Specifically, a great to-do has been made of a map, supposedly flush with cross-hairs, released by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. Palin-haters jumped at the opportunity to indict a person they already despise for inciting a shooter to fulfill her supposed secret desire of violence against those with whom she differs politically. Though the Palin camp has credibly demonstrated that the “cross-hairs” in question are, in fact, surveyor’s marks (right at home on a map), there are those who—some out of their own ignorance—refuse to relent because deep in their hearts they want Sarah Palin to be a murderous wretch; it makes her so much more defeat-able.

The counter for this idiocy, thus far, has been to point out that Democrat campaigns and committees have released maps with bulls-eyes on them and that politicians, especially President Obama, have used language referencing knives, guns, fighting, etc. This has served to illustrate something that needs to be said expressly.

There’s a sick irony in that those who want to blame harsh political conversation for the Arizona shooting have done nothing but converse harshly and politically.

And I say this as one not opposed to political debate. It’s politics. It gets rowdy sometimes. That’s the nature of the beast. What I find unfathomable is that those who are most “offended” by the harshness of someone, say Sarah Palin, are the most offensive in their uninformed and malicious finger pointing and false accusations.

The bottom line is that in language, even political language, words mean things, and often they mean more than what they say. I deal with this in the spiritual realm, where I often encounter persons who miss the point of Scripture because they overemphasize the “literal” words on the page. The Bible is literature of varying genres, and as such it should be interpreted as literature. That means that sometimes we take what we see literally. That also means that sometimes we take what we see metaphorically. Our language, including charts or maps, is full of idioms and symbols that must be taken as such—comprehending what they mean rather than what they say. It really isn’t all that hard.

No sane, honest person believes that Sarah Palin wants anyone to take up guns against Congresspersons, even if those map symbols are cross-hairs (if they truly did, they would have moved heaven and earth to secure the other Congresspersons “targeted” by Palin). No sane, honest person believes that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wants anyone to take up bows and arrows against Congresspersons, even though their map had bulls-eyes on it. No sane, honest person believes that Barack Obama wants anyone to bring a gun to a knife fight. All this just as no sane, honest person believes they might step in a poodle when it’s “raining cats and dogs.”

We understand that language is full of idioms. We understand that what people mean often goes far beyond what they say. In short, we’re adults. Let’s start acting like it. The hypocrisy and feigned “shock” by those who can’t wait to say something shocking themselves are not lost on me.

No, folks, a lone and apparently mentally disturbed gunman perpetrated this evil. He bears the responsibility for it and will stand before his God and his government to give account. May God have mercy on his soul.

“Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow.”
-Aesop

Barack Obama is our president-elect. As such, he has my respect, my prayers, and my hopes for leadership that is best for America. That said, his victory does not chage who he is. While many have been afraid of what Obama secretly is (you know all those emails about him secretly being a Muslim and/or the Anti-Christ), my concern is with what Mr. Obama overtly is. He is on the record saying things that I find repugnant. I, for one, will not be surprised when he begins to institute these policies.

I refuse to be a sore loser, and I certainly will not spew the venom toward Mr. Obama that many have directed toward President Bush. I will, however, remain conservative, and I will fight to have my ideals represented.

In other news, let’s remember well what got us here. My party has forsaken its core ideals. We have allowed power and money to corrupt our small-government, low-tax, freedom and liberty, good and clean government positions. Frankly, being in the minority is often good for my party in that it helps us refocus.

And as long as we’re being honest here, though I voted for the man, I am somewhat relieved that I don’t have to suffer through a moderate John McCain presidency. This election is what happens when we run a dud. Our primary process should be reformed to the point that a man or woman who truly represents the ideals of the party can rise to the nomination. I have my eyes open for an emerging star in our party over the next four years. Will it be Sarah Palin? We’ll see. As far as I am concerned, she is now the leader of our party.

And so, to President-Elect Obama and his supporters, I congratulate you on tonight’s win. Mr. Obama has made some big claims and promises, so let’s see him make good. I wish him well. Unlike the liberals, I cannot wish harm to my country so that we have good position for the next election.

Supreme Court vacancy announcement in 3, 2, 1…

“We elect our Presidents, be they Republican or Democrat, then start daring ‘em to make good.”
-Will Rogers

Update: Nothing so advances the cause of conservatism like a few years of liberalism in action.

And rest assured, no one knows what will happen tomorrow—no one. I have overheard conversations lately wherein I hear people who have yet to make up their mind. I tend to think that most of those who have not yet decided (for Obama) will cast their vote for McCain (Palin).

McCain/Palin will get my vote. Not because I am thrilled at McCain’s conservative credentials or because I am convinced he is walking excellence. Like many, I will vote for McCain because he’s not Obama…and because he had the good sense to choose Palin.

There will be record turn-out tomorrow; relatively huge numbers of Americans will show up to vote. Incumbents and challengers alike will see their careers end. Incumbents and challengers alike will be thrust into power. The sheer number of voters has the capacity to make a mockery of all the polls leading up to the Poll. Possibilities: a squeaker or a landslide for either ticket. Who knows? Only time will tell.

But, as we prepare to vote for the man we will both revere and torture for the next four years, let’s consider what’s at stake.

Appointment Power
The President of the United States has, inherent to his position, the right to appoint a couple thousand positions. From his cabinet to obscure agencies, bureaus, and departments, with the stroke of a pen, the next president will replace the remains of the Bush administration with his people. Chief among the president’s appointments are Supreme Court justices. With the age of John Paul Stevens (88) and the poor health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two most liberal justices on the Court, it is very likely that we will see one or both of these individuals depart the Court in the next president’s term.

Predictions

If Obama wins, one of these justices announces his or her pending retirement before Obama is sworn in. Having a large Democrat majority in the Senate, Obama nominates someone truly scary to the Court—maybe even Bill or Hillary Clinton—and they will be confirmed. Shortly after the first confirmation, the other justice (of Stevens and Ginsburg) announces his or her retirement. The reasons for this are that it puts the choice of their replacements in a liberal president’s hands with confirmation by a liberal-controlled Senate.

If McCain wins, we’ll still see probably at least one departure and maybe two, though the second will probably depend on what they think of President McCain’s first selection. One will come in the first two years of the administration so as to have McCain’s promise of originalist justices tempered by the Democrat-controlled Senate. If the Senate succeeds in hampering McCain’s promise, the second vacancy will likely occur.

These two possible vacancies represent the first opportunity to shift the philosophy of the Supreme Court into the decidedly conservative, originalist realm in a good long time, and will likely not be repeated for a generation. If McCain is elected, there exists an opportunity to shift solidly liberal seats into the conservative, originalist (anti-judicial activism) column. If Obama is elected, these two seats remain unchanged philosophically for a long, long time. Obama’s election to the presidency will undo the many years of hard work by pro-lifers. It will be akin to a marathon runner tripping 10 yards from the finish line.

The Economy, Stupid
Any increase of taxes (even on those evil rich mean people who make $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $120,000 $42,000 a year) is utter stupidity—especially in economically trying times. Just ask Herbert Hoover. People may not believe in trickle-down Reaganomics, but they sure have enjoyed its playing out since the 1980s. Prosperity trickles down (you know, John Kennedy’s rising tide lifts all boats thing), but misery rolls down hill. Enjoy these days of low interest rates and low unemployment because Jimmy Carter’s misery index will look like the good ole days if President Obama and the liberal-controlled Congress begin to do what that have been slavering over: cutting defense spending, raising taxes, increasing entitlements, and federalizing everything from health care to tire pressure.

The War on Terror
We must have the will to win this war. I have had my share of disappointments with President Bush, but we must also give credit where credit is due. The man has protected this nation since we were hit by terrorists on 9/11. And while we’re giving credit where credit is due, let’s remember that, while many are longingly remembering the good ole Clinton days, 9/11 happened because President Clinton ignored the threat posed by radical Islam. That said, I am not one of those who can look back at the decision to liberate Iraq and mis-remember my position at the time. I was all for our going in. Collin Powell gave many reasons for our actions (more than just WMD (which, by the way, we have discovered)), and I was convinced then and remain convinced today that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. President Bush has had the will to do what he thought was right even if it made him unpopular. Neither of his presidential opponents would have. So, I thank him for what he did. My disappointments with President Bush have been on matters secondary to the war.

As for how our options in this election will handle the war, McCain wants to leave Iraq in victory and Obama wants to leave Iraq in a hurry. I’ve been amused by Democrats’ calls to send the military in anywhere in the world to ease pain, suffering, and genocide…except Iraq. If we want to win the war on terror, McCain’s the choice.

Other Random Predictions

• The mid-term elections in 2010 go massively to genuinely conservative Republicans.
• All kinds of things we should have been privy to about Barack Obama are made public if he wins the presidency and everyone decides they made a huge mistake. He is a one-termer.

Final Thoughts
Because of their positions on the above-stated issues, I have a sincere hope to see John McCain and Sarah Palin win tomorrow. They might; they might not.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” In the same sense, the cause of conservatism must be refreshed from time to time by defeat when those who take the moniker of Conservative forsake its ideals. Frankly, if the Republican Party is going to be the conservative party, it had better learn to govern conservatively. That means low and fair taxes, limited and restrained government, judicial restraint and originalism, increased liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility, and a respect for natural law. Inasmuch as Republicans choose not to be conservatives, they deserve to be defeated and replaced with persons committed to conservative ideals and with the backbone to believe them, live them, teach them, and fight for them. I don’t ever want to vote for a candidate who tells me how well they can negotiate with the other party. I want candidates who are committed to defeating the tired, old, failed philosophy of the other party.

We’ll see how this election goes.

What we do know is this: Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords regardless of who resides on Pennsylvania Avenue in the Capitol City. Christianity flourished under Nero, and it can flourish under the worst the world can throw at us now. To be brutally honest, a little persecution can sometimes be good for genuine faith. As Christian citizens, we can never give up the fight for influence in the political realm, but we must recommit ourselves to the personal salvation of lost souls. When God changes hearts, He changes motives and ideals. People with changed hearts, motives, and ideals tend to elect better representatives. We look forward to the Government of Christ, of which there will be no end. And we’re thankful that there will always be an end to the government we elect here below.

In it, she very perfectly reminds us what’s really at stake here as millions of Americans prepare to lunge toward this “novelty” called socialism. She first deals with the issue of socialism’s novelty. Some folks, especially those my age and under lack an education in what socialism really was.

Earlier this year I read a column in which the writer rejoiced because the word, “socialism,” is no longer a scary bogeyman to Americans. When I Googled the writer and learned he was only 31 and graduated from Columbia, it wasn’t hard to figure out how he got it all wrong.

Since he had clearly been taught our “revised” history — the one that glosses over the 100,000,000-grave killing fields of the communists and makes high drama out of the “sufferings” of the Hollywood blacklisted and the McCarthy hearings — he didn’t have a clue about what actually happened. This pitiful, Ivy-League indoctrinated writer had reached the false conclusion that Americans used to be scared down to their woolies of the big bad commies, but weren’t anymore.

After explaining the difference in repugnance and fear, pointing out that

Americans weren’t scared of socialism, silly. They found it viscerally repugnant.

she says:

And the reasons for loathing socialism are as clear as the nose on anyone’s face.

No fully-grown human being with a single ounce of self-respect ever wants to be taken care of by others. No person with dignity will tolerate being told what to do, what to think, how to work or how to be an “acceptable” person. No free man or woman will tolerate the loss of liberty in exchange for material comfort.

Many generations of Americans vehemently rejected these notions over and over again, not out of fear, but out of the kind of visceral loathing that makes a normal person wretch, gag and grab for his religion and his guns.

She then deconstructs Obama’s promises and the natural end of his socialist policies.

Consider only these 3 areas of Obama’s collective plan for the redemption of American society:

• Obama wants to use a lot of taxpayer money to offer education to children from birth through college. Free to mommies and daddies. On the taxpayer dollar, rather than on the parents’.

The socialist lure: Give the state your children and the state will relieve you of the burden of educating them and teaching them values and knowledge. Parents, you’re off the hook.

The result: The state then makes all the decisions about what your children will be taught, how they will be brought up, what knowledge is important and what is not.

• Obama wants to bring the federal government’s involvement into healthcare to an unprecedented level.

The socialist lure: Give the state your money and the power to enforce healthcare for all, and the collective state will relieve you of your responsibility to provide this service for yourselves and your children.

The result: The state makes healthcare decisions. Healthcare is then rationed according to need, as decided by the state.

• Obama wants to enshrine positive rights to all citizens that include a guaranteed “living wage” to all regardless of individual work.

The socialist lure: No citizen will be without the means to live a fairly equitable life regardless of individual delinquency or extra effort.

The result: The poor and unfortunate become wards of the state and vastly increase in number. Work incentives plummet.

• Obama wants our politics to be nice, not mean or divisive. He wants unity. He wants us all to get along.

The socialist lure: Peace. Harmony. Goodwill to all. No good guys and bad guys. All will be nice and we will sing Kumbayah in perfect harmony all over the world.

The result: Anyone who dissents, who finds error, who sees things differently will be silenced. This is the only way collectives ever enforce their ideas of “unity.”

She concludes with the same hopes I have:

So, Obama got his ideas by palling around with radical communist revolutionaries of the 60s. Obama chose these radicals as mentors and friends. Obama’s own parents were from the same mold as well. Happy socialists all.

John McCain spent a good deal of his adult life with radical socialists too. Five and a half years to be precise. Only McCain got his education on the merits of communism from inside one of their “utopian” cells under force.

Perhaps never before have Americans had such an easy choice for our next President. Here’s hoping we’ve raised more freedom-loving patriots than fools.

In the first place, they are too close to call. And even more importantly, we do not elect presidents by popular vote. Essentially what is being reported is Obama’s daily popularity contest standings. No one can even begin to give you a reasonable look at the results until each state and its electoral votes are considered. And as we draw nearer the election, the tighter these swing states get. It’s close. It’s tight. No one is way ahead, thus no one is way behind. One major misstep by either candidate could change everything, and a week is more than enough time for that to happen.

But remember, every time you hear a poll number reported it is utterly worthless as an indicator, and someone just might be using the report to try to sway your opinion and possibly even to convince you it is so sewn-up that you might as well stay home. Don’t fall for it. And keep in mind, these same people have been wrong over and over and over in the past. They always have the more liberal candidate ahead; they are usually wrong.

In her most recent column, she comments:

This is the thing: If Mr. Obama wins, and governs as a moderate liberal, not veering left, not seeming to be the cap that pops off a kettle that’s been boiling for eight years, but governs to a degree, at least in general approach, as Bill Clinton did—as a moderate Democrat well aware of the terrain—he may know some success.

Dear Peggy forgets one big thing: For most of his term, Bill Clinton had an opposition-controlled Congress as a restraining force. His hands were often forced or tied, as the case may be, by the Republicans in Congress. All indications are that, regardless of who wins the presidency, the Congress is headed for Democratic control, by a wide margin. If that is the case, Obama has no motivation whatever to govern as a moderate liberal (if there even is such a thing). He’ll be a success, all right, for the radical, liberal Left. Let’s not let that happen.

In the rest of her column, Noonan makes some good points about McCain’s current 43% polling, but it’s becoming undeniably clear that the Betty Ford Clinic needs to add a wing for Obama Kool-Aid detox.

Posting this picture, The Dish Rag blog by Elizabeth Snead at the L.A. Times website asks,

“How did Newsweek get Sarah Palin to pose with a rifle?”

Her answer is that Newsweek didn’t; it’s an old file photo. That said, methinks you wouldn’t have to twist Palin’s arm for a pic with a rifle. She could probably bring a few of her own.

Then Snead asks:

Hey, is that even the right way to hold a rifle? Can’t you shoot your foot off like that?

As I prepared to comment and let her know her mistake, I discovered that nearly all of her commenters decided to let her know that 1. it’s not a rifle; it’s a breech-loaded, over-under shotgun, and 2. that is a perfectly safe way to carry it.

My eyes aren’t good enough to tell whether it’s an over-under or double-barrelled; regardless, it’s broken over, so there are some real solid indications that it’s a shotgun.

And by the way, Newsweek, you just endeared most of the country to Palin with that picture.