Dick Cheney's New Memoir ... Read At Your Own Risk -- VIDEO - Hotline On Call

This is funny: Dick Cheney's New Memoir ... Read At Your Own Risk -- VIDEO - Hotline On Call

Asteroid to hit Earth?

If you think the idea of an asteroid hitting the Earth, as seen in the movie "Armageddon," is fiction, read this article. One difference is that it will be China and Europe saving the Earth. Another difference is there will be no oil drillers going into space to drill on the asteroid (I still liked the movie, though).

NASA has a program dedicated to Near Earth Objects, too.

Ayn Rand, Christianity, and Conservatives.

The philosopher of so many contemporary conservatives and libertarians in the Republican Party "scorns" Jesus and Christianity. Her name is Ayn Rand. I don't blame most tea party members for not understanding what Ayn Rand really believed. However, I do think Christians who think of themselves as conservatives need to know what she said in her own words about Jesus and Christianity.

The complete "Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959" can be seen on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k . In this interview, she said Jesus' type of love is evil. Furthermore, she said a weak person is not worthy of love. In contrast, the Apostle Paul said, "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6).

Ayn Rand's philosophy has greatly influenced Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and is destroying the Republican Party.

Government in the US & UK: An Excellent Comparison

The Huffington Post has an excellent article by Professor Colin R. Talbot comparing goverment in the UK with that in the US. It is entitled, "Schools for Government." I highly recommend reading it.

Libertarian Vacation Spot

This is hilarious!

This is life aboard the International Space Station

This is life aboard the International Space Station: Living in Space

Is Gov Mitt Romney a viable threat?

I found this article in The New York Times interesting: "Group Unleashes Early Ad Against Romney."

Two thoughts come to mind:

1. This is the approach the Obama re-election campaign will take should Gov Romney get the Republican nomination (i.e. focusing on Romney's seeming flip-flops on certain domestic policy issues over the years); and,

2. Some supporters of Pres Obama must be worried about a "Romney for President" campaign to be running such an ad so early before the primary's have begun.

I am not endorsing either Gov Romney or President Obama. However, I expect President Obama will be re-elected because the Republican Party is not likely to nominate a viable candidate. That is, I am not confident Republican voters understand that 2012 is not 1980: there does not appear to be a Ronald Reagan among the Republican candidates, and President Obama is no President Jimmy Carter.

In this light, I think President Obama's supporters would love to see Newt Gingrich or Michele Bachmann get the nomination, or better yet, Sarah Palin.

This is why I find this NYT article intriguing. Are certain Obama supporters showing their hand too early? Do they see Mitt Romney as a viable threat?

I think a former or current Republican governor would make a better nominee for president, former Governor Palin not withstanding, than would a House member or Senator, or someone who has not previously been elected to office.

Indeed, whoever the Republican party nominates, President Obama will have the advantage because he is an intelligent, dignified man who knows how to present himself to the American people. Furthermore, he has a good grasp of the political environment and is willing to do what is necessary to get re-elected.

However, a Romney campaign could be a threat to President Obama's re-election chances should the economy continue to stagnate, especially if the unemployment rate does not fall. In such a case, the Obama campaign will need Republicans to nominate a "wingnut" to ensure victory. This may be the reason for this anti-Romney ad to appear so early: to weaken a viable candidate.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

For anyone who still believes in conspiracy theories about 9-11: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report .

These myths rank up there with those who deny that the Holocaust happened: very cruel, indeed.

It is sad that we still hear people now and then who believe in such myths.

Osama Bin Laden's Death: Is the War Over?

Osama Bin Laden's death brings justice to a very evil man, and is a blow against a very evil network. Congratulations to the American military forces involved. I understand these included US Navy Seals. They are heros. You don't mess with the Navy Seals!

President Obama's speech tonight was very good. He took the high ground. Well done!

Now, our hope is that this is the beginning of the end of the war against terrorism. This can occur if the war was based on personality, that is, on the person of bin Laden. If he is the equivalent of Hitler, then the war may indeed be over. With Hitler's death, the core Nazi movement also died leaving behind the petty hatred of those we now call "Neo-Nazis."

So, I cannot help but consider that if the motivation of those involved with bin Laden is based on more than personality, that it is a clash of ideas with unresolved issues still persisting, then the war will indeed take a different turn, but will not necessarily be over. I pray this is not the case because I, too, want this war over.

We must remember that bin Laden's organization is a network, not a hierarchical authority as was the Nazi government. These sort of networks thrive because they are based on ideas which guide the actions of its members. Killing the leader does not necessarily mean the movement ends. Rather, the war against terrorism will effectively be over when one side or another wins the political war, which is a war of ideas. A good book to read about networks is The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Ori Brafman and Rod A Beckstrom.

So, if bin Laden's death takes away the mind and heart of this terrorist network, then the war will be over. Let us all hope this is the case.

Charnac the Magnificent

He's not Johnny Carson, but not bad: NFL Predictions at QB.

U.S. Cost of Libya War at $608 Million: Pentagon - Defense News

Senator Obama would have criticized any US president for the costs involved with the war in Libya. President Obama concluded such costs are necessary for US national security. Is he a hypocrite? No! What he now realizes is that the world looks different when you represent all of the US rather than one of 50 states. For more about the costs in Libya, see: U.S. Cost of Libya War at $608 Million: Pentagon - Defense News

Bittick Cemetery | Liberty Hill

My ancestors are buried here: Bittick Cemetery | Liberty Hill

Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats?

Yes, there was a time when there were Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. See: The Middle Majority: I Remember Liberal Republicans.

I also remember a time when conservatives wanted good government, as did liberals. They differed about the roll of the national government and state/local governments in making and implementing public policies. Conservatives emphasized the roll of local governments, while liberals favored an increased roll by the national government.

Today, conservative politicians and talk show hosts are anti-government, while liberal politicians and talk show hosts are pro-government, but few argue for good government. And, the US is the worse for it.

Palin vs. Christie: GOP rock-star feud - The Hill's Ballot Box

Not all Republicans are in awe of Sarah Palin: Palin vs. Christie: GOP rock-star feud - The Hill's Ballot Box .

Pakistan's Christians Mourn, and Fear for Their Future

This is a good article from Time magazine: Pakistan's Christians Mourn, and Fear for Their Future .

Religious tolerance between humans is best understood in light of human conscience. That is, religious tolerance means that each person must be free to exercise their conscience concerning matters of faith. The political philosopher John Locke wrote an excellent work, A Letter Concerning Toleration, where he said, "...I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristical mark of the true church." He further argues that toleration of other religions is necessary because true faith occurs when an individual is inwardly persuaded about the truth of a religion.

In my view, the human conscience is a creation of God. He knows how to reach people, and He sovereignly works with individuals according to His good will. Humans would not have a conscience if God had not created it. His great command to us is to love God with all of our heart, soul, and might, and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22: 36-40). He also commissions Christians to go into all creation and proclaim the good news about Jesus (Mark 16:15-16). These commands are not distinct, but are intertwined. As such, individuals must not attempt to force people to convert to a faith, and also must not harm other people who do not adhere to a faith. Thus, human force must not be used to attempt to persuade someone of the truth of Christianity, nor should it be used against those who reject God. Locke agreed and said, "If the Gospel and the apostles may be credited, no man can be a Christian without charity, and without that faith which works, not by force, but by love."

Indeed, Locke argued that human force is appropriate against those who harm people's lives, liberties, and possessions. Likewise, the Apostle Paul discusses this in Romans 16:1-7. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke argued that certain religions should not be tolerated when they threaten the peace of civil societies. These religions are those that (in my interpretation of Locke):

- claim government is restricted to those adherents of a religious sect, thus, depriving people of full participation in civil society;

- claim allegiance to a foreign power, thus, breaking the civil laws of a civil society (they see themselves are being outside of civil law in violation of Paul's assertion, above);

- encourage for lawlessness (i.e. promote chaos), thus threatening the peace of civil societies ; and,

- claim there is no higher law which people must obey (Locke claimed these were atheists. However, atheists can and do attest to the existence of a higher law based on reason).

Therefore, civil society is characterized by the fair and impartial administration of justice, not based on religious membership or adherence.

As long as people in Pakistan adhering to minority religions such as Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., are not protected, it is hard to view this nation as a civil society. And that is very sad for everyone.