Airport Security--Profiling??

President Obama has pledged to ban racial profiling at airport security stations. He outlined this position in his "Bluepring for Change." Is this rational? Is it safe for the American airline passenger? There is a point to quit being politically correct and start protecting Americans. Lately, my 70 year old caucasian wife was extensively searched at the Denver airport to see if she was carrying a bomb. She does not look like any kind of terrorist to me!

The Israelis have an effective and rational way of profiling. They look at the passport. If that passport has a stamp from Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or North Aftica, they search that passenger thoroughly. That makes sense to me.

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of adults say factors such as race, ethnicity and overall appearance should be used to determine which boarding passengers to search at airports.

Twenty-six percent (26%) say these factors should not be used to determine which passengers to search. Another 15% are not sure.

Interestingly, however, even more Americans (71%) believe such profiling is necessary in today’s environment. Eighteen percent (18%) disagree and see profiling as an unnecessary violation of civil rights…

Nearly half of likely voters (46%) believe current airport security measures are not strict enough."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/59_favor_racial_ethnic_profiling_for_airline_security

Obama's Biggest Blunder

Conservatives tend to criticize President Obama’s fiscal and domestic policies to the high heavens; but I think that the biggest blunder of this administration is its neglect of things international, especially of the obvious problems going on in Iran and the Middle East. This administration is extremely slow to act when destabilization is running rampant among our avowed enemies in that part of the world. If you do not believe that is true, just look at how long it took President Obama to decide to send 38,000 more urgently needed troops to Afghanistan—months! Now, he sits still while Hamas perfects a rocket launcher in the Gaza strip capable of delivering a bomb (presumably an Iranian nuclear weapon) to Tel Aviv. Meanwhile, Hamas continues to lob explosive rockets into Israeli settlements in southern Israel.

The latest danger comes, of course, from Iran. President Ahmadinejad announced via state TV yesterday that Iran was going on to enrich uranium, supposedly to make a medical reactor. How long must we stand by and watch this kind of preparation for war going on before we act in our own best interests and the best interest of the whole world, especially the interests of a peaceful Middle East?!

We fail to act, even in words of encouragement, to the democrats in Iran who are protesting tyranny and laying down their lives for freedom. The Iranian regime continues to repress protests of their corrupt national election on June 12 while the United States hesitates to even endorse the actions of the protesters verbally. While the United States sleeps, street protesters around the world came out on Sunday to protest human rights violations in Iran.

We hear a lot of criticism of the Bush administration for apparently failing to understand that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before our invasion. But now, we stand by and allow the Iranian government to announce openly that they are producing nuclear capability. Talk about “weapons of mass destruction!” This is ridiculous!!

It seems to me that the one hope the free world has is Israel. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is not one to let his country be destroyed before his very eyes. A pre-emptive strike against Iran is a very real possibility at the hands of the Israelis; but I doubt very seriously that our American military power is wont to help them if they do act to save their country and their lives.

WE NEED SOME ACTION ON THE PART OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO STOP THE DANGER IN IRAN!!

Two Contrasting Personalities

I have been reading two biographical accounts of two very contrasting people. One of the people is George Whitefield, the great evangelist of the 18th Century. The other is the account of Clyde Smaldone, a gangster and mob boss in Denver in the 1930’s.
Whitefield went around the English and the American colonial landscape preaching the justification of believers by God caused by his grace alone through faith alone and requiring the new birth spoken of by Jesus in John chapter 3. Whitefield’s sermons were most often greeted by the mass response of repentance and faith on the part of his hearers, who seemed to be receiving this information for the very first time. They were astounded when they heard of how magnificent was the grace of God, and this understanding changed their lives. We call this period and this activity the Great Awakening.
Today and in Evangelical churches throughout the world, this concept promulgated by Whitefield is common knowledge. It is interesting that these basic principles of Bible teaching are not resulting in the huge crowds and the aroused public that were noted in the 18th Century. It makes one wonder if this message has become stale or if God has just not ordained another awakening of spiritual fervor that He obviously poured forth in previous times.
Whatever the cause of the apparent lack of public enthusiasm, those who have heard and believed should always be thankful that this mark of mature Christianity has been granted to them. God is good and freely grants the pearls of His message to those whom He designates.
The other personality about whom I have been reading is Clyde Smaldone, the titular head of the Denver mob from the 1930’s until he retired in the 1960’s. The Smaldones and their associates ran bootlegging operations during prohibition, and subsequently drug dealing and extortion of “protection” money from legitimate Denver and Pueblo businesses. Their work involved many gangland murders—between 1919 and 1933, there were more than 33 gang-related murders in these two cities. These killings took the lives of 4 law-enforcement officers.
What we need in this life is more George Whitefields and no Clyde Smaldones.

First Amendment Rights and the Non-Profit Organization

For the past two decades under federal laws like the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, right-to-life organizations, pro-marriage groups and even unions and corporations were prohibited from airing political ads mentioning candidates within 60 days of an election.

Now, thanks to a new Supreme Court decision, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, these laws have been struck down; and non-profit organizations and corporations are now able to campaign like private citizens. This is a huge breath of fresh air for those of us who would like to exercise our collective rights to free speech along with the corporate giants like the media corporations which were always free to voice their opinions and influence election outcomes. Those bad laws placed an undue burden on citizens taking part in the political process.

Organizations like Focus On the Family Action and Family Research Council Action will benefit from this good decision.

For my part, I am glad to see, finally, the Supreme Court giving support to core political speech rather than the usual support it has given to pornography, the transmission of stolen information, flag burning, topless dancing, and the burning of a cross outside an African-American church.

Of course, liberals are inflamed at the Court’s ruling. They do not want organizations outside their areas of endorsement getting a shot at free speech. President Obama and power brokers in Congress are already looking for ways to limit corporate and non-profit organization expenditures on elections. Representative Barney Frank is speaking of using securities regulation to hamstring corporations that dare to speak.

There are bills in Congress and the Senate that would give very unfair advantage in campaign finance to incumbents, namely, the “Fair Elections Now Act.” (S 752 and HR 1826) These bills would provide money for Legislative Department campaigns gleaned from Federal monies. Incumbents would have much easier access to these funds than challengers would. I think this bill should be titled the “incumbent reelection funding bill.”

You can support the Supreme Court’s decision by writing to your Congressman and to President Obama stating your support and asking them to kill S 752 and HR 1826.

Liberty and Tyranny

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different an incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.” Abraham Lincoln 1864.

So…we see that two persons, both looking at the same phenomenon, may see it entirely differently—depending upon the perspective each brings to the situation. As for me, however, I accept the first definition given by President Lincoln. I believe that liberty is the freedom to do whatever one wishes with one’s self and one’s produce—so long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of others, of course.

Is the President Keeping His Promises? NO!

Americans cannot trust President Obama to keep his promises. For instance, he promised more government transparency in making legislation when he promised that any negotiations on health care would be broadcast on C-SPAN, “so the American people can see what the choices are,” and not conducted behind closed doors. “Such public negotiations,” he said, were “the antidote “to “overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists who…will resist anything that we try to do.” He made this promise eight different times, indicating that this was not an idle whim. He had thought this promise through in a thoroughgoing way. But what do we see now? Closed session legislative planning that excludes his political opposition and hides the issues from the American public. We see no formal legislative conference between the House and the Senate on this issue.

His style is clearly seen to be backroom legislative drafting to keep the negotiating away from the American people. Where is the “transparency” he promised our people?

Sex Infections Still Spreading in the U.S.

The United States is among western countries with the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, says John Douglas, director of the division of STD’s at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.

Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis are three highly treatable infections that show continued spread in the U.S. Gonorrhea is stable at unacceptably high levels while Chlamydia is on the increase. Syphilis is resurgent after almost being eliminated.

Objective findings:
 1.2 million cases of Chlamydia were reported in 2008, up from 1.1 million in 2007
 Nearly 337,000 cases of gonorrhea were reported.
 Adolescent girls 15 to 19 had the most Chlamydia and gonorrhea cases of any age group at 409,531.
 Blacks, who represent 12% of the U.S. population, accounted for 71% of reported gonorrhea cases and almost half of all Chlamydia and syphilis cases in 2008.
 Black women 15 to 19 had the highest rates of Chlamydia and gonorrhea.
 13,500 syphilis cases were reported in 2008, an almost 18% increase from 2007.
 63 % of syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men.
 Syphilis rates among women increased 36% from 2007 to 2008.

Overall, the CDC estimates that 19 million new STD’s are transmitted each year, almost half among 15-24 year-olds.

The only effective answer to this epidemic is abstinence from sex outside of a bona fide marriage to a monogamous partner. Condoms partially prevent STD spread.