Who's in the stall next to you on your next trip to the restroom?
That question's going to be on a lot of people's minds, including mine, after hearing about Colorado's Gov. Bill Ritter signing S.B. 200 into law. This law is so poorly written, critics are expecting it to give license to all sorts of abuses. From the article:
"It is now legal in the state of Colorado for a grown man to walk into a girl's restroom in an elementary school for whatever purpose, and it is illegal for the school to say you can't do that," said Schneeberger. "What we're really concerned about is sexual predators … who want to prey on young boys or young girls in particular, who would use the confusion caused by this law to victimize our children."
I know that the likelihood of this happening is somewhat low, but then who thought the price of gas would double in two years? Unlikely things still happen and the longer this sits on the books, the more likely this poorly written law will be abused and some child ends up scarred. Under this law, my wife and children no longer have a right to privacy when they're using public restrooms, or even a pool locker room as a public accomodation. Under this law, a man with a wig and a beard could wander into the "Women's" restroom, spy on my family, and I would be legally powerless to do anything about it. All this person would need to do is yell, "Help, I'm being discriminated against!" and the ACLU will be at his side in a heartbeat. Enter the lawyers. Exit my rights.
I try not to get nostalgic, but this never would have seen the light of day under Bill Owens, our state's last governor. But now Jennifer Viega, Bill Ritter and the rest of the Denver Democrats are pushing their agenda, heedless of the damage it does to our rights.
O, for a thousand tongues to sing my great Redeemer's praise. Instead, they seem to sing the praises of exposing all that is evil. Such is the case with the "Narnia and C.S. Lewis are servants of the Devil" camp. Google "Narnia witchcraft" and you'll find no shortage of web sites stating how C.S. Lewis secretly served Satan and how he desired to reintroduce Pan worship and so on. Some go so far as to include mood music and pictures from the Disney/Walden Media releases.
It would be laughable, if not for the tragedy that they're quite serious about it. I once bought into that line of thinking too, but here's what I realized: How can Satan oppose Satan? If Lewis intentionally retold the Gospel and its central theme of the redemption of mankind by God's Son, and he did, and if the readers infer the Gospel message, and they do, wouldn't that do irreparable damage to Satan's cause? If so, then Lewis opposes Satan, and these sites are doing more harm than good. "Logic. Why don't they teach logic at schools?"
Conjuring spirits is almost as bad as conjuring up bad information on C.S. Lewis to assassinate his character or otherwise defame him. A lot of professing Christians have written or said or done a lot of un-Christian things in their lives. Does that invalidate everything associated with them? Babies and bathwater, indeed. Did Christ die for only the sins we committed before we knew him? There is no error as grievous as bad theology, but if Lewis made such mistakes, I believe we have all made them. No one has a perfect grasp of God, because no finite mind can grasp the truly infinite. Lewis, as passionate and creative as he was, his humanity was just as real as the paper he wrote on and he gets some things wrong. Does that mean that all of Narnia perishes in fire and water? I hope not. Let Lewis be human and God will be God, whether we let Him or not.
For Lewis's humanity, he suffers the same humiliation as all other authors: I don't put my Lewis books on the "same shelf" as my Bible. That doesn't mean I don't experience the joy of the resurrection when I read about Aslan's return or feel the hope of heaven when Peter and the others come home into the real Narnia at the end and go further up and further in. It means that there's a place for fantasy, allegory and metaphor in my home and in my mind. It does not have to sweep away all wizards or magic with the same stroke of a broomstick. If a game or a movie or a book helps me show my kids how God has revealed Himself to us in scripture and through His Spirit in our lives, I may make use of it, but only if I feel it's worth the trouble of sifting it. The Chronicles of Narnia are most definitely worth that trouble.
The only man whom I felt was capable of leading this country without stepping in a hole deeper than the Grand Canyon has just quit the 2008 Presidential race. I will not support McCain, nor will I vote for him. I will write in a candidate I decide on later.
I am a Christian. I am a right wing nut job and I wear it proudly because I have reasoned my position out to where I'm confident of it's logic and consistency with my world view. I believe abortion is murder. I am a strict constructionist in interpreting the Constitution. I know that our military is still second to none thanks to Ronald Reagan. I do not support candidates because they say the right things. I support them because they possess a track record of doing the right things. I will break my silence on most political issues with this post and say, unequivocally,
McCain is wrong for the G.O.P. if they want to win the election.
He will not win me over based on his track record. He will not win over enough conservatives to overcome whatever steam the Donkey party manages to muster, even with what looks to be, at this point, a brokered convention. I join James Dobson. I will not vote for McCain.
I wonder if any Republicans are paying attention. Probably not, based on this survey.
From the WCF Courier, here's a good synopsis of why I won't vote for McCain:
Conservatives have a problem with McCain's track record
Latest in an occasional series examining candidates seeking the Republican and Democrat nominations for president and happenings along the campaign trail.
John McCain may become the Republican nominee for president. His chances, at least at this point in the campaign, are as good or better than his chief rivals.
If he does succeed, however, don't expect many who view themselves as true conservatives to be particularly happy.
"I believe I am qualified," McCain repeats on the campaign trail. "I need no on-the-job training."
But the track record the senator from Arizona touts as valuable experience also contains facts conservatives find very unappealing. And in fact, they view McCain as one Republican in Washington, D.C., they can count on to vote with Democrats on issues that matter most to conservatives.
For starters, McCain voted against President Bush's proposed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Recent statements added fuel to conservatives' fire: In December, McCain affirmed his votes were not mistakes. He was also one of only two Republicans to vote against permanent repeal of the so-called death tax in 2002.
Other measures McCain promoted and courses of action he pursued also generate animosity among those on the right.
--- The McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance reform became law, including restrictions on what and how topics can be addressed in the political process during the two months prior to an election. Critics on both ends of the political spectrum view the law as a serious infringement of 1st Amendment rights to free speech.
--- The McCain-Kennedy bill on immigration failed, torpedoed by those who argued the measure offered amnesty to illegal aliens.
--- As a member of the so-called Gang of 14, McCain helped negotiate a compromise on President Bush's judicial nominees. The knock here is McCain sold out his side.
--- McCain was one of six Republicans to vote against a procedural issue related to the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
--- The McCain-Lieberman bill is pending. Proponents defend it as a method for combating global warming. Critics, however, say the measure represents a massive tax increase on carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, home heating oil and coal. On a related topic, McCain has voted on multiple occasions against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Conservatives acknowledge McCain's stance backing President Bush and the war on terrorism. Under his "strategy for victory in Iraq," McCain advocates "greater military commitment" and calls for more troops.
"Success is essential to creating peace in the region, and failure would expose the United States to national security threats for generations," McCain says.
But while he takes a hard line on Iraq, McCain goes easier on enemy combatants, according to conservatives. He opposes using military tribunals to prosecute suspected terrorists, for instance, and believes the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should be shut down.
The ultimate significance of conservatives' displeasure with McCain may lie in which Democrat he faces in the general election. Hillary Clinton will energize her opponents like few others in history and may turn off some in her own party. If Barack Obama or John Edwards get their party's nomination, conservatives may not feel the same urgency to vote --- on either side of the ballot.
I don't believe in McCain, and this "true" conservative will not vote for him in 2008.
This is pathetic. The mayor and city council of Berkeley, California are astoundingly unprofessional. If a private citizen were to do this to another individual, it would be called harassment. Why is it acceptable if it's two public entities? Maybe the military needs a "don't invite, don't defend" policy.
In the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, governments are instituted to "provide for the common defense" and to "ensure domestic tranquility." Now, if the Constitution applies to city government, the Berkeley city council is effectively abandoning such a charge and betraying their citizens. The plight of the neighbors around this recruiting station is unbelievable. Instead of getting relief from protesters by the appealing to their city council, the tenants are effectively without help.
Why not pass a law banning the recruiting station outright? I'm not sure, but I think it has something to do with Federal money supporting the City of Berkeley, California.
SWAT stands for Special Weapons And Tactics. They are the police officers that get to wear all the soldier-like garb that would not look out of place in Baghdad with the combat helmet, flack vest, boots and assault rifle. They're the ones planning ambushes and then storming crack houses with tear gas and barking orders, "POLICE! Get on the ground NOW!"
What if they used these tactics on my family? I don't really have to wonder, thanks to the Shiflets, a Colorado family near New Castle in Garfield County. The county seat is in my favorite town of Glenwood Springs, where presumably a judge signed an order granting the Sheriff's office permission to search and seize. After the family had returned for the evening from a shopping trip to town, between 10 and 11 p.m., a sheriff approached the home, asked the dad some questions and after a few minutes with the dad trying to resolve things, a SWAT team appears out of nowhere, breaks down the door and holds the man, his wife and children at gunpoint, physically restraining everyone and seizing one of the children. This child is taken against his will and the will of his family and sequestered at a secret facility nearby.
The family's offense? Recognizing an accidental bump on the head as just an accidental bump on the head.
The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" and had made threats and "comments" over the years.
Holy smokes! You mean the guy actually believes in the United States Constitution? By the citizenry and other holy establishments, we must make an example of him by making him stand trial and executing him with the guillotine!
Excuse the sarcasm, but you get where I'm going with this. When people don't want the government intruding in their affairs, aren't they simply going with what the Fourth Amendment says? When confronted about a violation of rights, namely a phone call, the family was told that those rights are "only in the movies." I went to Washington DC just over ten years ago on business. When I had a free day, I didn't go to the Lincoln Memorial or the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I didn't visit Arlington, either. No, I went to the National Archives, to see with my own eyes this scrap of paper, yellowed and faded with 210 years of age, the Constitution. It's not a movie prop; it's something those men at Arlington and elsewhere have spent those two centuries defending. It was the reason I grew up in freedom, and if I can do anything to protect such freedom for my children, I will.
On that note, my own call to the sheriff's office in Glenwood Springs to get a comment from Sheriff Valerio wasn't exactly fruitful. Valerio is out of town and working with a Public Information Officer to create a new press release today. They're clearly in damage control mode, setting spin on whatever they have. Counterspin: Although I've been unable to confirm it, their night vision goggles and other high tech investigative equipment (purchased last fall with $10,000 from the Department of Justice) were probably in use during the raid.
There are two ways for the Sheriff to play this situation. He could possibly come forward and admit his decision to execute the order using the SWAT team was absolutely out of proportion to the situation. This would be an honorable and graceful way to handle it. On the other hand, it seems to be that the Sheriff is circling the wagons and using half-truths to support his story and defend his actions. If it gets that far, I doubt that it will hold up under scrutiny.
I am very concerned about the "Mideast Peace Conference" being put on by President Bush. It seems like every time we pressure Israel to give up its land, "acts of God" seem to tear us up. This country is in enough trouble without the President pursuing this legacy grabber. Since Carter did it in the 70s, every President has felt the need to try it and see if he can be "the one who brokered a lasting Mideast peace," especially if it's a second term presidency.
You have to wonder if we'll ever get it. Gee, pressure Israel to barter land for peace--something that's never worked!--and somehow we end up with a natural disaster or some other unforeseen event negatively impacting the nation. Most of the country's dogs could understand this logic, so why can't our leadership? One word: hubris.
This is a bit dry and academic, but trust me. When it comes to your pocketbook, this is probably the most valuable hour you will ever spend. I believe we're coming to a financial crunch point and it's going to hurt.
Did you catch the part about people valuing better public school districts and how that drove up home values too high. Yes, there is such a thing as too high just like there is such a thing as too low. Spending too much on the basics is doing damage to our economy that we may now realize all too late. We need a housing market correction or our economy will bear an even bigger shock very, very soon. The best way to do that is deregulate public schools and giving parents vouchers. Unlike the guest author, I don't think that re-regulating the banks is going to help. That's tinkering too much. Undo the bankruptcy laws of 2000 and deregulate schools. That will save our bacon by bringing things down slowly. It's either that or everyone should start homeschooling.
This is the ugly side of so-called "tolerance laws." It is legislation that is aimed at removing the stigma from the homosexual community, but all it really does is cripple the good organizations founded on religious and moral principles. Rather than being an advocate for the disenfranchised, the groups pushing for this sort of legislation only produce victims and martyrs.
Long have I held Michelle Malkin in high esteem. She's a young mother and wife who has a gift for cutting to the heart of most issues and comes down on my side of the fence most of the time. Today's very incisive column is no exception. Malkin takes on the flying nun who has a habit (sorry) of gushing out emotional flotsam in the process of accepting awards. No, Sally, we do not "really like you" when you do that.
Michelle's very astute observations about the maternal instinct reminds me of a discussion recently. A friend of mine told me that she hoped no one would ever break into her house, not because of what the intruder might do, but because of what she might do to the intruder. She felt that her ability to restrain herself from doing serious harm wouldn't stop her from removing that threat to her children.
The night of September 11, 2001, I couldn't sleep. Really, I don't think too many people slept soundly that night. I remember looking out of our townhouse looking at the streetlights and wondering how I was supposed to protect my children (then 5 and 2 years old) from such madness, such reckless destruction. The answers were hard to come by that night and for many nights after. I still don't have most of them, but I know that our military forces have done much to keep us safe. They are the ones who deserve the awards and accolades from our society, not actresses with an ax to grind.
