The Pendragon's Hall

Well, Sarah, in answer to your question, "What is with conservative Christians and fighting gay marriage?" I will tell you what is with us. I do not know whether or not you still consider yourself either but the Bible does not make the distinction you claim between the state and the individual. Government is bound to "do good and punish evil" according to Romans 13 and to allow gay marriage which you yourself admit is wrong would be not punishing but permitting evil. And perhaps it would be good to check out the statistics in nations like Denmark where gay marriage is legal and now half of children born are born out of wedlock. Is homosexual marriage an assault on traditional heterosexual marriage? You had better believe it.

Your "rant" as you put it is full of liberal talking points without one original idea. It's hard to even know where to begin. Point number one, marriage is not a committed relationship between two people. It is a committed relationship between a man and a woman, not two people of the same gender. Yes, saying this means taking the Bible as truth, but if the Bible is true, it is true for everyone, not just for those who believe it. The people in Romans 1 didn't believe the Biblical teaching about homosexuality and "received in themselves the due penalty." When any nation, whether it calls itself Christian or not, blatantly ignores God's laws and lives in a way contrary to them, trouble follows. I've been called a homophobe and I am...and proud of it. God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah and the land of Canaan for these things. Why would He spare America? You claim we are not a Christian country at one point and not a theocracy at another. We needn't be either to reject the idea of gay marriage. But the fact remains: We live in a republic. God doesn't judge nations, but He does judge people. And this particular nation is governed by the people. If "we the people" (to borrow the phrase) choose to turn our back on God's law our nation is done for...and good riddance. But the worst thing is, our nation may be done for because too many Christians have your attitude about this. A handful of activist judges and their perverted friends are cramming their perversion down the throats of the majority in this country and you say we should allow it. As for the idea that divorce harms marriage more than gay marriage, it is both true and false. I for one wouldn't mind seeing stricter divorce laws, but to allow people who are not "married" to call themselves married introduces a wrong idea of marriage for the next generation. Even as we speak, people are calling for the allowance of "poly-amory", that is group marriages on the basis that homosexual marriage is about to be allowed. If you believe marriage is simply a committed relationship between people, heck, I'm married to my father! But marriage is a one-for-one relationship between a man and a woman and to call anything else marriage is to teach coming generations that marriage is anything you want it to be. Easy divorce laws still confirm that marriage is a man and a woman.

And where will you draw the line? God's Word is not for the church alone. It is for the world at large. It is the best, indeed the only, way to live. To abandon His Law, whether one believes in it or not, invites damnation. Sarah, you once believed this. I still consider you my friend and was greatly shocked and saddened to read this blog entry from someone I considered a Bible-believing Christian. I offer this rebuttal in hopes you will change your mind.

That said, I support the Marriage Amendment because it is our only defense. I would not have chosen to use the federal process for something so basic as to define marriage but if we do not wish a perversion to be stuffed down our throats, we must act in self-defense to save ourselves and our country. May God bless (and save) America!

Vice President Dick Cheney apparently used the F-word in an exchange with Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (Vermont, need I say more?) recently. Given my conservative stances, no doubt I will be accused of allowing the goose to get away with what I would criticize in the gander when I say I don't believe he should be made to apologize. John Kerry used the word to describe Bush's policy in Iraq causing Rush Limbaugh to label him "John F'in Kerry." Somebody should ask Kerry if he's sorry for using it. I somehow doubt it.

But as long as we're talking history, lots of great people swear under pressure. George Washington exploded, "Damn him and all his kind!" when refused a promotion in the British army. Lincoln told his staff the defeat at Fredericksburg was "damned bad." John F. Kennedy complained that some "s-- of a b---- doesn't get the word" during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This does not excuse use of bad language even under pressure. But at least these people, like Cheney, under attacks by Democratic senators, were under this kind of pressure. What excuse does Kerry have? What pressure was he under? None. He said it for the benefit of shock. Most of his campaign is like watching Howard Stern run for president. His campaign speeches are nothing but rants calculated to shock and/or offend others. Hopefully the American voters will see this and launch Senator Kerry back to where he belongs...park bench in Boston. Do not pass "Go"; do not collect $200.

All the people worrying that America is abandoning its principles in going after terrorists in Iraq would do well to remember the ideals this nation supposedly represents. In one of our signature songs, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," the songwriter wrote:

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea
With a glory in His bosom that transfigured you and me;
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on!

The American military today is simply living out the dream expressed in this song. As Christ died to make men holy, they fight and die to make men free. And God is marching on. We are winning. We will win. We cannot help but win if our cause is just and just it certainly is. God bless our troops and God bless America!

So whom should John Kerry choose as his VP? The favorite choice appears to be former challenger John Edwards. Edwards does bring two things to the campaign that Kerry lacks--one, charisma, and two, a choir-boy look. On everything else, they're pretty much identical, from their hair-dos to their flip-flopping on every issue. Besides, anyone notice what they do for a living? (I mean, besides deceive people.) They're both senators. And Edwards is from North Carolina, which is pretty much a goner for Bush anyway. And he's too young and, frankly, too stupid to stand up to Dick Cheney in a debate. Cheney made mincemeat out of Joe Lieberman last time around; Edwards will barely be a speed bump.

Not that I care. Sink your campaign on a nobody from North Carolina, Senator Kerry. But if I were picking to win, I'd tell you to go with someone who's either a governor or a congressman. Two Senators who know nothing about governing can't make for a very successful ticket. My picks? Either Dick Gephardt, who's actually a moderate, as opposed to the pretend moderates floating around the Democratic Party or Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. But by all means, choose Edwards. It will make the Vice Presidential debate amusing if nothing else.

Senator Kerry, the erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate, is trying to inch into the graces of people he will never understand. By championing the raising of minimum wage to $7 he claims he is empowering poorer people to get more money as opposed to President Bush, whom he none too originally claims only backs "the rich." As one of the rich, I wonder what problem he has with that. But anyway, like with all Kerry's schemes it just won't work. Raising minimum wage will not help the needy. People seeking for work will find it harder, not easier, to find work if employers are compelled to pay them seven dollars an hour...it's hard enough finding work at five-fifty an hour!

AOL's "straw poll" is certainly straw! They have Bush winning only a handful of southern states by slight majorities. Kerry wins big everywhere else. My bet? Kerry will win his own state, Vermont, Connecticutt, New Jersey, Rhode Island and maybe New York. Bush will win everywhere else. He is just like Ronald Reagan, a true conservative Republican, with the leadership ability. This will carry him to victory.

The battle over gay marriage grows dangerously hot and pseudo-conservatives tripe about the size and role of government. While anti-marriage liberals rant and rave and blast their immoral message across the media, we hear many self-proclaimed conservatives saying they don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment because they don't believe the government should dictate things like the sanctity of marriage. It sounds nice and pious and Democrats who claim some kind of Christianity take up the cry as well.

It is nice and it is pious and it is absolute bilgewater. The government's role is to do good and punish evil--not to take care of the elderly and supervise education. When evil is being done in this land, it is indeed government's job to fight it. For those who will counter some rubbish about Founding Fathers, I say, "Don't quote Jefferson to me!" Gay marriage would never have occurred to these men. The government of the US is made up of the people and the people's will is supposed to be represented, not every person's personal desires, but the general public will. That is not being represented by the opposition. So while listening to these conservatives spout their platitudes, treat it with the contempt it deserves. Support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Well, the justices finally got one right. Pardon me if I sound surprised but it happens so seldom. In a 5-4 ruling the US Supreme Court has decreed that atheist lawyer Michael Newdow cannot have the words "under God" stricken from the pledge of allegiance. Although they ruled on a technicality--that Newdow does not have custody of his daughter and cannot sue on her behalf--it is a heartening decision nonetheless. Since roughly 5% of the American public at any time claims to be atheist, it is another clear case of minority rules. For once, perhaps the Supreme Court is letting the will of the people prevail. I wouldn't count on it though. We'll have to continue fighting this battle until most of the country tells the rest of it to stuff it.

In the third installment of Lord of the Rings, as brave King Theoden lays dying, having played a pivotal role in the final, dramatic battle for Middle Earth, he tells the hobbit Merry, "I am going to my fathers, in whose mighty company I need no longer feel ashamed." For those of us watching the events of Ronald Reagan's funeral, these words became hauntingly real. I commented to my girlfriend, "I feel like it must have felt when George Washington or John Adams died." These men have long been considered great presidents and when they died they went to their just reward. Our latest fallen hero is the great Ronald Reagan and he sits now with the heroes of old in the halls of heaven. In their mighty company he need no longer be ashamed for he has done well the work God had for him to do.

After Theoden's death, Eomer told his grieving followers, "Mourn not overmuch. Mighty was the fallen." Yet Tolkien tells us, "He himself wept as he spoke." Although all week long I had merely recalled the glory of the Reagan years and the victory he gave America in the seventy-year Cold War, and had urged people not to mourn much, for he lived long and did well, as I watched the final ceremony last night, I myself wept, not for him, he has gone on to a better place but for us. Ronald Reagan did so much for us. But as surely as I know he will be missed, I know he would not have us spend our lives in sorrow. He has given us a new world and it is ours to meet the challenges the new world offers. Let us go forward and fight, remembering Ronald Reagan in our hearts as we do Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln, and hold to the course set down by these great presidents.

When asked by George Stephanopoulos (begged really) whether he would accept the VP place on the Democratic ticket, Newsmax reports that John McCain ("Democratic-Republican" from Arizona) replied, "No. I'm a Republican. (gag me) It's hard for me to imagine that a pro-life, free-trading defense and deficit hawk would be acceptable to the Democratic Party."

How dumb does he think we are? Pro-life? Deficit hawk? Republican? Give me a break! He's now teaming up with treasonous witch Hillary Clinton on a new gun control bill. He's voted against bans on abortion, dodged questions on his abortion stances, favored increased taxes rather than decreased government waste, and repeatedly undercut the military during the recent media-created scandal over Iraqi prisoner "abuse". With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats?

The Left certainly doesn't let any grass grow under its feet. Unable to prevent Reagan's widespread popularity drawing attention to his conservative policies and the fact that Bush is the heir to Reagan conservatism, they have decided to politicize his death as only the Left can and push for a loosening of restrictions regarding stem cell research. They claim Reagan's alzheimers could have been treated perhaps by stem cells. While I highly doubt it, one thing I know for certain is that the vast majority of those backing the bill, such as Senator Feinstein from California or Senator Kerry from Massachussetts couldn't care less about Ronald Reagan or indeed about alzheimers. They are taking advantage of Nancy's grief and the nation's fondness for Reagan to push their own political ends. I can only hope they will not be allowed to get away with it.

Rush Limbaugh said on his show today that there is still the living chance that Generation X could be the next "greatest generation." He said the legacy of Ronald Reagan is that we can dream big dreams and work hard to achieve them. Amen and amen.

On the basis of this, I am calling on my generation to take a stand. In recent weeks, we have seen politicians cowering over moral issues, clear moral issues such as partial-birth abortion and gay marriage. And unfortunately there is apathy among the young voting population. Even among those who claim the term conservative, voters would often not vote or vote simply for whoever screams the loudest. But I say, check it out! Currently our Democratic Senator, Chuck Schumer, one of Kennedy's ilk, is currently up for re-election. The expected Republican challenger is a man named Howard Mills. He has the support of Governor George Pataki (Democratic-Republican) and this should make us suspicious. Mills has endorsed both gay marriage and abortion of all varieties. But there is a choice. A conservative named Michael Benjamin is also running for the Republican nomination. For any New York Republicans who may be reading, check out Benjamin's webpage at www.benjamin2004.com. I endorse this conservative for Senate in New York. We have a choice. Vote Conservative. Make a stand.

Another American hero passes on into the sunset. Former president Ronald Reagan died yesterday at the age of 93. While it has become customary to scoff at Mr. Reagan by those on the Left who can't believe an old cove outwitted them so badly, the man was largely responsible for the world we live in today. Without Reagan's clear vision and moral leadership America's victory in the Cold War and the final defeat of communism around the world would surely have been impossible. For forty years mediocre politicians sought to contain the Soviet threat while inadvertently advancing its cause throughout the world. By the time Reagan came to office, there wasn't much left for the Soviets to conquer. His economic stimulus ended a decade of runaway inflation and made possible the economic boom that Clinton so loves to brag about. This world would be very different today had Ronald Reagan not lived. And so, Mr. President, rest in peace. And, my fellow Americans, let us prepare to follow Reagan's bold example in this new age of terrorism. President Bush is doing a good job. There. my tribute to a fallen leader, and my plug for the current one.

Poor Junior Seau. Yesterday the black Miami lineman was forced to apologize for identifying himself as "not a faggot" in a speech to the team. "There is a great deal of respect among these guys," Seau commented. "I would say love but then people would say I'm a faggot and I'm not." For this slur on homosexuals (how is it a slur?) he was forced to publicly apologize. This is the second time, the news media reports, that the lineman has been forced to apologize. The other time he told reporters that the only way to stop one of his black teammates was to feed him watermelon and fried chicken. His friend laughed. He laughed. The media cringed. I find it ridiculous. Himself being black, it's like me telling my best friend, "You're just a white guy who can't jump." Blacks are way too hyper-sensitive if they cannot even joke about stereotypes among themselves. Bill Cosby recently got in trouble for the same thing. Blacks should try life as Catholics...then they'd understand the real meaning of prejudice.

While we're on the subject of football, the New York Giants signed veteran QB Kurt Warner yesterday. He is apparently going to be their new starter. As a Giants fan I am much more optimistic about the upcoming season than I was when they released Kerry Collins to sign some upstart rookie who's related to fallen MVP Peyton Manning. Warner brings experience and while he's been having a rough time lately, teaming up with two all-star receivers, a stellar tight end and a powerhouse running back should be the recipe he needs to get back in the middle of things and set the Giants on course for another Super Bowl title. We can only hope.

In the first book of his epic trilogy Lord of the Rings, Tolkien puts some insightful words into the mouth of his hero, Aragorn on the role of people defending others. Aragorn, who has protected the Shire from evil things for many years, declares to the Council, "Less thanks have we than you...'Strider' I am to one fat man who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town in ruins, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so."

Aragorn is right. This, too, is the reason for anti-Americanism from the nations of Europe. They are "simple folk" and, thanks to America, have been "free from care and fear" for many years. We protected them from Russia and now we protect them from the Arabs. Instead of being thankful, however, they "give us scornful names." It is to be expected.

Everyone in the mainstream press wishes of course to make much of the fact that some soldiers slated to retire will not be allowed to do so if their units are called to active service. The media is crowing that it proves the United States armed forces are "having trouble" keeping enough soldiers in the field to fight Al-Qaida.

Actually, I suspect if the media and the UN did not want to tie our military up in knots with rules and regulations, our military is more than capable of dealing with Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaida. There may be eighteen thousand of them but we still have them outnumbered and outgunned. If we were allowed to hunt them the way we need to, these terrorists could be quickly uprooted. Unfortunately, that will never happen. The media would like nothing better than for the military to have to institute a draft. Anything to disatisfy the American people and wear down their will to fight. Fortunately, for us, the American people do not appear to be buying it. The latest polls show a largely satisfied public who has faith in their institutions and in their future. Sorry, media. We're not as stupid as we look.

Why San Francisco needs representation in a country of rational people is beyond me. Now the judge representing this morally bankrupt city-state has decided that a woman has the inalienable right to blow the brains out of her half-born child and the Congress and President, whose constitutional task it is to make laws for this country, are again having their roles usurped by power-hungry justices. The loony leftists that inhabit our federal courts continue to extend their jurisdiction and while claiming to uphold constitutional rights, violate the constitution. It's about time the President, the Congress and the people of this country began ignoring the courts. By placing themselves above the law, they have in essence become outlaws--renegade judges. Hopefully, following a landslide Republican victory in November, judges who know the law and their role in it will be established. We can only hope.

I have been reading about the Spanish conquest of Peru lately and at one point in his book, Inca and Spaniard, historian Albert Marrin makes a fascinating statement: "The Inca had met their match in terrorism." While Marrin's sympathy is somewhat for the Inca and he believes the Spaniards dealt treacherously with them on little or no provocation, he is smart enough to recognize that the Inca, like the Aztecs and the Maya, were no Vienna choirboys.

At the risk of being exceedingly politically incorrect, let me say that the Spaniards did right in how they treated the Inca...if their goal was right. You can argue about that one with me if you want. Use the comment line below. But since their goal was to crush resistance, they went about it the right way. They exterminated the leaders and showed no mercy. I do not suggest our troops do this on a regular basis, but in dealing with subhuman savages like Al Qaida it might be useful. The Incas were "civilized" if by civilized you mean they were intelligent and skilled. Their morality in dealing with enemies was no better, or worse I suppose, than the Spaniards'. It was kill or be killed and the Spaniards chose to kill. A useful lesson for us today.

I can't let this go: The media is now taking it upon itself to "interpret" John Kerry's policies for the average public. This is probably a good thing since he has shown himself incapable of doing this for himself. AOL news reported today that Kerry has a "layered strategy" for preventing nuclear terrorism. The strategy includes "securing all bomb-making materials" and "making sure that no new nuclear weapons are being produced" and "ending nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea." Leaving aside the fact that the French-looking candidate has apparently accepted now that Iran and North Korea are part of the axis of evil, he has again shown marvelous ability to not give any specifics. Of course we've got to secure all bomb-making materials...that's what we're trying to do in Iraq if the UN and their Democratic pets would ever let us. We're trying to keep a sharp eye on proliferation of nuclear weapons if the money-laundering, children-starving French and Russians would cease and desist.And Bush has been trying to end weapons' programs in Iran and North Korea but their sympathizers in this country, especially in the media, continually undercut the effort. Kerry is naming a whole list of things that have been done and are being done now so that he can get people to agree with his aims. But he has no plan on how to do them. Let some astute media person, if any exists, ask him that. Go on; ask him.