No More. NO MORE!

The headlines read, “Five American Service Men Killed In Iraq”.

When will this end?

How long is this going to contine?

Many of America’s finest young men and women face physical danger and possible death every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of flag draped caskets bring their remains home to grieving families. Thousands of these young men and women pass through hospitals and physical therapy units, to learn to walk on new artificial limbs and deal with other crippling physical (and emotional) disabilities of war.

And for what?

For a war with no apparent end game and no exit strategy.

We went to war in Iraq to topple a dictator and to stop the production and possible use of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam is gone, and the WMD’s were never found there.

Get out now!

We went into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden and to break up Al Quaida. The Taliban has been overthrown from power there, Osama took a bullet to the head in neighboring Pakistan, and anyone who believes Al Quaida is ever going to disappear is crazy.

Get out now!

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not some type of bleeding heart, tree hugging, pacifistic, flower child. I served in the military during the Viet Nam era. I support and pray daily for our troops. I supported our former President’s incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, for the reasons given by him. I believe in the concept of the “just war”. I agree with Francis Scott Key (“And conquer we must, when our cause, it is just. And this be our motto, ‘In God is our trust’”). But the present situation in these two fronts begs the realization that enough is enough!

911 required drastic action by our leaders – not only for retribution, but for the future safety of our people and our way of life. The larger "War on Terror" is a just war. But wars come at great cost. That cost must be taken into account before combat begins. Wars must be justly prosecuted, with a strategy and a will to win, and with the resources necessary to accomplish the mission. There must be a plan to exit when the time is right.

That time has passed.

The sands of Iraq and rocky terrain of Afghanistan have run red with American blood. We know that some sacrifice was necessary – but not a drop more than required. Five more of our fighting men have been killed this week in a place where our forces are being “drawn down”. When we leave Iraq, after all these years, trillions of dollars spent, and American lives lost – does anyone really believe that democracy will work there? A three way civil war between Shiites, Sunni’s and Kurds is inevitable. And yet the spending, and dying continues to go on.

Get out now!

And Afghanistan! Haven’t we learned what the Russians learned there? Do we honestly believe that we can win a war against a tribal culture still existing in something akin to the stone age? Yet the bleeding, maiming and death goes on.

Get out now.

Two billion dollars are being poured down that drain every day. TWO BILLION DOLLARS EVERY DAY! Our service men and women faithfully fulfill their duties and obey their orders, all the while at risk of dying – in a war that has no clear strategy, and arguably, at this point, of no strategic value to the safety of our nation. Furthermore, their sacrifices are not only unappreciated, but resented by many of the very people they are supposedly there to protect.

Meanwhile, our nation’s borders remain porous. Our neighbors try to recover from floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters of biblical proportions. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our education system is woefully inadequate. And our national debt is unfathomable. Yet we continue to pour billions of dollars of our resources and the best of our young people into the abyss – with no sign of success in sight.

Enough.

Pull the plug.

I don’t care who gets the credit (or the blame), just stop the bleeding. Bring our service people home so they may be with their families and prepare for the inevitable time when we must call them into action for the just causes of national security and protection of our allies.

Maybe you agree. Perhaps you don’t, but that is one Kentuckian’s opinion, “For What It’s Worth”.

"The Torch Was Passed..."

It was 50 years ago today, January 20, 1961. It was a more simple era - although we all thought we were pretty advanced at the time. It was a time when crew cuts and flat tops were still popular with sports stars like Johnny Unitas, and Roger Maris, and with the men and boys who wanted to be like them.

Most men still wore hats in public. Fedoras in the cool weather, and straw hats between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Professional men, such as doctors and lawyers, as well as bankers, teachers, salesmen, and office workers had never heard of "business casual". Suits and ties were every day apparel for the white collar jobs, and khakis or dark blue work clothes were the regular uniform for the factory workers. Our town was a bustling city of nearly 90,000, with railroad shops, steel mills, nearby oil refineries, and many other heavy industries. According to the World Almanac, it was the largest inland port in the United States in terms of tonnage shipped from the port of Huntington. Lots of moms were of the stay home variety, and the girls all wore dresses to school (except for the day when we had Phys Ed class in the gym, under the strict supervision of Mr. Varney). They wore dresses and skirts, even on the coldest of days - one of which was January 20, 1961.

There was a buzz of excitement in Mrs. Gertrude Stone's fifth grade class at Gallaher Elementary School that cold January day. We were ten year olds at the time, and although former Governor Cecil Underwood's children also went to our school, most of us were totally disconnected from politics at the time. Oh, I was vaguely aware of politics, because both of my grandfathers were what I later learned were Roosevelt "New Dealers". Papaw Stidham had serve three terms in the West Virginia Legislature, and he was actively involved in Logan County, WV politics, and worked as a field representative and lobbyist for the United Mine Workers of America, District 17.

Papaw Adkins had already passed away, but I could vividly remember him chewing on that pipe and talking politics with some of the other old men in the neighborhood. He had been a supervisor for the WPA during the Great Depression, and he was a "yellow dog democrat". In fact, speaking of dogs, at one point during the 30's he had owned a German Shepherd dog, that he and the kids had taught to bark excitedly, when asked the question, "Rex, are you a Democrat?" I can still remember him sitting in his living room, watching President Eisenhower making an address to the nation, broadcast over his old black and white television.

"Look at him!" he would bark out. "Watch him grin! he would growl. You just can't trust him!"

I had regularly heard names of revered men bantered around by my grandfathers. Guys like Estes Keefauver and Adalai Stevenson. It was a shame that Papaw was already gone by the time the young Democrat Senator from Massachusetts, had eked out an extremely close Presidential election win over Eisenhower's shifty eyed Vice President - a guy they called "Tricky Dick" Nixon!

The 1960 Presidential election was one that had caught the fancy of millions of Americans - even us apolitical ten year olds.

Our home state had been a major battleground between two U.S. Senators who were vying for the Democratic nomination for the country's highest office. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota traveled the Mountain State from the Northern Panhandle to the southern coal fields in a campaign bus. Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy covered the state as well. I had seen him shaking hands with workers at the main gate of the International Nickel Company during shift change. He drew huge crowds at a court house rally in Logan, and visited coal mines and small towns and coal camps, flashing that huge smile, pressing the flesh with anyone who would stop and listen. That New England accent with words like "vigga" and "Cubar" sure sounded strange to our ears.

It wasn't often that West Virginia drew that kind of attention during Presidential campaigns - then, or now! Humphrey represented the establishment. He was the "Happy Warrior" who promised a return to the policies of FDR and Harry Truman. Kennedy on the other hand, was a war hero, with a beautiful young wife, a dazzling charisma, and oh yes, he was a Catholic! As strange as it may seem to us now, that was a huge issue in West Virginia in 1961. If elected, would all Presidential decisions have to go through the Vatican, as some of the local preachers warned? If Kennedy could win in heavily protestant West Virginia's May primary, he could win anywhere. And win, he did, which propelled him to the nomination at the Democratic National Conventon in Los Angeles!

I remember watching the televised debates between Kennedy and Vice President Nixon. We were told that this was a throwback to the Lincoln, Douglas debates of a century before. The only difference was, these debates were televised and were viewed by millions of Americans in their own homes. Analysists have observed that those who listened to the debates via radio, believed Nixon to be the winner. However, for those who watched on the flickering black and white television sets, the winnner was Kennedy, hands down. His demeanor was pleasant, his smile was quick and natural, and he looked young and fresh in comparison to the sweating, squirming Nixon, who appeared as though he needed a shave.

The November election was one of the most tightly contested one in American history. In fact, the final results were in doubt, even into the next morning. Finally when the all votes were counted from Cook County, Illinois (Chicago) Nixon conceded defeat, and as Kennedy would later say in his inaugural address, "The torch had been passed to a new generation of Americans".

There were no televisions in school classrooms in those days - at least not in our classrooms at Gallaher. But January 20th was a special day, Inauguration Day, and Mrs. Stone saw it as a wonderful opportunity to bring a civics lesson right into the classroom. One of the parents (it seems like it might have been Mrs. Esposito) brought a large "portable" TV to our class that day. The two dozen or so of us students, sat in quiet anticipation for what Mrs. Stone told us was the opportunity to see a major historical event.

The television picture was grainy at best, but we could make out what was going on when the rabbit ears were placed in just the right position. (anybody out there remember Rabbit Ears? )Seems as though they always created better reception with a piece of aluminum foil wrapped around their tips".

It did seem pretty special with the television in the classroom. Mrs. Stone made certain that we understood this would be a historic event and that we should pay close attention. She said we would remember this day as long as we lived. Well, it's been 50 years, and I still do remember it pretty well.

I remember seeing the dignitaries gathered there on the Capitol's newly constructed Inaugural Platform bundled up against the frigid January elements. I remember him repeating the oath of office, which each of us had learned for an assignment. I remember how the news anchors and commentators talked about the extreme cold, and how the breaths of each speaker were visible in the fog they created while speaking. I remember the great (and very old) poet, Robert Frost, struggling to hold his notes against the cold wind while trying to read the poem that he had written especially for the occasion. I remember the President's inaugural speech.

And I remember THE line - the one that has lived in American political lore for five decades..

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Simple. Yet profound.

No matter what your political persuasion, this line verbalized a serious truth that brought us to the place we needed to focus on the two views of what it meant to be and American. Should we expect the state to be our total protector and provider? Or rather, should we, as Americans, step up and offer our services to our great land and it's people.

It was a noble goal then, and now, half a century later , it is an attitude that is desperately needed in America.

Think about it...

Death Of An Institution

When Senator Robert C. Byrd died at 3:00 this morning in a Fairfax, Virginia hospital, it literally marked the end of an era. Byrd was an institution in Washington, DC, and a legend in the Mountain State. Whether one agreed with his politics or not, there is no question that this was one remarkable individual. In the 234 year history of our nation, no man has served longer in the halls of Congress than the Senior Senator from West Virginia.

Byrd served in the West Virginia House of Delegates with my grandfather, Jerry Stidham, in the late 40's and early 50's . Papaw Stidham, an official with the United Mine Workers of America, had a lot of contact with Byrd over the years, and considered him a good friend until his death in 1968. The young man from Raleigh County was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1952, playing "Cripple Creek" on his fiddle at every campaign speech or rally. Six years later he was elected by the voters in West Virginia to the U.S. Senate - the only man in history elected to nine full terms in the Senate.

Byrd's career was a long, and strange one. The man never lost an election. He dismissed his earlier membership in the Ku Klux Klan as "a mistake of my youth". He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the early 70's he upset Ted Kennedy in the Senate Democrat caucus for the post of Majority Whip, and he later served a number of years as the Democrat's leader in the Senate. As the years passed, his vote began to swing from conservative to liberal. I often disagreed with his politics, but had to respect the seriousness he brought to the job. He cast more than 18,000 votes in his Senate career (an obvious record) and had a 98% attendance record! He always carried a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his jacket pocket, and was considered by his colleagues as an expert on the Constitution and the unique rules of the Senate.

Like him or not, the man showed up for work, and as long time chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, he brought home the bacon to the people of West Virginia. Wherever you go in the Mountain State, you'll find something - a bridge, a school, a building, or a highway, named for Robert C. Byrd. At the age of 92, Robert Byrd was an institution, yet he lived a quiet personal life, deeply devoted to his wife, who passed away about four years ago.

Back in the 90's, my mother wrote Senator Byrd a letter. The Senate had passed a bill, which banned the abominable practice known as "Partial Birth Abortion". President Clinton had vetoed the bill. Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats sought to over ride the veto. Byrd voted to uphold the veto and Mom was incensed! She wrote him a letter telling him so. She mentioned his long ago association with her father in the West Virginia Legislature and allowed as to how ashamed Papaw would have been of his stance.

Several days later, Mom heard the phone ring while she was doing some yard work just outside the back door. Quickly going inside to answer it, she heard a feminine voice say, "Patsy Adkins?" When she replied that she was, the voice said, "Please hold for Senator Byrd". To Mom's astonishment West Virginia's Senior Senator came on the line greeting her and thanking her for her note. He spent several minutes explaining to her why he had voted the way he did (which I can't explain), but nevertheless, he claimed good reason. He continued by talking about his 20 year friendship with my grandfather, and asked, "What about Mary? (my grandmother) Is she still living?" Learning that she had recently passed away, the Senator offered his deep condolences and assured Mom that our family would be in his prayers. Mom was deeply gratified and her anger over his unpopular vote was gone.

That, my friends, (along with pork barrel politics) is a prime example of how a guy can cast a vote contrary to the views of the majority of voters in his state, but keeps getting elected to represent them!

The Republic goes on, but we will most surely never again see another person like Robert C. Byrd on Capitol Hill.

Arizona's New Immigration Law

Much has been said about Arizona's new Immigration Law. Most of it has been negative. The President has characterized it as "misguided". He says that full blown immigration reforms are necessary but not just now.

I think the operative question would be "If not now, when?"

We are a nation of immigrants. As someone once jokingly said, "Our forefathers have been kicked out of some of the greatest nations on earth". But seriously, other than the Native American descendants, and the descendants of slaves who were brought here against their will, most of us are the progeny of immigrants. Immigrants who came here willfully and legally. Some came to escape tyranny and persecution. Some who came were seeking a better way of life in search of "The American Dream". Yet they were people who came according to the rule of law.

Our nation has strict and comprehensive immigration laws on the books. Unfortunately, federal authorities have been remiss in enforcing those laws. With this being the case, and illegal immigration becoming a full blown crisis in some of our border states, one can hardly blame Arizona, or others in taking measures to try to stem the flood of illegal aliens.

Opponents of the new Arizona law have likened it to those of Nazi Germany. Comedians have made light of it, and certain broadcast and print media outlets have castigated Arizona's legislators and Governor for passing the bill and signing it into law. The law has been roundly criticized by the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of Homeland Security, yet amazingly by their own admission last week, neither of them had read the text of the law, nor had they been "fully briefed" on it before criticizing it.

There is no excuse for such ignorance on the part of our Federal bureaucracy. The law is simple and straightforward, and it is only 16 pages long. Here is a link to a website that contains the text of the law.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Read it for yourself, and judge for yourself. Any of your constructive comments would be welcome.

Really, Mr. President?

A few things I would ask you to consider this morning as I reflect on recent and upcoming issues regarding our President. While this is not a "political" blog, I did say from the outset that I would sometimes comment on politics, "For What It's Worth".


One of the most important (and long lasting) actions taken by the Chief Executive involve the appointment of Judicial nominees, especially that of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Judges serve for life. They are not elected by the people, and can only be removed from office by impeachment for cause. the Judicial branch of our Federal government (outlined in Article III of the U.S. Constitution) serve as an important part of the checks and balances, wisely written into the Constitution by it's framers.



As you know, Associate Justice David Souter has announced his intention to retire from the High Court at the end of this session. So, only four months into his first term, the duty falls to our new President to appoint his first Supreme Court Justice. Many commentators believe that appointment could come as early as today. Speculation is that Mr. Obama's appointment will likely be a woman, and possibly one of Hispanic descent. Common sense and experience would indicate that the candidate will also be philosophically aligned with the liberal political views of the President. I have no problem with any of this, because that is the way the system works. The President makes the appointment, and the Senate confirms or rejects the nominee under it's "advise and consent" responsibilities in the constitutional process. It should be apparent to the most casual observer, that a conservative President will appoint conservative judges, and a liberal Chief Executive will appoint liberal jurists. When Barack Obama was elected President, no one should have had any doubts where his priorities lay involving judicial nominees.


I personally would like to see a more conservative jurist appointed to the High Court, but one would only assume that the new nominee would be ideologically aligned with the opinions of Justices Souter, Stevens, Bryer, and Ginsberg. What does concern me more is what the President recently said that he is looking for in a Supreme Court Justice. He says he will nominate someone with "empathy".


Empathy? What the heck is THAT all about? Does "the boy president" even understand the constitutional duties of the Supreme Court? The American Heritage Dictionary defines empathy as:


1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. (See Synonyms at pity.)
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.


The duty of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in the U.S. It's main functions are to interpret the Constitution and to examine every law passed whether federal or state and determine if said laws adhere to the Constitution of the United States. Empathy doesn't come into the equation. Applying the Constitution, and not one's feelings, opinions, and pity, is the criteria for the work of a Supreme Court Justice.


The statue of the "Lady Justice" at the Supreme Court building depicts our justice system as blindfolded to outside influences, judging only by the scales in her hand.


It is not that this President "doesn't get it". No, not at all. It is simply another glimpse into his strange view of what America is really all about.

******

It's been about 10 days now since Mr. Obama's much ballyhooed speech at the Commencement Ceremony at Notre Dame. The invitation to speak in South Bend was controversial because of his "Pro Choice" views on abortion and the traditional "Pro Life" stance of the Roman Catholic Church. The debate raged on for some time on the cable news networks.


Should Mr. Obama be invited to speak at Notre Dame?


Well, why not? He IS the President of the United States and the honor of having the nation's Chief Executive speak at a commencement is a major one. Obviously his appearance was popular with the audience.


Should Mr. Obama have been conferred an Honorary Doctorate? Absolutely not!


The former question speaks of respect for his office. The latter is an abominable decision that a Catholic university would confer an honorary degree upon a politician who has no respect for the basic human "right to life."


In his speech, the President made reference to the differing views on abortion. He made no bones about the fact that the two differing viewpoints are at polar opposites and that there are certain irreconcilable differences between the two camps. Duh! He certainly has a tremendous grasp of the obvious...


What is more amazing, however, is that he stated that both sides must find "common ground" on the issue of abortion. Pardon me for asking, but HOW in God's name can we find "common ground" on the matter of terminating a human life in what should be the safest place on earth - it's mother womb. The matter is a simple one. Abortion stops a beating heart. Innocent life is terminated - often under the oblique heading of "choice" or "reproductive rights". The practice is either right or wrong. Where, please tell me, is ANY possibility for "common ground". Unborn life is either sacred, or it is not. Try as hard as you like, straddling the fence on this issue is impossible.


The thing that amazes me, is that many of the same politicians who have decried the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on terrorist prisoners, are the same characters who approve of inserting scissors into the base of the skull of a partially born baby, and sucking the brains out, all in the name of "choice". Talk about inconsistent... now THAT is torture.


Common ground, Mr. President? Impossible!

******

The final thought I want to share with you today comes from page 92 of the May 25th issue of "Newsweek" magazine. It is a telling graphic which shines a bright light on Mr. Obama's Three Trillion, five hundred, fifty Billion dollar budget he has submitted to Congress. In figures, that's $3,550,000,000,000.00! Seth Colter Walls did the research that appears with the illustrations by Peter Arkle in an eye opening picture of "What You Could Buy With Obama's 2010 Federal Budget". Here is a breakdown, without the illustrations:




With the money in President Obama's 2010 budget, one could buy -

• Everything produced in Italy in 2008 - PLUS



• A refund for everyone defrauded by Bernie Madoff - PLUS



• The International Space Station - PLUS



• An electric car for every 16 and 17 year old in America - PLUS



• All the oil in Saudi Arabia - PLUS



• The Big Dig, Boston's urban-infrastructure money pit - PLUS



• Full funding for the Krasnow Institute's project to map the Human Brain - PLUS



• All the tea in China - PLUS



• The treasure of King Tut's Tomb - PLUS



• Recession era bargain: an Upper East Side NY Condo on 94th Street - PLUS



• The 1909 mint condition Honus Wagner baseball card - PLUS



• A week long staging of Stockhausen's seven-opera series - PLUS



• One $.99 MP3 download from iTunes for everyone in America - PLUS



• A pair of Marc Jacobs 214S sunglasses, with dark gray lenses - PLUS



• A burrito at Chiptole in Manhattan.

Kind of puts it in perspective doesn't it? I would have included the dollar figures, but there are way too many 0's and my fingers are tired! You can look it up in Newsweek for yourself.

Enough of this for today.

How's that "hopey, changey thing" going for you?

I'm depressed...

Let The People Vote!

The West Virginia Legislative session is quickly coming to a close, and two Delegates in the House are stonewalling a grass roots movement to define marriage in the Mountain State as a union between one man and one woman.

Legislation has been introduced to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to come before the voters of West Virginia which would prohibit so called "same sex marriage". (For details, click on http://www.wv4marriage.com/). While he says he does not support same sex marriage, Governor Joe Manchin has refused to lend his support to the proposed marriage amendment. The Governor and some others in the state legislature say that West Virginia already has a "Defense of Marriage Act" that defines marriage in the Mountain State.

This is true. However, other states with similar DOMA's have had their respective laws overturned by liberal activist judges. In fact, the federal DOMA is presently being tested in the court systems, and it is entirely possible that the DOMA could be declared "unconstitutional".

The only action that could insure this would not happen in West Virginia would be if the voters of the Mountain State passed an amendment to the state constitution, defining marriage once and for all. Being part of the state constitution would render it impossible to be deemed unconstitutional. Unfortunately the voters of West Virginia do not have the advantage that the citizens of California have when it comes to this type of referendum. In California, as I'm sure you are aware, a million and a half voters filed a petition to allow for a constitutional amendment to be put before the voters. Proposition 8, thought by many to have no chance of ratification, passed easily when put to the voters. Recent polls show that West Virginians would vote by nearly 90% to affirm the traditional view of marriage, if they were given the opportunity.

However, it looks as though that is not going to happen.

You see, West Virginia laws do not allow for a petition drive to call for a constitutional amendment. The action would have to start in the House of Delegates, and then be placed on the ballot for the voters to make that choice. Voters in 30 other states (including neighboring Kentucky and Ohio) have already passed similar constitutional amendments. The citizens of West Virginia are supportive of traditional marriage, and many are calling for the opportunity to have their voices heard. There are Delegates in the House (both Republican and Democrat) who support the measure, but two powerful committee chairwomen have blocked the bill from going to the full House floor for a vote. These two Delegates, from Kanawha and Monongalia Counties, are preventing the citizens of West Virginia from being able to voice their opinions in the voting booth.

As of March 20th more than 1,000 phone calls have been placed to Delegates Barbara Flesichauer and Carrie Webster, but the powerful Judiciary and Constitutional Committee chairwomen have continued to stonewall all attempts to allow the 1.8 million voters in West Virginia to have their say in the matter. Yesterday, two town meetings were held - one in Charleston, and the other in Morgantown, to give citizens a chance to voice their opinions to their elected representatives. The citizens showed up, the press was there, but Delegates Flesichauer and Webster didn't bother to come.

Delegate Webster, was quoted in the Charleston Gazette as saying the calls coming into her office were attempts at "manipulation". Since when is an elected representative above listening to the concerns of their constituents? When did contacting your representative become an attempt to manipulate? I always thought that was the very basis of our republican form of government.

This writer thinks it unconscionable that elected representatives of the people turn a deaf ear to their constituents on such an important matter. They are not asking the legislature to take this action - but simply allow the people to have their say. This is not a "religious" issue! This is a cultural matter. Traditional marriage between one man and one woman is a bedrock of western civilization. Judicial activists in Massachusetts and Connecticut have stepped in and have ruled same sex marriage legal in those states. The same thing happened in California, until the people rose up and said "NO!" by passing Proposition 8 and amending their state constitution. Today, the legislature of Vermont became the first in the United States to legislatively allow same sex marriage. One lawsuit filed against West Virginia's Defense of Marriage Act, could result in the end of traditional marriage in the Mountain State as well, plus cost the citizens millions in court costs defending our existing laws.

President Lincoln famously described our government as being "of the people, by the people and for the people". So it should be. Let the people decide. Let the people vote!

I encourage the voters in the districts represented by these two women to let their voices be heard! If they won't heed your phone calls and letters, then speak up in the press!

Letters to the editors of the Charleston Gazette, Charleston Daily Mail, and The Dominion Post in Morgantown may be submitted by email to the following addresses:

gazette@wvgazette.com
editor@dailymail.com
editor@dominionpost.com

Send the letter today! Express your support for the right of West Virginia's voters to vote on the definition of marriage. And above all, pray that Almighty God will break the hard hearts of the two individuals who are refusing to allow the people to speak!

Thank You Mr. President

In four more days your term in the Oval Office will be over. The past eight years have been quite a ride for the American people and for you. As you leave Washington as our former President, many will rejoice, since your popularity is only 28%. While I have not personally been pleased with all of your actions while in office, I want to thank you for serving as our President.

Your first term of office was marred by the infamous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Your second term was hit hard by the one-two Punch of largest natural disaster to ever hit the United States of America (Hurricane Katrina) and the financial meltdown of 2008. Your administration's reactions to these tumultuous events are the subject of debate and sometime vigorous disagreement among Americans. However, in the long run, history will judge the impact of your presidency - and that is fitting and proper. In the mean time, I, for one would like to say, "Thank you".

Thank you for doing all you could to keep us safe. On September 12, 2001, I'm sure most Americans would have never expected that we would make it another 7 1/2 years with no terrorist attacks on our soil. But we did, and that is not by accident. I believe you and our various security forces have done everything humanly possible to protect the homeland, and to also bring democracy to the oppressed people of Iraq. Some are unhappy with your methods. Many disagree with your reasoning, but I thank you for standing firm in a time of war. My prayer is that the incoming President and his administration will be as vigilant as you were in providing for our national security.

Thank you for appointing excellent jurists to the high court. Associate Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts will help keep a balance of reason on the bench, being strict constructionists in their interpretation of the Constitution.

Thank you for your support of the nation of Israel.

Thank you for being a man of faith. Far from perfect, you have still served as an example of God's Grace and life changing power. Your support for faith based initiatives goes a long way toward placing charitable work where it belongs - in the faith community.

Thank you for appearing to be faithful to your wife and the intuition of marriage. The lack of scandal in your personal life sets an excellent example for public figures to follow. It stands in stark contrast to your predecessor, and to a number of elected officials from both major political parties.

Thank you for being "real". Your lack of pretense and your human imperfections helped provide fuel for many comic routines, but in reality, we could see you as a real American. Imperfect. Self Deprecating. Quick with a smile - a joke - or a nickname. While not a "messiah" you were a President who most of us could relate to as fellow Americans.

Thank you for standing your ground when your decisions were unpopular. For way too long, and on too many levels of government, governing by "polling data" has become too commonplace. You may have made some wrong decisions, but you never shirked your duty of making the tough decisions. I believe you did your best to serve us and to protect us. For that we should at least all be thankful.

As you step into the next chapter of your life, I wish you health, happiness, and vindication by historians for your vigilance in the face of danger. May God bless you. Thank you for your service to our nation.

A True Public Servant

West Virginia lost a true statesman yesterday, when former Governor Cecil H. Underwood passed away in Charleston Area Medical Center at the age of 86. A rare Republican Governor in a state whose legislature has been dominated by Democrats for over 70 years, Underwood was a model for those who would be involved in public service.

Underwood served two terms as Governor of the Mountain State, separated by 40 years! He owns the distinction of being the youngest Governor of West Virginia (elected in 1956 at the age of 34) and the oldest Governor, re-elected in 1996 (at the age of 74). Unlike West Virginia's other recent Repbublican Governor, Arch Moore Jr., and a number of past Democratic chief executives, Underwood's terms in the Governor's Mansion were never marred by personal scandal or legal indictments. He and his late wife, Hovah, loved the state of West Virginia and they were models of dignity, decorum and public service.

Although I did not know him personally, there were brushes with our family over the years. As a young man, Governor Underwood served in the West Virginia House of Delegates, representing Tyler County at the same time my Grandfather, Jerry Stidham, represented Logan County in the State House. Although they were on opposite sides politically, my Grandfather always had high respect for Underwood. After his first term of office, Underwood went to work for Island Creek Coal Company and moved his family to Huntington. They bought a home about four blocks from where we lived. His children attended Gallaher Elementary School with us, and we often saw Governor and Mrs. Underwood at school functions.

He and Mrs. Underwood were deeply involved in community activities and were an asset to the City of Huntington during their time there. A committed Christian, the Governor was an active member and Sunday School Teacher at Johnson Memorial United Methodist Church, during his time in Huntington. Mrs. Underwood served on the boards of several organizations and charities as well, and she was deeply involved with the Huntington Museum of Art.

In a political culture where partisan bickering, ethics violations, and personal scandal are commonplace, Cecil Underwood stood out as someone different. His death is a loss for the State of West Virginia. This state is a better place because of the public service of Governor and Mrs. Underwood. May he be remembered fondly by West Virgininians of both parties, for the manner in which he served.

An Article by Chuck Colson

Cathy Howerton shared this article with me via email and I felt strongly enough about it to publish it here. Obviously it is his article, not mine, but he is dead on with his analysis of the situation.

Most of you probably remember Colson as Chief Counsel to the President during the Nixon Administration. He was convicted in the Watergate Scandal and spent time in a Federal Prison, where he gave his life to Jesus Christ. Upon release, Colson founded Prison Fellowship, a Christian organization seeking to take the Gospel to those behind bars and to build committed disciples from individuals who have had broken lives.

I hope you will appreciate his insight on this article, written the day after our Presidential election.

THE DAY AFTER
By Chuck Colson
11/5/2008

Pray for Our President and Our Nation

Whether you voted for Barack Obama or John McCain, whether you're
recovering from your all-night celebration or drying the tears from
your pillow, today's a good day to remember the words of the apostle
Paul: "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession
and thanksgiving be made for everyone- for kings and all those in
authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness
and holiness" (1 Timothy 2:1-3).

And the new President will surely need our prayers because he and his
administration face huge, serious challenges to the health of our
nation and to peace in the world-challenges that, in my opinion,
neither he nor any government on earth will have the power to overcome
without divine aid.

How has America come to this point? Why is our economy on the brink of
disaster? Why is our culture so utterly depraved?

I can only think of what Alexandr Solzhenitsyn said about the
catastrophic consequences of the Russian revolution. "I recall," he
said, "hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation
for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten
God; that's why all this has happened."

Solzhenitsyn was right. Indeed, I can't find any better explanation for
why we Americans find ourselves in the state we are in. We have
forgotten God.

We have also forgotten that American democracy-indeed Western
Civilization itself-is the product of the Judeo-Christian understanding
of God and humanity. Without that revelation that man is created in the
image of God, our founders never would have recognized the unalienable
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, as I and
others like Rodney Stark have argued, modern science and education,
liberal democracy, capitalism flourished in Western civilization
precisely because of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

The attacks on Christianity these days are only going to intensify in
the months ahead. But we must press on all the more to make a winsome
witness. Those who would banish Christianity from American life are
risking the very survival of American society.

Friends have asked me whether this economic crisis is God's judgment
upon us. I don't know.

As I've re-read the Old Testament prophets recently, I couldn't help
but notice the recurring theme: The people of God turned away from Him
and worshipped false idols. The result was always disaster.

Is God responsible for credit markets collapsing around the world? No.
We're responsible. Because instead of worshiping God, we've worshipped
false idols of the marketplace, credit card companies and cheap
mortgages. We've put our own appetites over our duties to God and
neighbor.

So this is no time for Christians to go into the bunkers. No time to
wail or moan over our retirement plans. This is a time to repent, to
pray more, to give more. It's a time for Christians to lead, encourage,
and minister to a faltering country in a faltering economy.

This is a time for the Church to get serious about Christian
discipleship. Enough cheap grace.

So pray for the new President and his administration. But most of all,
my brothers and sisters, this is a time to love our neighbors and to
hunger for God and His righteousness.

What Makes America Great

Thank God for November 5th!
The long - loooonnnng Presidential campaign is finally over, and like many others, I have a plethora of mixed emotions. This campaign has been going on for nearly two years. We have all probably had it up to here with the rhetoric, promises, talking points, charges, counter charges, attack ads, pundits, polls, and talking heads arguing on the cable news shows.

Voter turnout percentages were the highest for any national election in decades.. People were passionate about their candidates, and many stood in line for hours to cast their ballots. The campaign was hard fought, but by 11:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, November 4th, it was suddenly over.

The guy I voted for lost.

I was never really excited about John McCain's candidacy, but I was truly disappointed to see him finish about six points behind Illinois Senator Barack Obama. After all, there were other Republican candidates whom I found to be more representative of my conservative ideology. However, McCain did hold to certain issues that resonate with me, such as his right to life stance, his stand on the issue of same sex marriages, his opposition to congressional earmarks and pork barrel spending, his plan to keep the Bush tax cuts in place and to cut the capital gains taxes. I also respect his military experience and feel that he would have been a capable Commander in Chief.

On the other hand, Senator Obama's brief (but very liberal) senate voting record and lack of substantial experience seemed problematic to me. His judgement came into question in my mind concerning his past (and present) ties to such controversial figures as William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Louis Farakhan, and Jeremiah Wright. I found his "nay" vote in the Illinois State Senate against their version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to be equal to an agreement with infanticide. His Marxist sounding rhetoric regarding "spreading the wealth around" and former statements regarding the constitution send chills up my spine.

As I said earlier - mixed emotions. How so?

While I disagree with Senator Obama on most social and economic issues, and still have many troubling questions about this man who is an almost unknown quantity, I have nothing but admiration how he has risen from nowhere to be elected to the highest office in the land. Through my personal disappointment, there was still a place in my heart that shared in the happiness of so many of our fellow countrymen of African descent. While I never was personally the object of racial hatred and prejudice I do remember the segregated schools, lunch counters, and water fountains of the late 50's and early 60's. I remember well the news reports of the fire hoses and police dogs in Birmingham. I remember Alabama Governor George Wallace's "stand in the school house door", and federal troops escorting a hand full of black teenagers to class at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, surrounded by mobs of jeering students and adults.

My fellow baby boomers never saw the days of slavery. We did, however, come of age when the scars of that darkest chapter in American history were still open wounds, festering in our society. The very idea that a black man might be elected President in our lifetimes seemed to be fantasy. The sin of racism is not gone - in fact it still exists among some blacks as well as some whites. Yet no one can argue that history has been made this week.

Now, with that being said, let me get to the point of the title of this post.

The bitter election fight came to an end on Tuesday night. Senator McCain called Senator Obama to congratulate him on his victory and to state his support for him as President Elect. President George W. Bush, (who had daily been a campaign punching bag for Obama, Senator Biden and their surrogates) publicly congratulated the Senator on his accomplishment and extended a gracious invitation to he and his family for a visit to their future home in the White House. Bush offered full help and cooperation to Senator Obama's people as they begin the transition phase. Starting this morning, the Senator began to receive the same daily briefings that President Bush gets on security and international issues.

On January 21, 2008 an orderly transfer of power will take place. One administration will pass and a new (and very different) one will ascend to the head of the Executive Branch of our government. Ideologies and policies coming in will be almost the exact opposite of those of the outgoing administration. This transfer of power will take place peacefully, because our Constitution mandates how this is done. The voters have spoken. Changes will be evident. But the Republic continues as the great ship of state changes course.

While he did not get my vote, President Elect Obama will get my respect and support because of the importance of the office which he assumes. He will not be the President of the black Americans, nor will he be the President of the Democrats. Barack Obama will be the President of the United States of America. The election is over, and power is his for the next four years. I believe it is my duty to pray for my President because the Bible tells us to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

I will pray for him to be granted wisdom from Almighty God for every position he appoints and every decision he makes. While I may not agree with many of his policies, I also know that "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turns it whithersoever he will" (Proverbs 21:1). While Senator Obama's past actions and judgments may be suspect, I will pray that God will change his heart and channel it toward what is right in the sight of God. I hope you will join me in this fervent prayer.

Finally, it would also be well for all of our elected officials, from President to City Councilman to remember one thing. It's a truth found in 1 Corinthians 2:5-6 where Paul writes "Your faith should not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power f God. However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are coming to nothing." Our elected officials are in a position of temporary stewardship, but their authority is limited. It will eventually come to an end.

God is in control.

Election Day

Are you voting today? I'm preparing to leave for my local precinct polling place right now.

As Americans, we have the privilege of choosing our leaders.

Every American should exercise their franchise.

When you vote (whether it be for President or City Commissioner) I pray that your vote will not be based on partisan affiliations, special interest groups' endorsements, slogans, personalities, economics, and empty rhetoric - but upon your values and convictions.

Those of us who are Christ Followers, must be careful not to leave our Biblical world view outside the voting booth. I will not presume to tell you for whom to vote... but I do urge you to know the candidates and their platforms. Evaluate where they stand in regard to your innermost convictions, and cast your vote accordingly.

On the other hand, if you don't know the candidates, or where they really stand on the issues that are important to you, then for God's sake DON'T VOTE!

Where Are The Other Issues?

Tomorrow night Senators Barack Obama and John McCain meet for their third, and final formal debate. Thus far, in this writer's opinion, both debates have been underwhelming. Neither candidate has been able to really distinguish himself from the other, as moderators Jim Lerher (of PBS) and Tom Brokaw (of NBC) have basically asked different forms of the same questions, over and over for 90 minutes. The candidates give the same canned, over rehearsed, stock answers. Obama drones on about the evils of the Bush administration, and McCain proudly proclaims his "maverick" credentials, and his ability to "reach across the aisle".

Here's a thought, gentlemen. First, Senator Obama, you're not running against George Bush, and every conservative will quickly tell you that John McCain is NOT George W. Bush! And you, Senator McCain - please understand that we, who are conservative couldn't care less about how you have loved up to Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, or Joe Lieberman. We want to hear about issues. Real issues. ALL the issues that matter to voters - and those issues go far beyond the two horses of the economy and taxes.

The economic crisis IS important. Someone needs to come up with a real plan that would lessen the government's influence in economic matters and let the free market work. American businesses and her workers must make the major adjustments it takes to be effective in the global economy. Taxes ARE an important issue and there is no doubt that government has it's hand way too far in our collective pockets. While important to each of us, taxes and economic issues are not the be all, end all of the important questions that voters need to ask.

I am no longer identifying myself as a Democrat or a Republican, but rather as a Conservative. I do not vote as an "evangelical", I consider candidates (at every level) from the perspective of being a Conservative with a Biblical world view. I do not believe I am alone in this. In fact I KNOW I am not. I know Democrats and Republicans alike who fall into that same category, and that world view should go with us in every aspect of our lives - and yes - even into the voting booth. I refuse to worship at the altar of the economy only. I want to know where these guys stand on issues that are important to me, and to our culture.

Where do they stand on the definition of marriage? What would their policies be in regard to that important institution? What about the right to life? What would they do to protect the rights of the unborn - the most helpless among us? What type of Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices would they appoint? Would they go with appointees that strictly interpret our constitution, or those who would be judicial activists - legislating from the bench? Where do they stand on their commitment to national security, and that of our allies in general? What would they do to support Israel in the face of the threat of annihilation from their radical neighbors? What about their personal character? My mother used to tell me that you are judged by the company you keep. Shouldn't these candidates be examined regarding their past and present associations with others?

Other issues are important as well. How will they lead in dealing with illegal immigration? Who or what type of individuals would they appoint to cabinet and advisory positions? Do they believe in more government or less? Do they think that the "separation of church and state" means there can be no expression of Christian faith in the public square? What about energy independence? Will they support policies that would allow us to tap into our vast reserves of oil or would we still continue to spend billions of dollars buying crude oil from foreign nations that really don't like us much? Would they support nuclear power and clean coal technologies? No hedging. No spin. Just give us opportunity to hear their answers to these and other important questions!

The list goes on and on, but I hope you see the point. Where are these questions during the debates? Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum asked many of these questions. We were able to see some real differences between the two candidates in that forum. John McCain's first boost in the public opinion polls came as a result of his answers to those questions at Saddleback. The other came when he named a rather unknown running mate who openly and un-apologetically states what she stands for. Her Democratic opponent does the same. One can easily see the difference between the two.

It's a refreshing breath of fresh air, that I think would be helpful for the candidates at the top of the tickets to emulate. And as for the Wednesday evening debate, I would urge CBS's Bob Schieffer (the moderator) to ask about SOMETHING besides the economy. Give us opportunity to see where these candidates stand on a whole spectrum of issues. Then, perhaps, we will see the differences, and make an informed decision as to how to cast our votes.

The Glaring Double Standard

I am a political junkie. There. I've said it. Even though I have strong political feelings, and believe that my personal faith and Biblical world view should permeate every aspect of my life, I make a concerted effort to never venture into partisan politics from the pulpit. That's tough duty for a pastor who has to minister to a congregation of Democrats AND Republicans, and whose job is not to preach partisanship, but Grace and Redemption to everyone. Evangelical pastors must walk a fine line, preaching Biblical values for everyday life, while never endorsing partisan political candidates from the pulpit. In the first place, it is unseemly and divisive, automatically bringing an unnecessary polarizing issue to the very audience the pastor is attempting to reach with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Secondly, there are legal issues involved.

The forum that Rick Warren moderated at Saddleback Church was a delicate balancing act, with identical questions for both Presidential candidates. Although I was a little uncomfortable with the venue, I was not nearly as bothered as I am by seeing Monday morning news coverage of EITHER Presidential candidate in the pulpit of some house of worship on the previous Sunday. That's just wrong. While I do preach that the Christian's role of being Salt and Light in the present culture does extend into the public square as well as the voting booth, I have vowed not to endorse political candidates from the pulpit. I'll share my opinions about them with anyone who wants to talk about them privately, or in a social setting, but not during worship time.

Now, any one who has read my posts in the past knows, I do hold both "social and fiscal" conservative values. This year's Presidential race (which seems to have been going on forever) has really left me "underwhelmed". Senator Obama is obviously a highly intelligent and meteoric figure on the political scene, but he is scary. The obviously liberal (almost socialistic) views of the Democratic candidate are abhorrent to my conservative sensibilities. His economic policies which amount to the redistribution of wealth is dangerous to our capitalistic economy. I am more fearful of his potential choices for the federal bench and for possible vacancies on the Supreme Court. While claiming to be the agent of "change", his political campaign has been more of the same old, same old, and his VP nominee, Joe Biden is a classic Washington insider. That ticket looks like an empty suit and a political hack to me.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, is not a real exciting figure to this conservative either. On the plus side, he is pro life, and his military service to our country and the personal sacrifices he has made make him a genuine American hero. The Senator from Arizona, however, has some worrisome stands on immigration, global warming, and campaign financing (McCain-Feingold). I appreciate the fact that he supported (almost alone at first) the troop surge that seems to have turned the corner toward bringing our troops home from Iraq. He has also been a force against pork barrel spending in Congress, which I deeply appreciate. Unfortunately, McCain also leaves me somewhat cold.

Then he made his announcement of his choice for a running mate.

I was dumbfounded. So was the rest of the nation. We were all ready for Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, but McCain knocked this one out of the park!

My prior knowledge of Sarah Palin was that I had read in the newspapers a few months ago that the Governor of Alaska had given birth to her fifth child. That's it. However, the more I have learned about this former Mayor of Wasilla and first term Governor has been enough to excite me and give me hope for a future of the Conservative cause. A professing Christian, (Assembly of God) she is firmly pro-life and staunchly conservative in her politics. I couldn't care less that she was a runner up for Miss Alaska, a moose hunter, hockey mom, or a high school basketball star. I am impressed, however, by her accomplishments in office as a reform minded Mayor and Governor, and her fiscal responsibility, Her support for the sanctity of human life, the second amendment, drilling for oil on Alaska's north slope, tax cuts, and pro business policies make her the most impressive candidate on either ticket.

The furor that her nomination created in the opposing camp was more than I would have imagined. Everyone from the typical politicos to a number of national news media figures have been downright sexist and brutal in their personal attacks on Governor Palin. First on the matter of her experience (or inexperience). Whereas Barack Obama's political career consists of a couple of nondescript terms in the Illinois legislature and 140 weeks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, this lady has actual executive experience. Furthermore, as Governor, she has also served as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, called her "shrill". Sally Quinn of the Washington Post wrote that Governor Palin has little time to serve as Vice President since she has five children, one of whom is a special needs child.

One expects attacks from James Carville, Paul Begalia, Donna Brazille, and other partisan "talking heads". However, when you find other media network personalities like Keith Obermann and some of the crew on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" unabashedly slurring her and her family - that's just unacceptable. This is where the double standard really begins to show. So many of the left leaning crowd has shown their true colors.

Where are the feminists who have preached for decades about women needing to leave their children in daycare and get involved in the workplace? Now they're saying Governor Palin should stay home and take care of her family. How about those who have ballyhooed the loosening sexual mores among our young people. Now they criticize Governor Palin's unmarried daughter for an unplanned pregnancy. That is an unfortunate situation indeed, but the young lady is going to carry the baby to term and is preparing to marry the father. Furthermore, some of the attackers of Bristol Palin are the very voices who have cried in the past that Chelsea Clinton and other members of political families are off limits. Which is it? Critics claim that Sarah Palin is unprepared for high political office. Yet she does bring reform executive experience to the table while Senator Obama has written two memoirs and no laws during his legislative career. The funny thing is that Democrat, Geraldine Ferraro (the first female VP candidate) has said publicly, "Of course Governor Palin is qualified to do the job!"

One of the most glaring hypocrites of all is none other than the queen of talk, Oprah Winfrey. Oprah, long an advocate of women's rights and their rightful place in the workplace, is backing off in this case. Granted, Oprah is openly in the Obama camp, and that's OK. That is her privilege. Furthermore, it is her perogative to have whomever she wishes as a guest on her popular show. However, today Oprah has announced that she will not invite Governor Palin to be a guest. She claims that she will not have any of the candidates on her show until after the election. What does she fear by allowing Governor Palin to appear? Please take note of the accompanying photo. The double standard is here. I rest my case.

Barack Obama's Pastor

For several weeks one only heard about him on the conservative talk radio programs. Yesterday, finally, some of the mainstream news media began to delve into some of the "teachings" of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. People across America were shocked to hear a number of telling sound bytes of the hate filled, vulgar, and race baiting messages of this so called "Man of God".

Wright is the retiring after 36 years as pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where U.S. Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been a member for twenty years. Trinity has over 8,000 members and has often been attended by Oprah Winfrey. In a March 7th article, "The New York Times" calls it a "mainstream church... but more Afrocentric and politically active than the standard black congregation." Trinity's website is http://www.tucc.org/home.htm you can judge for yourself.

In his only interview on network television (Hannity and Colmes over a year ago) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html Wright constantly refers to blacks, as "Africans", eschewing the more commonly used politically correct term of "African Americans". He says he is a proponent of "Liberation Theology" and "Black Liberation Theology". This teaching, which emphasises liberation of oppressed peoples, originated in the Catholic Church, but parts of it's dogma have been rejected by the Vatican in recent years. Judging by the excerpts shown on the news programs, and from the archived messages found on Trinity's website, the type of "Liberation Theology" Rev. Wright espouses, doesn't have much to do with the Gospel of Grace that I find in my Bible.

Apologists for Wright claim that critics just don't understand "the Black Church" and their type of preaching. Well, I have attended several predominantly black churches in Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia over the years. I have had black pastors and evangelists fill my pulpits, and I have been blessed to preach in one black church, myself. I am personally acquainted with several black ministers and consider them to be close friends. While the worship styles may be different from some of our "stiff necked white churches", I have always enjoyed attending their services. The black Christians I know, really know how to "do church"! The singing is joyful and exuberant, the preaching is powerful and passionate, and nobody looks at the clock and worries about what time the service will be over. In all my experiences with black churches and their pastors, I have never heard the type of vulgar and hateful comments that spew from the lips of Rev. Wright.

Every pastor, like every other church member, is entitled to their own political views. I certainly have mine. However, the pulpit in the House of God is NOT the place for those views to be expressed. I have pledged to NEVER endorse partisan political candidates from the pulpit. As Tony Evans says, "Almighty God does not ride on the back of Donkey's or Elephants!" The church is the place where the Bible is to be preached, the Gospel is to be proclaimed, Grace is to be the theme. Pastor Wright's public endorsement of one political candidate over another is not only unseemly in the House of God, but has also brought on an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service that could result in Trinity Church losing their tax exempt status. I wonder if that might have anything to do with the timing of Rev. Wright's retirement?

Wright's sermons reek of socialism and are absolutely racist and anti-american in tone - constantly blasting "white America". One hears hardly a mention of Salvation, but continual messages about rising up against "rich, white America". Not only are his remarks racially offensive, but often down right vulgar. One of the more obnoxious clips that I saw played back early on (but not so much in the past day or so) involved Wright's criticism of Bill Clinton's Presidency. He told his congregation that while Clinton pretended to be a friend of blacks "He was riding you like he was riding Monica Lewinsky" (complete with pelvic thrusts for visual effect). "Money talks" he continued, "but B.S. walks!" This pronouncement brought a standing ovation from the crowd and slaps on the pastor's back from people in the choir and the "amen corner".

His disdain for this country is evident. Among his more far fetched pronouncements, Wright claims that the U.S. Government developed the HIV virus to "commit genocide on blacks". He claims that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were God's retribution on America because we "bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuking thousands of people, and never batted an eye". Even the liberal news media has caught on to Wright's virulent Anti American teachings. ABC's Brian Ross reports in the "ABC News Blotter Website" that Wright "repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans." In addition to providing his comments after 9/11 that had been previously publicized, the site also quoted Wright as saying "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people".

While this is all shocking stuff, keep in mind that Rev. Wright has no corner on the market regarding hate and bigotry. I call to your attention the Rev. Fred Phelps of the so called "Westboro Baptist Church" in Kansas. This church (which basically consists of Phelps' family) has made national headlines by carrying their signs saying "God Hates Fags" and picketing the funerals of U.S. Servicemen and women who have been killed in action. Phelps claims that the death of these heroes is payback from God for the rampant homosexuality in America. We have all known of racism in some white churches as well. Ignorance and hate know no racial or cultural boundaries.

All of the recent attention to Wright from the national news media, would be no news at all, but not for his relationship with Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. Senator Obama has been a member of Wright's congregation for 20 years. He claims that Wright led him to Christ. Obama and his wife, Michelle, were married by Wright and the pastor also baptized the Obama children. Obama has called Wright his mentor and spiritual advisor and even took the theme and title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope" from one of Wright's sermons. The Senator hit all of the major news networks last night with a statement that he "rejected the particular teachings in the clips that have been played on the news".

In two interviews I saw last night, Obama told Anderson Cooper of CNN and Major Garrett of Fox News, that Wright "Was like an uncle at family reunions. You love him and he is family, but you have no control over some of the things he says." Cooper, somewhat surprisingly, told Obama that this situation was a little different than the uncle analogy. "We can't control who our family members are, but we can control who we voluntarily associate with."

Well said, Anderson.

Senator Obama, and other apologists for Wright were busy last night putting a spin on the whole situation. Besides the "you don't understand the black church" mantra, they are now saying that the whole situation is moot because Wright "has retired and has preached his last sermon at the church." While that may be true, does that fact undo all of his teachings of the past three decades? Instead of admitting the facts, Wright's supporters typically want to muddy the water by turning the focus on a controversial minister that has endorsed Republican candidate John McCain during the recent Texas primary. San Antonio's Cornerstone Church's Pastor John Hagee, has often been a critic of the Catholic Church. Hagee has stated his belief that the Catholic Church is the "Great Whore" of the prophecy in the biblical Book of Revelation. While this remark is certainly offensive to Catholics, the correlation between Hagee's endorsement of McCain and Wright's relationship with Obama, is like comparing apples to oranges. Hagee's endorsement of McCain was a purely political thing. McCain may or may not appreciate Hagee's endorsement, but the fact is that McCain barely knows Hagee and is certainly not a member of his church. On the other hand Obama and Wright's mentor/protegee relationship goes back for two decades.

Obama's claims that these quotes by Wright came to him as a surprise seem disingenuous to this writer. Especially since Jodi Kantor's March 6, 2007 article in "The New York Times" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin reports that Obama recinded an earlier invitation to Wright to offer the invocation at Obama's Presidential Candidacy announcement last year. The reason? According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

I wouldn't call Obama a racist, and I don't really believe he is "unamerican", but his association with Wright is a concern. Now he can go to church wherever he wants. That's certainly his privilige. However, if Obama has been a member of Wright's church for 20 years and claims he wasn't aware of the hate, vulgarity, racism, and anti-americanism in Wright's messages, then one of two things is true. Obama is either a liar, or he is too stupid to be President of the United States of America.

Two Offensive Statements

The two ladies pictured here have recently made two of the most frightening and offensive statements I have heard in a long time. One is Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. The other is the Michelle Obama, wife of the other Democratic candidate, Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

I am not a Democrat (although I once was) so I don't have a dog in the fight - no pun intended. In my humble opinion there's not a dime's worth of difference in Senators Clinton or Obama. Both are making irresponsible promises that they haven't a snowball's chance of keeping - if elected. If all of those promises were kept, the cost to the taxpayers would be more astronomical than anything we have ever seen - even under our current reckless spending administration. In fact, it would total more money than most of us could even comprehend. Anyone falling for their empty rhetoric is either a dreamer or totally naive.

In the interest of fairness, let me also say that I am not terribly enamored with the apparent front runner on the Republican side of the race either. I respect his military service to our country (which neither of his potential opponents can claim) and I appreciate his fairly strong pro life voting record in the U.S. Senate. However, his weak stance on illegal immigration (one of the great crises facing this nation) and his self admitted weakness on economic issues is worrisome to this writer. This may come down to the most pitiful choice in my memory for picking the next resident of the Oval Office.

All that being said, let me get back to the subject of this post. Michelle Obama has made a comment that I think is absolutely amazing. And Senator Clinton continues to repeat a comment that is down right scary! Let's take a look at both.

Mrs. Obama has raised many eyebrows with her comment delivered yesterday in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Here is what she said. "...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” To me, that is an unbelieveable statement.

She has NEVER been proud of her country in her adult life until now?

I can't pretend to understand all of the experiences that Mrs. Obama has had in her life. I am sure that as a Black American, she has probably felt the sting of racism, but born in 1964, her "adult years" wouldn't have even begun until around 1982. How can any American possibly not been proud of their country SOMETIME in the past 26 years? Can she not be proud of the history of our nation and the strides we have made since slavery was outlawed. Can she not be proud of the fact that over 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War to bring that freedom? Can she not be proud of how we have come to the aid of oppressed peoples the world over in two World Wars? Can she not be proud of the struggle of her people during the turbulent years of her childhood - resulting in the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1964? Hasn't anything positive been accomplished? Isn't there something, sometime that could have made her proud to be an American?

For one to say she has NEVER been proud of her country is just incomprehensible. For one to say such a thing leads me to question their very patriotism.

Then there is Senator Clinton. She has the "gift" of not only being to say offensive things, but to also be offensive in how she says them. The thing that bothers me the most is something she seems to say in nearly every stump speech I have heard. It involves change.

Granted, "change" is the mantra that we expect to hear from the Democrats. I would be shocked if they weren't talking about change. I'm ready for a change, myself, but not the change Mrs. Clinton seems to be advocating. Several times I have heard her screeching, "With your help, we can change America!" to the cheers of adoring crowds.

Change America? That is a mighty big statement.

Change administrations? - Well, that is going to happen, no matter who is elected.

Change the makeup of Congress? - If that is what the voters desire.

Change foreign policy? - That will be the new President's perogative.

Change financial and economic policies? - If they have the mandate to do so.

Change the Constitution? - As ammendments are needed and as prescribed by the Constitution, itself.

Change the makeup of the Federal Courts? - As the new President has opportunity.

There may be a number of things that need to be changed in this nation, but "Change America"? God forbid!

This is the greatest Nation on Earth. The USA represents that "Great Experiment" in democracy that has for over two centuries been the standard of freedom in this world. Even with its faults, shortcomings and blemishes - America remains the last best hope for Planet Earth. To advocate "Changing America" is a slap in the face to our founders, and the multiplied thousands of Americans who have given their lives to support their country in good times as well as bad. It indicates that the system is broken, and I reject the very concept.

Sure, we have some things that need to be fine tuned - always have - always will. But there has never been a nation on this planet more blessed than the United States of America. I am offended by anyone who would suggest that something is wrong with America - and I am frightened of any such attitude that compromises the sovereignty of this great country.

The comments of these two ladies are frightening. I find them downright offensive. Is it just me?

Promises, Promises

As many of my readers know, although I am a West Virginia native, and serve a church on the "Almost Heaven" side of the river, for the last 28 years I have been a proud resident of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I grew up in West Virginia, and my parents and one brother still live there. I went to West Virginia public schools and enrolled in Marshall University as an 18 year old, and have been a Thundering Herd fan all my life. Even while I served as President of the West Virginia Convention of Southern Baptists, my residence was in Kentucky.

My kids grew up in the Bluegrass State and went to Kentucky schools. Linda and I have been active in school and community activities here in Ashland for many years. She is presently a member of the Ashland Kiwanis Club (noon club) and serves as a member of the Ashland Human Rights Commission. She was heavily involved in PTA and was a PTA State Officer for a number of years.

I did a four year term as a member of the Ashland Independent School District Board of Education, served on the Board of Zoning Adjustment for the City of Ashland, and was involved for years in the Tomcat Booster Club, Ashland Band Parents, and was a coach and league officer in the Ashland American Little League and the Ashland Babe Ruth League (even after our kids were up and gone from those programs). A past President of the Ashland Optimist Club, I also volunteered for several years as the PA announcer and "voice" of Putnam Stadium and James A. Anderson Gymnasium.

Please forgive me if I feel that I hold somewhat of a dual citizenship. I have strong feelings for both states and if asked where I am from, it's actually hard to decide which answer is correct. I pay taxes in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the city of Ashland, and the "user fee" to the city of Huntington. I regularly read the "Daily Independent" of Ashland as well as Huntington's "Herald-Dispatch". Both states are important to me, and I am fascinated by the political workings of both. Over the years I have heard enough political promises (local, state, and national) to realize that many of those promises would best fit in the "Honey Wagon" pictured above.

The promises are already abounding in what is proving to be the longest presidential campaign in the history of the United States. One only has to listen for a few minutes to the major candidates in both parties, to realize that some of the stuff they are promising are pure fantasy. The congressional and senatorial candidates will soon be be adding their voices to the chorus of promises about what they are going to do for us.

Here in the Commonwealth, our new Governor is promising us the gold mine but we're getting ready to get the shaft. I wrote about this at some length in my February 11th Blog post, "Bought and Paid For".

On Thursday, Governor Steve Beshear unveiled his proposed ammendment to allow Casino gambling in Kentucky. Gambling is nothing new in the Commonwealth, with its horse race tracks and the state Lottery, but Casino Gambling is forbidden by law. Seems as though the Governor is concerned that Indiana and it's river boat gambling casinos, and West Virginia's recent plans to open a large casino in Cross Lanes will get too big of a piece of the gambling pie. He wants Kentucky to get in on the action. His proposal would have 12 casinos opening all around the Commonwealth. It would allow casinos at the existing race tracks, but also propose free standing casinos in Boyd, Greenup, Kenton, Campbell, Daviess, Christian, Laurel or Whitley counties.

Beshear's proposed ammendment (if passed by the General Assembly) would go on the ballot for approval of the voters in Kentucky. If it clears those two hurldles, then voters in the cities and/or counties where the free standing casinos are proposed would have to pass a local referendum. No referendum would be required in the counties where the race tracks are located. State and local politicians are generally being "political" in their comments about the Governor's proposal. Most say they are taking a "wait and see" attitude, but some, like Rocky Adkins D, Sandy Hook (no relation to this writer) openly favor putting the issue on the ballot.

Beshear has done a good job in fear mongering by presenting a bleak revenue picture that will frighten many voters. The Governor, hoping that loathing higher taxes, the voters would jump on the band wagon to approve the "easy money" that legalized casino gambling would supposedly bring. He presents it as an either/or situation. Beshear promises that the state would take in around $500 million in fiscal year 2009, $482 million in 2010, and $600 million after five years. He promises that "50% of the take will go to education, 20% for health care, 13% for local government, and 17% for a variety of purposes including economic development, agricultural research, veterans programs, and substance abuse treatment" according to newspaper reports.

Here's a thought for the Honorable Governor Beshear. If casino gambling is the answer to all of our financial woes, maybe that first quarter of a million dollars for education would go toward a new curriculum in our schools. Instead of math and science, perhaps our kids need to learn how to deal blackjack or spin a roulette wheel. Slot machine maintenance would also be a big new career field for our youngsters as well, if all of these casinos are in our future.

While we are at it, there seem to be some other vices that naturally go hand in hand with legalized gambling. A quick look at Nevada, that gambling haven, reveals that legalized prostitution also has the potential to bring in big bucks. Then there is the drug trade. Huntington, WV officials have talked openly about the huge amounts of dope money that is flowing out of the Jewel City to the Columbus and Detroit connections. Maybe we could legalize that trade, take it out of the hands of criminals, and add millions to the state's coffers. School kids could study to learn the finer points of turning tricks and dealing drugs.

Well, there's an ancient Hebrew expression for all of that - "Hogwash!"

If Beshear and his cronies want to save Kentucky, how about doing what needs to be done to attract legitimate businesses? Why not set a high moral tone which honors the value of hard work and determination instead of hitching our financial wagon to the star of empty promises? Nothing worthwhile is easy, but does that mean we should settle for mediocrity? Why not have the intestinal fortitude to do what's right for our people, rather than take the easy quick fix, and continue "slouching toward Gomorrah"? When are we going to say "Enough is enough"?

Gambling is a bad bet. It teaches our children to trust in chance rather than honesty and hard work. The relatively few "winnings" that gambling produces, comes from the losses of thousands of people. Gambling is as dangerously addictive as smoking, drinking, drugs and pornography and those who can least afford it are the ones who are hurt most by it.

Voters in three counties of my beloved native state of West Virginia have already approved table games. The die is cast there. Now if the Governor has his way, my beloved adopted state of Kentucky seems to be headed in the same direction. My prayer is that our General Assembly members will do what is right. Take a stand for once. Declare that enough is enough and place the proper values and virtues that once made this country great.

And that's one West Virginia/Kentuckian's opinion - "For What It's Worth".