The Land of Ozz

“The author hopes…to encourage Christians to exercise good stewardship of their collective citizenship.”

This is a quote taken from the cover of Why Christians Don’t Vote for Democrats by Richard Miller published by Xulon Press. The author hits the mark with this book. Miller draws a clear line between Secular Democrats and Christian America. It is very important to consider Miller’s definition of Secular Democrats while reading his book. Secular Democrats are defined by Miller as those Democrats who are prejudiced against Christians. While Miller acknowledges the term Christian Democrat, he takes issue with that segment of Christian Democrats who are proven to be “wolves in sheep’s clothing” when they end up voting like Secular Democrats.

For the purposes of reading this book, Christian American is best defined as the group of Christians who avoid the Democratic Party when election day rolls around. Miller gives very little attention to the group of Christians who find themselves repeatedly voting for Democrats for various reasons. Miller does offer some great questions to consider if you are a Christian who does continue to vote for Democrats.

Christians will find this book educational on several fronts. Miller provides a unique explanation of the main stream media’s perspective on Christian America. Richard Miller does a great job of educating his readers on the importance of voting for candidates who will tip the balance of justice in our federal government in favor of Biblically based Chrisitan values. Miller offers strong opinions of how Secular Democrats pollute our public education system and stifle the attempts of the Christian community to educate children through church based private schools.

The book did have some hard to follow wording. Otherwise Why Christians Don’t Vote for Democrats was an easy read.

This book rates a 4 out of 5 for delivering the content it promised.

I am a born-again Christian, father of two, with an AS in general studies and a BS in Computer Science. This book was sent to me as a gift from Active Christian Media.

Why are so many people bent out of shape now over President Bush’s position on immigration? President Bush has not changed his tune on this subject since well before the 2000 elections. Let’s compare the 2000 presidential election platform on immigration to the five main points from the Monday night speech by President Bush.

Point 1 from 2006 speech - “First, the United States must secure its borders.”¹

Point 1 in 2000 election platform - ” In order to prevent illegal immigration, Bush proposes to step up border control…”² “Restore credibility to enforcement by devoting more resources both to border control and to internal operations.”³

Point 2 from 2006 speech - “Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program.”¹

Point 2 in 2000 election platform - “Guest worker programs should be revisited.”²

Point 3 from 2006 speech - “…we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire….new identification card for every legal foreign worker.”¹

Point 3 in 2000 election platform - I found no evidence that President Bush spoke on this specific point before the 2000 election. The 2000 Republican party platform did state, “We oppose the creation of any national ID card.”³

Point 4 from 2006 speech - “It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border.”¹

Point 4 in 2000 election platform - “it is far more compassionate to turn away people at the border than to attempt to find and arrest them once they are living in our country illegally.”²

Point 5 from 2006 speech - “…we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples.” The President goes on to say, “English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America.”¹

Point 5 in 2000 election platform - “…every child ought to be educated regardless of the status of their parents.”² “We support the recognition of English as the nation’s common language.”³

There is no evidence that shows President Bush to be playing any games or leaning in a new direction to gain poll numbers on the subject of immigration. President Bush is standing firm on the same immigration policy that he has promoted since before he was elected in 2000.

¹President Bush Addresses the Nation on Immigration Reform - May 15, 2006
²The presidential candidates on immigration - Updated: April 2000
³REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000

One of my favorite conservative bloggers is taking one of the hardest lines against our president with a post titled “Should George Bush Be Impeached?“. La Shawn is not the only conservative fueling the left’s fire. Marl Tapscott, Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Right Wing News and Daily Pundit are a few who are also feeding this fire.

I’m support our president. I pray for him regularly. I would recommend that you do the same.

I ran across a news article that just didn’t sit right concerning President Bush and his prayer habits. I used my trusty search engine to search on the topic only to find that a few bloggers had linked to the same article, but no other news source was reporting on this hot Christian topic. It seems that this news site is just a fancy front-end for an online tabloid.

The article found on The Onion who called themselves “America’s Finest News Source” was written about a month ago. It reports on how Christians are criticizing President Bush’s prayer habits. Notice I did not link to the site. I do not wish to endorse “The Onion” or any of its contents. You can cut and past the link from the end of this post to see the original article if you wish, but here is the meat of the article’s message:

“President Bush, already facing the lowest approval ratings in history, is coming under fire from former supporters over what they call his “ineffectual and incompetent” use of prayer for national guidance and assistance.”

The article goes on the quote a fictitious member of the Family Research Council(FRC) who is critisizing Bush’s prayer habits. By the way, that link points to the about page for FRC where President Bush is pictured with FRC president Tony Perkins and several others who are influential in the Christian community. Jack Yoest points out that the FRC member mentioned in The Onion article is not a member of FRC. He should know since his wife Dr. Charmaine Yoest is the Vice President for External Relations at FRC.

Are there requirements to be met before prayer will be answered? Yes! Your heart must be right with God and with others.

In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. If you don’t treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard. 1 Peter 3:7 (NLT)

Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and wonderful results. James 5:16 (NLT)

If only you would prepare your heart and lift up your hands to him in prayer! Job 11:13 (NLT)

The LORD is far from the wicked, but he hears the prayers of the righteous. Proverbs 15:29 (NLT)

Does God answer ALL prayers from the righteous? Yes! The answer may not be what you expected, but God does personally take all calls from his children.

May we shout for joy when we hear of your victory, flying banners to honor our God. May the LORD answer all your prayers. Psalm 20:5 (NLT)

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Mark 11:24 (NIV)

How do you get on God’s preferred caller list? Click HERE to learn how.

(Bible verses in the post are from: BibleGateway.com)

The Onion article quoted can be found at:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46938

I finally found a big issue that La Shawn Barber and I disagree on. That is no big surprise since there is not a single person on this planet who I agree with on everything. That includes myself. That said, my opinion on this subject is subject to change, but not likely.

There has got to be a middle ground on this immigration issue. Too many of these people have come to this country searching for a better life. That is the same thing many of our ancestors did a few hundred years ago. Our ancestors busted in on the natives of this land and now treat them like second class citizens at best. Why do so many hard line conservatives want to just pass over this tidbit of history? I guess it was okay back then.

The legalist in me would say, “They broke the law so ship their tails back to where they came from.” The Word of God in me says to lean on the “Golden Rule” and treat them how I would want to be treated if I found myself in a similar circumstance. Many of these illegals were just trying to survive by coming here to the United States. It is entirely possible that many illegals may have not even been aware of the laws they were breaking before coming here, but somehow found their way in because some guy said, give me so much money and then get on this truck if you want a better life. Our country’s failed security system then allowed them in. Does that make it right? No but it does not make the solution any less complicated. It is easy to sit behind a keyboard and come up with blanket solutions to problems that you have no real idea of the human impact.

Let’s consider a mother who has three children ages 5 years, 3 years, and 6 months old? She entered this country illegally as a child and has been working as a migrant worker for several years of her adult life. She met an American-born man and even though they never marry they do have these children together. One day she gets a knock at the door because her neighbor reports her as a possible illegal. The authorities then take the woman away and deport her to her country of origin. The rest of her family who came to the USA with her when she was a child are still in the USA. She now finds herself in a foreign country, relative to where she has lived most of her life, without her children or their father.

Now put yourself in that woman’s shoes and think again about how we should deal with illegals. This is just one small but very real example of what will happen if we just start shipping out all the illegals. It is just wrong to have a hard line attitude against illegal aliens. Yes, it is wrong (ILLEGAL) for them to be here, but does two wrongs make it right?

Many of the illegals in this area of the country are Hispanic. I know people who employ some of these “illegals”. I have even know at least one illegal alien myself who admitted that he was illegal to me. I would have never known if he had not told me. Hispanics are more loyal and they work harder. Those who hire illegal Hispanics and have hired legal white, black, or other US citizens have echoed the same story. Would these Hispanics be as hard of workers and as loyal if they became legal? Who knows if being illegal really has a bearing on their work ethic, but the fact remains that they do work harder and they are more loyal to the employers I have talked to.

Now with all that said, what should we do? I would recommend that there will be a grace period when illegals can come to the table to get legal. While that is happening there should be some serious improvements in border control. At the end of the grace period the hammer should drop. At that point anyone who is apprehended and found to be illegal should be deported immediately.

I realize that there are methods of entering this country legally. My hat goes off and I sing praises to those who have endured that process. Are my suggestions fair to those who went by the book to become legal before this point?  No, but  unfortunately life is not always fair and those who have stood in line to get legal documentation to be in this country will just have to suck it up WHEN the current illegals get a shot at amnesty. How that will happen I do not know, but I believe it should and will happen.

Here a few links from La Shawn here and here and Michelle Malkin here that show where the big conservative bloggers stand on this subject. At least these are the ones I watch.

The Backwater Report says Alito’s First Ruling Isn’t Encouraging.

This is a tough subject for me. I am well above poverty, but I have a child on Medicaid as secondary coverage. We would be very poor if it were not for Medicaid. I post this just to bring light to the fact that Medicaid does not equal poor like many people think. I have planned to post on this subject for a while.
Don Surber After Hours talking about Medicaid prompted me to share a little about my Medicaid experiences. I have many more specifics to share later, but here is the high level story.

My son Caden is now just over one year old and our family would not have survived financially without Medicaid. Today he is still on a feeding tube and sees doctors and/or therapists almost every day of the week. He has had numerous procedures in the past year including a very complex open-heart surgery, abdominal surgery, and in-home nursing care. His conditions related to his primary diagnosis (DiGeorge Syndrome or VCFS) qualifies him for Medicaid. I never thought my family would need Medicaid, but we do. Caden’s hospital bills have totaled nearly a half million dollars in just over a year. He rang up almost fifty thousand on his sixth day of life during the open-heart surgery. I am seeing even more clear signs of how important Medicaid is o our family as I gather information to qualify Caden for another year of coverage.

I am certainly not going to complain if I have to pay a co-payment. I thank God that this program and other programs were there for my family. I know of other families just like us in our local area and in other parts of the country. I wonder where we will shake out in all of this slow-down and cut spending?

See also Medicaid Overhaul in SC.

That is just about the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. A CBS affiliate in Texas KWTX reports:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is suggesting the federal government tax hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars.

Can’t they come up with a better idea than that? There was at least a passing mention of taxation based on the amount of fuel you burn. Let’s consider another option. How about a tax based on a calculation of weight and use? The heavier the vehicles tend to use more fuel and the larger vehicles create larger potholes. Why not hit hard with taxes those who hit the road harder since the justification for raising tax is to fix roads?

Also see my previous postings on the economics of owning a hybrid in June and September.

Update: Green Car Congress gives a better explaination as to what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is trying to accomplish. Let me see if I can simplify this problem that they think will take 10 to 15 years to solve.

State vehicle tax when tags are issued

W * Y = ST

W = weight of vehicle
Y = state tax coefficient
ST = total vehicle tax

Federal tax per gallon

G * X = FT

G = gallons purchased (miles driven / time engine runs on hydrocarbons)
X = federal tax coefficient
FT = total use tax

Simply raise the coefficients X and Y as the need becomes greater for more funds to repair roads. Those who move to lighter more fuel efficient cars will benefit from this simple method of taxation and will force those who stay with larger gas hogs to carry more of the burden of repairing the roads.

Also linking to OTA members: The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns and Stop the ACLU and Point Five and Right Wing Nation and Don Surber After Hours and Conservative Cat and NIF and The Uncooperative Blogger and Pajamas Media / Stuck on Stupid and Robinik.net

Fellow blogger Mark Tapscott adds an interesting spin to a study released by the Catalogue for Philanthropy by noting which presidential candidate carried the state during the 2004 election. The study shows which states are considered to be the most generous based on a calculation they call a Generosity Index derived by using Average Adjusted Gross Income and Average Itemized Charitable Contribution. Mark says:

It may not get much play in the MSM, but the Catalogue for Philanthropy’s latest National Generosity Index finds a clear majority of the most generous states are in the Bible Belt where evangelical Christianity is strongest and household income is lowest.

Other bloggers talking about this data:
Marginal Revolution
Andrew Sullivan

One of my favorite radio hosts Glenn Beck gives us a color-coded version of the data showing elections results in blue and red.

Maybe those who give actually have more to begin with in terms of solid Christian influence in their communities.