I’ve also been a supporter of the war from the beginning and now I have also started to question whether a full-scale invasion rather than some missile strikes and other limited actions was the right choice. This is basically Ron Paul’s and Baldwin’s view. I cringe though when I read some of the statements that sound like they come from the Loony Left about the Iraq war. Baldwin says we’ve become an unwanted occupying force and if the US was similarly occupied many of us would become “insurgents.” This is a position of ignorance. Much of the violence has been caused by foreign terrorists, not Iraqi “Freedom Fighters.” And a recent BBC poll of Iraqis shows that many of the Iraqis (actually a majority) want the US presence to remain because of the security gains of the surge. Anecdotal evidence from some troops and journalists is in agreement.

This sort of ranting keeps me voting Republican.

Maybe it is that this gentleman is studying. Maybe it is that missionaries are conditioned to avoid talking about difficulty after years of diplomatic pleas and sabbatical trips to congregations for fundraising. Maybe it is hope to be restored at some point or another and not wanting to rock the boat. Maybe it is the sense of isolation that missionaries feel that they don’t believe others really care. Maybe it is fear of hurting their colleagues who are still out there. After all, if congregations don’t believe that their funds are going to missionaries, will they donate?

This is a much bigger issue than confessionals vs. moderates. Many moderate churches would be VERY upset to find that the money they are devoting themselves to supporting missions and those missions are not being supported. This is an issue that if it is talked about, if information is sent out regarding it, that can really light a fire under the whole Synod (talk about setting things Ablaze (TM)!) While I have no idea what the national level of LWML would do, I can only imagine what would happen if the average LWML group in any congregation USA would do if they found out about this!!

I was just looking through those. Christina really brings the words!

And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics.

That does need to be clarified. I think he means that he would not protect an abortion clinic if it was shut down by a state under state law.

The scenerio would go like this: A state passes a state law closing down abortion clinics. State autorities move in to close it down. Planned Parenthood goes to court. Federal courts order the state to stop closing down clinics. They don’t stop. What now? The Federal courts order President Baldwin in to protect clinics from State autorities. He, as chief executive of Federal Law, does not choose to execute that particular unconstitutional order. The constitution is the highest law of the land, so it is with a clear conscience that President Baldwin does not execute an enforcement of the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.

It is how checks and balances are supposed to work. The president swears an oath to protect the constitution, not to protect judicial decrees. Each branch of government is responsible for its part in upholding the law.

Sounds like you handled that adequately and diplomatically. And also fatherly. It is good for you to take it upon yourself to teach them and create as many “habits” as you possibly can. I know you already take this seriously. I’m glad that you are afforded another opportunity!

RPW

What’s sad is that the corn for ‘08 is already in the ground (as of the past two weeks) so famers have already bet their farms (literally, in some cases) on prices staying where they are. If Flake’s bill succeeds, the bottom will fall out this year, the farmers will be left holding the bushel, and they will all blame a Republican.

Talk about unintended consequences.

Put simply, there is NO SHORTAGE of corn for the food markets. (Or soy, for that matter). In fact, corn production is up 34% since 2002, and that’s after accounting for the portion that is earmarked for ethanol.

Unfortunately, this fear about rising corn prices is driven by Malthusian discontents (i.e., the over-population fear-mongerers) who do not want to see a successful new market for energy production created. More energy means more population sustainability.

Furthermore, the anti-globalization wingnuts oppose any U.S.-specific market which produces more energy than it consumes. If the U.S. were to decrease its energy dependence (or, God forbid!) actuallky become energy independent, third world nations would suffer (according to these people, not me). The one commodity (natural resources in fossil fuels, or renewable fuels) that many third world countries have would become irrelevant to U.S. markets, thereby reducing demand and softening prices, and thereby undermining the economies of said third-world countries.

There is acutally a small kernel (pardon the pun) of truth to this, and its something that the U.S. has to be politically aware of. To wit, yes, the U.S. would likely be less interested (economically) in the commodities these countries have to offer. But that doesn’t mean that they (the 3rd world countires) wouldn’t have a market to sell to. There will always be India and China. The downside of energy independence for the U.S. is that the third world countires will build stronger ties to China and India, thereby creating a politco-economic consortium from which the U.S. has voluntarily (although inadvertantly) excluded itself. In this scenario, energy independence isn’t such a good thing.

What a tangled web we weave…