Hagel: Because What the DoD Needs is a Little More UN Interference.

So... Chuck Hagel.

Yes, technically he's a Republican. He has a 100% pro life rating from the National Right to Life. He gets a 0% from NARAL. So far, so good. Right?

Hagel's rating from the American Conservative Union was 85%, which is considered to be a fairly reliable conservative.

He was for the war in Iraq before he was against it. That's nothing special, any way you look at it. The same could be said for Hillary Clinton, if I'm not mistaken.

Hagel has been quoted as saying that an American Ambassador was "too openly gay" to properly serve the United States in such a capacity.

All that said, it's difficult to see why someone who opposes everything Hagel seems to stand for would want him as a cabinet member. The word from the White House is a little double talk wrapped up and tied neatly with the phrase "when it comes to the defense of our nation, we are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans."

So you say.

And then you hear about the rest of what Chuck Hagel stands for. Because if he becomes the Secretary of Defense, what will his opinions on the sanctity of life or homosexuality (or any other conservative principle, really) matter? He won't be voting for anything related to such topics.

His views on American Intervention sound dangerously like former FDR VP Henry Wallace, who once  blamed Stalin's invasion of Poland and the beginning of his assault on Eastern Europe on the "insistent meddling" of the United States.

His tacit support of Iran (by only half-heartedly supporting soft restrictions on their nuclear programs and refusing to vote for any harsher sanctions) points to a failure to support our only democratic ally in the Middle East - Israel. That position is further supported by Hagel's statements in regards to the "oppressed state of Palestine" and his expressed concern that the United Nations is not strong enough where international relations are concerned because the United States doesn't ceded them quite enough power.

In case you weren't already worried about our relationship with Israel, let me point out the fact that, since the resolution that gave Israel a homeland in 1948, nearly every United Nations resolution that concerns Israel in any way comes down sharply in favor of anyone but Israel. Ceding the UN more power in regard to international relations is not likely to end with Israel still standing at all, much less as the Democratic stronghold it is today.

And now we know why Obama wants him. Because he can use Hagel's conservative record in the Senate to get him past the objections of at least a few Senate Republicans during his confirmation hearings. And once he is confirmed, he can use him to further undermine the strength of the United States in the global community.

Infringement? Ok...

Let's get real for a second. Let's think logically about what we're really discussing in terms of "gun rights," "gun control," and "assault weapons."

First, the actual text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Sorry, but there's just no way on God's green earth that the Founders intended the right to "bear arms" solely in reference to hunting for purposes of sustenance. How is the right to hunt a deer (when even in 1776 you could have bought a cow or pig from your neighbor) fundamental to the "security of a free State"? Answer: NEWSFLASH! It isn't.

And it wasn't written to make sure individuals could defend themselves and their families from criminal home invaders either, although it conveniently provides for that as well.

The funny thing about the Bill of Rights is that if you read them as written along with some of the Founders' other writings at the time, they were all written with the SAME PURPOSE: to protect individuals from the government.

When you read them through that lens, it's amazing how much "interpretation" is suddenly not required.

"Well, the Founders never meant that average citizens should have "assault rifles" with 15-30 round clips."

If they had known that the federal government would be in possession of nuclear weapons, you're damn straight they would have meant exactly that - if not more.

But the thing that gets me is the number of people who read the last phrase: "shall not be infringed" and are not outraged at what has already been banned. Folks, every "modification" is a limitation. And every limitation is an infringement. Every law on the books that adjusts or modifies your 2nd Amendment in any way is an infringement, and stands in direct violation of the Constitution.

Think Before You Silence the WBC

Along with most of America, I felt disgust and outrage when I learned that the Westboro Baptist Church planned to picket the vigil planned in Newtown, Connecticut. I felt saddened that we as a nation boast more than enough evil to go around. I felt the same way after the shooting in Tuscon and when I later heard that the WBC planned to protest the funeral of a nine year old following that tragedy. I feel the same way every time I see their name and messages plastered in the background of any military funeral.

Personally, I find the overall message of the Westboro Baptist Church disgusting. They preach that God hates homosexuality - which is true. But the important thing to remember is that God also hates the little white lies you told last week, the stop sign in the quiet neighborhood that you always run and the fact that you didn't quite wait until you were married to practice the Clinton definition of "not sex." But they also preach that "God hates fags" - which is not true. God's love extends to all sinners, because if it did not Heaven would be empty. To claim that God raises a hand of judgment against one group of sinners apart from all others is to teach false doctrine and to replace the judgment of the Lord with the judgment of a finite and fallen human being.

Despite my personal feelings about the WBC, I find myself equally appalled by those who are calling for physical violence and God's judgment against them. How is us judging the WBC for their actions any different from them judging the actions of any other sinner? How can we as Christians advocate violence against someone whose sin we find abhorrent - when the sin in question is advocating and cheering violence against someone whose sin those in the WBC find abhorrent? 

But my disgust also extends to those who seek political action against the WBC. Why? Because I am something of a free speech purist. In the words attributed to Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The WBC won their Supreme Court Case by claiming that their speech, however abhorrent and hateful, was protected under the First Amendment. AND IT SHOULD BE. The First Amendment was written to protect offensive speech. There is no need to protect speech if it is not offensive. If all we did was fawn before our elected officials and spew popular sentiment, there would never be a need for any protection of any speech. But the founders realized that sometimes what is necessary to say may not be popular, and what is truth may be offensive. That's not to say that what the WBC says is either true or necessary, but in order to protect one you must necessarily allow the other.

I am especially disturbed by those who associate with Tea Party groups or ideas who are calling for violence against members of the WBC or demanding that they be silenced. They of all people should be sensitive to the notion of being silenced by those who disagree politically. When Steven Crowder was cold cocked by a union member last week in Michigan, the media maintained radio silence. When 2500 occupiers got arrested over the course of six months (compared to 0 Tea Party activists in over three years), the media covered the occupiers' message but not their actions. Politicians are actively pushing policies like "The Fairness Doctrine," which will effectively impose tv/radio silence on anyone who dares to disagree with the progressive majority.

But the real problem is this: even if we were to all agree that certain kinds of hate speech SHOULD be silenced, who gets to make the determination as to what constitutes such "hate speech"? Will the definition of "hate speech" change every time the balance of Congress shifts? The balance of the Supreme Court? And what is to stop said authority, once given the power to silence one group or individual, from silencing any group or individual they choose to, whether based on arbitrary whim or political favor?

Never Let a Tragedy Go to Waste

Let me preface this post by saying that I am not here to rub salt in anyone's wounds. My intent is not to politicize a tragedy, rather to point out the fallacy being committed by those who are currently doing so.

This morning, tragedy struck a small town in Connecticut. A young man opened fire in an elementary school, killing at least 26 - one of whom was his own mother, and most of whom were small children.

As is wont to happen after such senseless tragedy, we look for answers. We ask ourselves, our families, our friends, and our leaders: How did this come about? How can we keep this from happening again?

The answer is simple: evil exists in this world because people insist on trying to push God out of it. The grace of God is the only thing that prevents you or me from being the shooter, our parents and children from being the victims. It is only by that same grace that those touched by today's tragedy will ever know peace.

But if you look at any social media site today, along with the prayers and condolences, you will see people making blanket statements about gun control. The artful Jay Carney brilliantly politicized the tragedy by stating that he was not going to politicize it...yet. The President hinted at it in his tearful address as well, claiming that meaningful action was needed - regardless of politics. (Read: the Republicans aren't going to like it, but I'm going to force them to do it anyway.)

What really got to me was the nastiness between friends over whether or not further gun restrictions could solve this problem. The reality is that, unless we tear up the Constitution, gun ownership is a right afforded to private citizens (provided they meet certain qualifications in most states, such as never being convicted of a violent crime) that the federal government has no justification to take away. Cities such as Chicago and Washington DC are shining examples of the results of strict gun legislation - they have some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, and they also have some of the highest rates of gun crimes. Why? Because if the only people who HAVE guns came by them illegally, why on earth should we expect them to not also USE said guns illegally? The contrast is seen in the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia: gun ownership there is mandated, and the town currently boasts one of the lowest per capita crime rates in the nation.

A few people made comments about the number of deaths caused by motor vehicles, and noted that no one was suggesting that we ban cars. The pat response to that was, "well, guns are made with only one purpose: to kill people. Cars are made for transportation, not for killing. They at least have a legitimate use." And that exchange got me thinking...

If we accept the premise that guns are made to kill people and cars are not, what happens when we look at the relevant data?

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 40,000 Americans are killed by cars annually.

According to American gun violence statistics, in 2010 8,775 Americans were killed by firearms. And it should be noted that the number of Americans killed by firearms has consistently decreased annually since at least 1995.

The assessment then is that although cars are NOT made for the express purpose of killing people, they seem to be accomplishing that objective at a much greater rate than the firearms that supposedly ARE made for that purpose. I'm thinking that at the very least "but guns are made solely to kill people" is going to have to be replaced by an argument that makes a little more sense.

The End of a Campaign

Last night I spent the last few hours at Congressman Todd Akin's election night party. Although the outcome of last night's election was not what any of us in that room would have hoped (except, of course, for a few of the media representatives lined up with their cameras), there is nowhere else that I would have chosen to end this campaign season.

As I have mentioned before, I met Congressman Akin about 20 years ago. I was 12, and he was serving in the Missouri State legislature. But I was completely unaware of that - to me, he was simply Mr. Akin, the father of a few children I knew from Sunday School. For years, that was all I knew of him. By the time I graduated high school, I was aware of his career in government. But when I saw him in the hall at church, talking to my parents or holding the hand of one of his young children, he was still just a regular guy to me. A Christian man who I knew despite his governmental obligations would be standing with the rest of us every pro-life Sunday. A man who obviously placed his faith and his family first in everything he did.

So in 2011, when he announced that he was running against Democrat Claire McCaskill, I knew that I would have to be involved. From the day the campaign kicked off, I have attended events with my children in support of Todd Akin.

This year, after the now infamous Jaco interview, someone referenced a quote made by former Senator Jim Talent about Congressman Akin: "I don't know what it is, but God protects that man."

Some applied that statement to his career, inferring that God's protection was what led to victory in a tough primary or strength to get through a long election season. But I got the feeling it was something much deeper than that.

Last night, Congressman Todd Akin concede a long and hard fought race to Senator Claire McCaskill. He began as he begins everything, by thanking God.

“..it’s particularly appropriate to thank God, who makes no mistakes and who is much wiser than we are, and so I say to God alone be the glory and honor regardless of how He decides to organize history.”

And he went on to thank his family, supporters, and friends. His speech outlined his view of government and his view of the governed, and I was reminded again of Senator Talent's comment, "God protects that man." It occurred to me that my original assessment had been right. God's protection of Congressman Akin has exactly nothing to do with winning elections or strength through long campaigns. God protected what was important: instead of protecting Todd Akin so that he could get to Washington DC, he protected Todd Akin from the effects of working in Washington DC. The words he spoke last night were the words of a man who has spent 12 long years in Congress and has, only through God's grace and Divine protection, returned to his family the same man he was the day I met him 20 years ago.

The #War Goes On

Tonight many of my conservative friends are talking about taking a day, or at least what's left of tonight, to reflect. They are talking about resting, decompressing, and maybe having a drink or two or seven. Their plan is to return to the battlefield tomorrow.

As a parent, I am left without that option. I walked onto the battlefield the moment I got home. But the landscape of that battlefield has changed drastically in the last few hours. Because of what happened tonight, I now have to raise girls in a country that values free birth control over millions of innocent lives. I have to explain to my son that growing up to serve his country could mean being cut off from any means of support for the sake of political expediency. And I have to explain to all of my children that what could have been their college fund will be instead paying for "free" cell phones, food stamps, and presidential vacations.

My husband will go back in just a few hours to his own personal battlefield, along with his parents and siblings. He will fight to the death to keep the dream that led his great-grandfather to escape the Russian Revolution from being swallowed by the dream of Obama's Marxist father. And every minute of every day of that battle is an uphill march. And at every turn, there is another regulation waiting for an opportunity to run that dream into the ground.

Four years ago, I was afraid of what Barack Obama could do to America. And since then, many of my fears have been realized. The government has taken over healthcare. The "entitled" population stands ready to outnumber those facilitating their lifestyle. Religious liberty is less important than a law student's ability to get free birth control. And America, instead of striking fear into the hearts of her enemies, incites laughter among those who wish to see us fail.

Today, I no longer fear Barack Obama. I am terrified of an electorate that believes liberty can survive his agenda.

And so the battle goes on. Now.

Why Voting SHOULD Be Religious Experience

I hesitate to write this today, but at the same time there is no better day than today. I have been thinking a lot the past few days about what it means to be a Christian and to be involved in American politics - and not just what it means if you work in politics, but what it means to simply walk into a voting booth every two years (or, in some cases, every four). What does it mean to be a Christian and vote Democrat? Republican? Third Party? Understand that in no way am I saying that if you're a real Christian you can't be any one of those things. Voting as a Christian I think has far more to do with positions on the issues than party identification.

So which are the important issues? The short answer is that all issues are important in some way. But the ones that I find myself thinking about in every election are the ones I will dig into here.

First, abortion has to be addressed. All life is precious in God's eyes, regardless of the circumstances under which it began. As Christians, we are called to respect life and to protect it. In the United States, our ability to protect life is embedded in our right (and responsibility) to vote. In some cases, that means voting for a candidate who supports a rape exception because the alternative is someone who wants abortion legal through all nine months. I personally don't agree with the rape/incest exception - it accomplishes nothing beyond allowing one victim the choice to create a second, and there is neither healing nor justice in that. But particularly in the case of this Presidential election, we are faced with a choice between Mitt Romney (who supports a rape exception) and Barack Obama (who has previously referred to an unplanned pregnancy as "a punishment," who voted against the "Born Alive Act," and who championed a law that violates the religious freedom of people morally opposed to abortion by forcing them to provide coverage for birth control and abortifacient drugs). In a perfect world, there would be a candidate who believed what I do. In the absence of that, I will take the man who will at least support most measures designed to protect life. I believe it is our job as Christians to ensure that the highest office in our nation not be inhabited by a man who so blatantly disrespects the precious gift of life. 

I know that some of you are already thinking this: but abortion is only one issue of many. That's true. But abortion is one of the biggest social issues in America today (same sex marriage being the other main social issue) and it is one that has been railroaded to the forefront by the likes of Sandra Fluke, Congressman Todd Akin, and others. And here's why it is so danged important: it is not only a social issue. Because the federal government (i.e. you and every other taxpayer in the country) funds organizations like Planned Parenthood, every abortion performed by Planned Parenthood is, in some small part, paid for by you. Because of the policies of the Obama Administration, the religious liberties of organizations such as the Catholic Church are being overrun by laws designed to make federal funding for abortion services more readily available. And the upshot is really this: if you claim to value life and you vote for a politician (on any level) who does not, you make the rather damning statement that you value the other things that politician stands for (such as economic strategies or social programs) more than you truly value life.

When it comes to other social programs - such as welfare, food stamps, the now infamous "Obama phone," Medicare, etc - there is a temptation for many Christians to support such programs and their ever swelling bureaucracies because the Bible tells us that we should care for those less fortunate. But the Bible calls us each as individuals and as church bodies to care for those less fortunate. Nowhere does it say "Give to the government so that they can do unto others for you."

Does that mean that it's wrong for the government to help people? Of course not. But the government has no money with which to help people unless it first collects money via taxes. Social programs in this country exist because the government already takes money from some people and gives it to others. You may have heard of a system of government that worked like this before - it's called socialism. And you cannot advocate for socialism (even in small doses) by referencing a Bible that demands "he who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Not only that, but when we as Christians advocate such programs, we essentially demand that the government do our job (care for those less fortunate). The problem with that is it allows us to become complacent - if our taxes are already covering it, why should we then do more, right? But it also reduces the amount of help that actually reaches the less fortunate, since the government has to first pay the bureaucrats that run the program before they can finance the actual program itself. But if you buy a bag of groceries and take it to a food pantry, every cent goes where it is needed.

For me, voting as a Christian means that I am a conservative independent. Others may not reach the same conclusion. But I challenge you all to educate yourselves on the issues, and be sure that your candidates stand for the important things first.