts that has made categories of "races" and marked some as "superior" and others as "inferior" based on various "evolutionary" characteristics. 

Biblically speaking, the Bible promotes the dignity of man.  We were all created in God's image.  We must use this idea with some care, since the Bible speaks of the Creation as being Fallen, but the image is still there.  Instead of growing upward from simple creatures with an ignominious background, our descent, from wherever we come is a noble one, the descendants of one perfect, noble man and one perfect, noble woman, a long time ago.  Remember Ripley?  "Believe it or not."  I believe.  -Cal Samuel August

Cal writes about a variety of topics.  Check out his weekly blog at Mythoughtworld.com

 To begin, congratulations to the Indianapolis Colts for winning the big daddy of all football games versus da' Bears! You are the world champs of football. Not that they need my congratulations, but congratulations anyway! Since, I'm talking about that topic, I had heard the rumors that the NFL had put in their proverbial two cents in about church "Super Bowl" parties. I mean, church "----- ----" parties. I don't know all the details and rules behind their grand statement, but I am certainly glad that coach Tony Dungee and Mr. Irsay, owner of the Colts had the freedom to give credit to the Lord for the big win. It's rather refreshing really. Now the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, though I understand that the NFL is a private enterprise and has certain legal rights and responsibilities. However, church "Super Bowl" parties happen, and have been happening for probably more than 20 years. And I should know. I attended a youth group party when Chicago won the Super Bowl in 1986 versus none other than the New England Patriots. What does the Super Bowl have to do with church? Well, really nothing. But, it is a good time for fellowship and fun. However, I do understand the idea of not charging admission. And I understand all the copyright infringement stuff.  A lot of that is simply basic copyright stuff, and the law is the law. I've never been to a party that wasn't in a private home, and definitely never one that has charged admission. So what shall we say? I guess we just have to remember the separation of church and football. Especially during halftime shows involving Prince, well, the artist previously formerly known as "Prince." CONGRATULATIONS COLTS! 29-17 -Cal Samuel August 

If you're interested in more posts by Mr. August, check out Mythoughtworld.com

 Clean, not-so-articulate Joe Biden has weighed in on the Obama candidacy, and with his inept comments may be done before he has really begun his own run for the presidency. Frankly, we should not be shocked or surprised that Biden has already made such a foolish comment. Perhaps conservatives shouldn't even be outraged that the media has given him a pass when a Republican would definitely be done for, while Biden gets plenty of air time to explain himself. Truth is, though, does anyone really believe that Joe Biden can win? He has all the charisma and electability that Senator Bob Dole did in his election against Bill Clinton.

John Kerry said plenty of outrageous, foolish, and just plain arrogant things in his run against George W., and he actually did have a chance. Biden. No. We've heard a huge amount of talk about Democrat candidates. The media and Democrats already seem to be looking forward to an Obama presidency. No one counts Hillary out either, but she comes with the kind of chains and baggage that Marley did when he visited Scrooge in Dickens' "Christmas Carol." And yes, there's John Edwards. Slather on the snake oil and prepare for all the charm you'd expect from a used car salesman. Edwards is back again. The candidates just might eat each other alive (figuratively, of course). And while they're doing that, will Al Gore step out of the darkness?

In the meantime, no one believes that a Republican could get elected. At least that's what it seems since the media seems to be writing Republicans off. Have the Republicans taken their ball and gone home? Game over? But wait, it's only early in 2007. The Democrats will have plenty of time to make their positions clear, just as they did again and again and again and again and again and again (did I say again?) throughout the mid-term and last presidential elections.  And conservatives should want them to talk, and talk a lot while they’re in the spotlight. It really does look like there are some interesting candidates for once. But under a mountain sleeps a great Republican with a snow-white beard, waiting to arise and lead conservatives once again to victory. Wait, that's Frederick Barbarossa . . . and it's the Presidency not the age-old Holy Roman Emperorship.

Seriously, when George W. Bush was first elected, I did not vote. I couldn't have cared less about either of the candidates in that election. Things got serious pretty fast after George W. won. At that point we needed a solid leader. George Bush was the right man for the time. And we still need a solid leader. I thought the public was so enamored with President Bill Clinton, I was thinking that Gore might ride his coattails to victory that year. As angry as the losers were in that election, including those who felt Gore got gipped, not in recent history has anyone been I think unfairly demonized as George W. Bush. He is a polarizing figure, no doubt, but mostly a solid president. Still, it would not be out of line to characterize Pres. Bush as a little bit of a dark horse. Well, maybe a dark pony. He didn't unite, but he has led. There is still time for some pleasant surprises to come from the Republican camp. That will be interesting to see.

Whoever wins in '08 must be a solid leader. He or she is going to have to go with their gut convictions and lead with responsible authority. All this stuff about "coming together" and "crossing party lines" and "working it all out" is mythology. It is not at all uncommon for there to be strong political tension between the parties, and I think that's a good thing. It keeps leaders from getting too high on themselves and passing items without carefully thinking them through. Look at all the jeering you hear when you get a glimpse of British Parliament; politics is plainly and simply a heated proposition. Look at history too. It’s simply NEVER been all strawberry shortcake. I guess that’s my way of saying, it’s not easy (not to offend people who like strawberry shortcake). It's a long road yet. Whatever happens, we really will be okay; the country and the world will move on. -Cal Samuel August

 
It seems that Hillary Clinton has already had to flip-flop.  Not so long ago, she was saying that even her husband knew Saddam was a terrible nuisance to the entire Middle-East and us.  Most recently, she was parroting John Kerry-like rhetoric, indicating that everyone was so misled about the war.  Cal Thomas of Townhall.com fame (totally, coincidentally going by the same first name as the Cal posting here) indicated that Hillary is a smart woman: of course she knew what she was saying when she told a group before the recent flip-flop that it was necessary to do something about Saddam.  

It's not surprising that she has "realized" she was originally wrong--oh, stupid me wrong--(most call it flip-flopping).  She knows that she will be unelectable to her base if she supports the war in Iraq.  However, what concerns me is that there are many bandwagon Democrats and  Republicans who have moistened their fingertips and put them to the wind.  Right now they're having trouble deciding which way the wind is blowing.  
And they think it's blowing toward no public support for the war.  

Too often in Washington politicians don't have the courage to look at what they feel is right or wrong and make an honest vote on it.  If they believe the war is wrong, then they believe the war is wrong; if they believe it is the right decision to vote for it, they should stand beside that rather than accusing the President of misleading everyone.  If a person votes a certain way on a bill, the vote is theirs, not the President's.  The President is not responsible for that person's vote.  The President is certainly not responsible for Hillary's vote.  Therefore, let the vote stand on its own.  Hillary supported the war (and she may secretly support it in her heart of hearts). 

Politicians need to run on a platform, and vote according to that platform.  If they change their mind, they should do it according to their honest convictions and not opinion polls.  Maybe I'm dreaming to think this will ever happen; but then again, the public would vote for another true Ronald Reagan and it would be a landslide.  Reagan lived and served according to his convictions.  In general, I believe that George W. Bush has not led this nation by opinion polls, but upon his honest convictions.  We don't need 500 congregessional generals.  We need one commander-in-chief who has the courage to make the tough decisions.  

The war in Iraq has resulted in regime change.  The people of Iraq still need help.  To speak of morality, it would not be a moral decision to leave them to be massacred by death squads and Taliban-al-Qaeda terrorism.  If every war our nation conducts is determined by media non-support and whichever way the wind blows couch-potato generalship, who can ever depend on us to finish what we start?  Liberalism fails to understand that Islamo-fascism is an enemy that will never take "no" for an answer.  Such an enemy must be pursued to the ends of the earth and crushed in such a way that any would be-rogue regime will think twice about threatening the world.  Does this sound fanatical?  Not when Western life as we know it is in the fight for its survival.  Heaven help us if we don't win. 

Take heart though.  In a Jimmy Carter world, I know there's another great communicator, commander-in-chief, and conservative like Ronald Reagan.  People will vote for you.  Just step forward please.  -Cal Samuel August

For more of Cal Samuel August in dead-serious mode and not-quite as serious mode, check out the weekly blog at Mythoughtworld.com