Yes, There Is a Difference

Yes, Hillary said she couldn't remember over and over and over. Yes, she hid the billing records for her law firm. Yes, Bill lied again and again and again, and even his friends admit that he was a very good liar. Yes, his friends attacked Ken Starr shamefully and without let up.

So what?

We know what we are dealing with when we are dealing with these people and their supporters. They admit no standard of morality. Consistent humanism will not admit the immorality of idolatry, or abortion, of fornication, of sodomy, of lying, of false witness and abrogation of vows. They said that character doesn't matter. They do not want any system of morality "imposed" upon them. They are certain of the morality of their own desires and ambitions and nothing else matters. Opposition must be squashed like bugs.

So why should we be surprized if they lie, cheat, corrupt justice, and sell their country to China and North Korea? They are not being hypocrites, because they do not believe in the Ten Commandments or the God who gave them. Civil agosticism and amorality is what they believe in.

But Christians confess that there is morality and that an oath is sacred. It is wrong to commit fornication and adultery. Sodomy is wicked. Idolatry brings the wrath of God.

Therefore, if Scooter Libby committed perjury, he should go to jail. Nixon had a great disadvange when it came to his enemies, because Nixon's supporters believed that it was wrong to spy on your political enemies and lie under oath. Liberals had been doing ti for years. But we hold our people to a higher standard.

Scooter Libby should get a fair trial and if he has been falsely accused, then those who lied about him should pay the penalty. But it is not unreasonable for American citizens to insist on morality from their leaders. But it is also not unreasonable to refuse to vote for those who do not believe in morality and make fun of those who do.

Dennis Prager has an article on the difficulty of engaging in sensible dialog with these people. Click on this link.

Christian girls beheaded in grisly Indonesian attack - World - smh.com.au

Three teenage Christian girls were beheaded and a fourth was seriously wounded in a savage attack on Saturday by unidentified assailants in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi.
=============
Is there any question that there is an anti-Christian mentality loose in the world? Did you know that more Christians have died for their faith in the last 100 years than in the first 1900 years of Christianity? This is the age of the martyrs, and there may very well be more to come, but when the church is weak, then the Lord shows Himself strong.

Coyote in Rocky Mountain National Park. October, 2005. Not all coyotes are in Washington, D. C. 

Coming up? Rocky Mountain National Park, October 2005 

Foul, Foul, Most Foul.

Aspen in Early Spring, 2002 

The Miers nomination is another evidence that Roe must be overturned. The horrible legal arguments which found the appearance of a likeness of the right of privacy in the U. S. Constitution have politicized the Court to the point that it may no longer be possible to have a sane discussion over the merits of a nominee.

This is what liberalism does. When feeling replaces rationality, discussion is over, because emotion cannot distinguish between words. The best case in point are the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice." They are emotional slogans, not descriptions of real categories.

The brutal, tyrannical Roe vs Wade decision imposed an emotional solution on a nation that desperately needed a discussion on morals, the beginning of life, and the nature of human life. Instead, the discussion was ended by a preemptive strike and the slamming down of THE LAW, at least the version of THE LAW that the majority of a few robed justices deemed to be the best for us, making law up out of whole cloth.

The result of an emotion decision was predictible: from Ted Kennedy's irrational and emotional "borking" of Robert Bork to the "miersing" of Harriet Miers. Will we ever get another non-judicial nomination to the Supreme Court? Isn't it a bit ironic that a candidate who might just as well have voted to overturn Roe vs Wade is rejected because she was perceived as lacking the necessary judicial intelligence and articulation to argue intelligently against the irrational decision of Roe vs Wade? Does it take nuanced argument to see through irrationalism? or is that simply answering a fool according to his folly, becoming like the fool.

This reveals the perniciousness of the Roe vs Wade decision. Apart from the immorality of the slaughter of babies, it has so corrupted the Court itself that irrationalism has become well-nigh impervious to attack. Robert Bork's arguments against her nomination were and are compelling to me, but it is a awful thing that we had to oppose a lady who might very well had been a very fine justice in another time and place. Roe vs Wade has so poisoned the political arena that discussion cannot take place. If you dump a load of excrement on my head, I am not likely to want to sit down to a rational and urbane discussion of anything. How in the name of anything sane did the Roe vs Wade justices ever expect sanity to come from a fundamentally insane decision? Only if they believed that the definition of truth was up for grabs, a basically insane mindset.

Isaiah said it many centuries ago: "Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." When men pretend that truth can be decided by fiat, she falls in the street under her wounds and blocks the way to fairness and integrity.

Miers had to be opposed because of the world created by Roe vs Wade. That is sad. Sane discussion can only be restored by the national purgation and repentance that could come from having a real national and Senatorial debate on the nature of constitutional truth--is constitutional law derived from the Constitution or from the socialogical or legal theories and moral relativism wandering through the minds of the justices?

A stealth candidate will not do that, Mr. President. We need the debate over the nature of constitutionalism, not a new tone that would pretend that Ted Kennedys excrement is not excrement or that pretends that Howard Dean is a sane man. Pretending that Roe Vs. Wade has intellectual, moral, or legal legitimacy is what brought us to this place, not the opponents of Harriet Miers.

There must be no cloud or penumbra or the appearance of a likeness in law. In the days of King Charles I Anglican Archbishop Laud sought to require an oath of allegiance to "government of this church by archbishops, bishops, deans and archdeacons, etc". The devil was in the "etc."

If robed justices can find rights and laws in the "penumbra" of the constitution, then we have rule by men, not by law, particularly rule by those men who have elastic minds who can stretch words to mean whatever they want them to mean, a most dangerous class of liars.

President Bush has an opportunity to open the debate. America is crying for it.

Pray for him.

A bouquet for a nice lady.

Some of my fall, 2003, flowers in my front yard. 

Harriet Miers seems to be a nice lady, and I wish her well, but Robert Bork convinced me [see article below].

We do not need a kinder, gentler America. We need one that has the intestinal fortitude to enforce our own laws and our own constitution, not the decadent philosophies of the French and German or the emotional paroxisms of the morally challenged.

The laws are not the enemy of our liberty but the safeguard of them. I pray now that President Bush bring someone like Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens or any of a dozen others who have a clearly defined and well articulated respect and loyalty to the words of our Constitution. Let's have the war. Let's bring one after another to the Senate until they must approve them.

The liberals have no intelligent basis for their "ideas," and conservatives can win in the arena of ideas. We always do.

Pray for the president.

Trinidad, California, Summer 2005 

In my front yard in the Spring, 2005 

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - Bush on the Edge by Tony Blankley: "President Bush is a lucky man. Seldom has a president found himself in more political trouble that he substantially has the power in his own hands to fix than does President Bush currently. "
========
A very sensible article on what Bush can do to recover and serve the people who elected him. He must swallow his pride and and not repeat the mistakes of the elder Bush. If he does he might well be considered one of America's best presidents. Otherwise, he risks sinking into mediocrity, with the exception of his brilliant and courageous war on terror.

Harriet Miers, a time bomb for conservative progress:from the Arizona Republic: "But I can blame the White House for playing the fool's game that says results count for all. As though a Supreme Court justice's vote counts for everything, and her arguments count for nothing. How perfectly Bushian.

What an insult that is to William F. Buckley, founder of National Review, William Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, and the late, great Robert L. Bartley of The Wall Street Journal.

The timing is so perfectly destructive it is difficult to call it a mistake.

For 50 years, the conservative movement has been arguing its case, making powerful arguments for placing legitimate, positive-minded limits on government.

For 30 years, the most important venue for making those arguments hasn't been Congress or the White House. It has been the Supreme Court.

And now, to carry that almighty water, Bush gives us Harriet Miers.

God help us is right."