And sure, it must be said I didn’t agree with every single little nuance, but any quibbles I had were small and not worth mentioning. I’m sure the anti-Paul crowd will pull those little things out and trumpet them, but frankly I can find quibbles of the same size with my own Pastor, whom I love and respect a lot and would vote him in to any political office in a heartbeat.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

Here is Titus pre-haircut.

“Ahh, it is so nice not to have hair in my eyes.”

“Mommy, these rocks hurt, but I just don’t know how to avoid them.”

He is one busy boy outside. He loves going out to play with Allen and Natasha.

Strawberries are a popular treat around here.

On a separate note, TJ set me up with a cool program that allows me to easily post to the blog. Hopefully, that will mean that you will see more post from me, but we will have to see.

Titus usually just watches from his chair while he snacks on something.

We had apparently a pretty big storm a few days ago. Electricity was flickering, tornado sirens were blazing, storm warnings everywhere. We didn’t get much rain until later in the day after all that fuss had died down, but we did get some ominous looking clouds.

Titus has been learning to brush his teeth.

My office has been ever moving for a while now. For several years I had an entire room in the house for my office space. But as we have more kids that’s becoming not very workable so we’ve been working on getting that room into shape for a bedroom. I moved my office to a corner of our very small living room where I mostly contained myself to a corner desk. Then we re-decorated our living room, inherited a few bookshelves and a desk, and I contained myself to a smaller space. But as I have been working from home a lot lately I have discovered I do have a need to shut the door and be free of kid distractions from time to time. As much as I like letting the kids be around while I work, sometimes it just doesn’t… work. So we redecorated our bedroom. We got a closet organizer so we could put more stuff in the closet and move a dresser out to put a desk in it’s place.

This is the spring where we get our drinking water. I just don’t like drinking the city water. I like drinking water out of the ground as God intended…

For quite a while now we have had an ever ballooning water bill. At first we chalked it up to increased water usage. But it was becoming apparent that this could not be the case. The straw the broke the camel’s back was the water bill that came last week. We apparently used 27,000 gallons over a 30 day period. I finally realized we must have a leak somewhere. We thoroughly checked the house. No leakage.

The only place that leak could be was between the house and the water meter at the curb. So with the help of some awesome friends, we began digging. We found the leak at an elbow about 150’ underground (okay maybe I’m exaggerating).

Titus likes it when mommy makes cookies. Because, you know: COOKIE DOUGH!

And that’s pretty much all the randomness I have right now.

…for the only Biblically Qualified candidate: Ron Paul!

UPDATE

It appears I was wrong in my understanding that estrogen acts in an abortifacient manner if ovulation has already occurred. I do not fully understand the medical science behind all this, and I tried to read the article I was referred to, but I did not find it easy to comprehend. I will quote from the discussion on Facebook, and link to the article in question.

Dr. Paul didn’t say progesterone, he said estrogen. According to my research, an estrogen shot tends to inhibit ovulation and fertilization, but doesn’t seem to have any affect on implantation of an already fertilized egg. It would basically have the same effect as a woman breastfeeding an infant, although presumably would not be as strong given a single shot. Some have mistakenly assumed he was speaking about a treatment that would inhibit implantation, or even worse, would cause the shedding of an implanted embryo, but those assumptions just aren’t factually correct. Those may actually be effects of a regimen of low dosage birth control pills with estrogen and progesterone, but that’s not how the estrogen shot works. (This is particularly ironic in light of recent revelations of candidates who have cheerfully voted to fund PP dispensing birth control under Title X … )

Here is a link that discusses some of the science, from a Christian perspective: Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications

Dr. Paul didn’t handle the interview well, but I don’t believe he said anything inconsistent with a true pro-life position.

So my position is further strengthened if this is true so I’m glad of that. But I am sorry that I in any way contributed to what appears to be myth.

Original article follows unaltered…

I’ve been wanting to write about this since it first started blowing up a couple weeks ago, but I haven’t had the time. I don’t technically have the time this morning, but I’m going to write about it anyway because I need to. I need to get my thoughts out there on this. I need to get it off my chest

Please be aware that this topic can be sensitive. I’ll be talking about some things quite frankly so please, if you are a minor reading this post, I highly encourage you to ask your parents to read this first and let you know whether it is appropriate for you to read about this subject. I will try to keep it clean certainly, but this topic over which allegations are being presented against Ron Paul includes rape, abortion etc. So please be advised.

So with that necessary disclaimer out of the way, let’s get started.

What’s the problem?

It all starts with this video (at least that seems to be what has instigated the current trend of dropping support for Ron Paul like a hot potato). I have set the video to start at the specific time code of the views in question.

The gist of this is that Ron Paul would give a shot of estrogen to a women who comes in to an emergency room and who has just been legitimately raped. She would obviously not like for this to result in a pregnancy. She wants to know what can be done. Ron Paul says a shot of estrogen would do the trick.

The problem seems to revolve around the idea that estrogen can cause a fertilized ovum (otherwise known to Christians as a baby!) to fail to implant on the wall of the uterus. This results of course in a very early miscarriage. The idea is that to purposely cause this is not a pro-life position.

Of course I’ve seen other views espoused on this issue too. Such as that all sexual intercourse should be able to result in a pregnancy and that even in the case of rape you should not try to prevent pregnancy. This is usually in line with the view that all forms of birth control, whether abortifacient or not, are wicked and evil.

Advancements in medicine

As anyone who knows me might guess, I think the issue is much more complex and nuanced than either of those two views allow. Consider this; we have made enormous strides and advancements in the last 100 years or so (give or take) in medical science, technology, knowledge, technique, etc. I do not have a problem with this, I see this as part of the dominion mandate. I am not espousing at all the idea that our dominion over this area of life is not good or that we should go back to the dark ages of leeches and bloodletting. But I do want to point out that we wrestle with ideas and concepts that no other generation has had to before. And we have a problem as well that many of the men and women in the field of medicine are not Godly at all but wicked and evil. They do not see medicine as an area of taking dominion as prescribed by a biblical dominion mandate. Rather they see our advancements as evidence that we are in the place of God. That we may make decisions on life and death, that we may kill babies. There are lots of ethical and moral dilemmas to consider, but this seems to cause the most uproar among Christians, and I would even say rightly so. We should protect life, no matter the age, no matter the status, inside or outside the womb.

The beginning of life

Let me state for the record here and now, I firmly believe life begins at conception. Not at implantation, not when cell division occurs, but when a sperm fertilizes an ovum. This places me firmly in the perhaps stereotypical evangelical pro-life camp. But, Ron Paul has stated in the video above that he also believes unequivocally that life begins at conception. Further, in his book Abortion and Liberty, Ron Paul had this to say:

To permit abortion at one day of gestation justifies it at two days; if it’s permitted one day before three months, it’s justified one day after three months; if it is permitted at one day before ‘viability,’ a nebulous term that has no meaning, it is justified at any time. Allowing abortion at six months gestation minus one day precludes an argument against abortion two days later. Attempting such an argument is a legal joke, a medical impossibility, and a moral hoax. Just as a pregnancy of one week cannot be put aside as “insignificant,” claiming it is only a ‘touch’ of pregnancy, abortion, regardless of the reason, cannot be downplayed as only a limited and qualified disregard for human life. Disrespect for life and liberty, once planted, grows rapidly.

I think this easily shows Ron Paul’s position on the matter. Ron Paul is pro-life.

What’s Paul saying in the video then?

The gist of it is, I think, this. How can one regulate the use of estrogen? Do we regulate that a woman can’t have a shot of estrogen under these certain circumstances but can in any other? Do we outlaw estrogen? Further complicated, a pregnancy can’t be confirmed at this stage. I daresay women have done things that caused a very early abortion without realizing it. This is the approach I see Ron Paul taking.

To me the medically challenging part is this: As far as my understanding goes, the large dose of estrogen will cause a thickening of mucus that would prevent the egg from being released (ovulation). It also causes mucus thickening in the uterine walls. This could have one of two effects.

1. If estrogen is administered immediately after sexual intercourse and before ovulation has occurred, it will prevent ovulation. If ovulation does not occur, the sperm will find no egg, and fertilization (conception) will not take place.

2. If estrogen is administered after ovulation, the thickened mucus on the uterine wall will have the abortifacient result of preventing implantation.

This is why Ron Paul says this is a moral choice and not one the state should be involved in regulating. And I agree it’s a tricky issue. I also admit to not having a clear cut answer. Though I disagree with his personally stated choice of saying he would administer the estrogen presumably without finding out more about the woman’s current state in her cycle, I do not know personally whether we should have state intervention that would prevent this. As I stated previously, on what basis would we propose such regulation? And it’s complicated by the fact that women can and do chart their cycles in such a way as to know whether they have ovulated or not, whether they are close to ovulation etc. My wife does this. She, along with our midwife, has been able to predict with a high degree of accuracy the due date of each of our three children based on when she ovulated from her charting. In the case where a woman was legitimately raped, was charting and knows that she has not yet ovulated but is close, would a shot of estrogen to prevent ovulation from occurring be morally wrong?

You see what I mean by this issue being nuanced and complex? It’s not cut and dry. I personally believe we should always err on the side of life. If there’s even the slightest doubt, then I would preserve what I believed may be the life inside the rape victims body. This is a stance that many find hard to stomach, and I know I have not been faced with this circumstance personally. But I believe that were my wife (or in the future my daughter) to be raped, God forbid such a thing would happen, but if it were to happen, and a life were to be conceived because of such a circumstance, then it would be our duty, my duty, to preserve and care for this life.

What does this mean for my voting conscience?

Ron Paul has stated on many occasions that as president, he would only support legislation that defined life as beginning at conception. He makes absolutely no exceptions. And his record over the many years he has served proves his pro-life position beyond a shadow of any doubt. He is the most pro-life candidate we have seen in a very long, long time.

After much consideration, this has not impacted my voting decision at all. I still support Ron Paul for president. I believe that when considering all the possibilities and weighing all things carefully, it is the best possible choice I could make. It is the best possible choice any Christian could make for president. Upon reflecting on this issue, I have determined that absolutely nothing has changed.

One more thing

I want to put out this final thought. I think perhaps those of us who bleed conservatism when pricked, who are as far to the right of the conventional American “conservative” as the east is from the west, those of us who for years and years and years have been on the outside looking in because the so called conservatives in this country were just less liberal but still so, are so very used to being in the minority and on the outside that we are unconsciously uncomfortable with having a candidate get anywhere close to mainstream. Ron Paul’s surge in popularity has scared us and so our subconscious minds began looking for something wrong. And when this popped up, I think many jumped on it (again, unconsciously). It was like, “Ah HAH!, I knew it! We just can’t support those main stream candidates. They’re all the same.” This is a defeatist mentality, and one I suggest we dump immediately! Ron Paul probably isn’t even going to win this, so what do you think would happen if we actually advanced a candidate into a position where he would actually win? Let’s loose this defeatist attitude, and I mean right now!

Yep, pretty much.

We were blessed to be able to watch the Draper kids for a few hours yesterday. Are they cute, or what?! I love ‘em, but they’re growing up way too fast!

Click through for Pictures.

And then there’s schoolwork for big boys.

I try to take a long walk everyday to get some exercise (trying to overcome the effects of my mostly sedentary lifestyle). A couple days ago it was such a great day I couldn’t help but whip out my trusty pocket camera… er… iPhone, and snap a few shots.

Earlier today, I took 30 minutes to go to the park with my family.

If either of the two should be wary of politicizing its decision-making process, it should be PP, no? And yet Komen is getting hammered for a practical organizational decision (for the zillionth time: PP does not provide mammography) while pro-choice auxiliaries are gleefully fomenting the rage.

…

Imagine I volunteered to run a cub scout troop, and for years, when the annual soapbox derby came near, I knew I could count on Joe’s Deli as good for a hundred dollar donation. If one year Old Man Joe decided he didn’t want to donate any more — because he didn’t like the design of our racer, or because he thought his hundred bucks was better spent on a little league team, or because he disapproved of the scouts’ stance on gays — what on earth would justify me going on public access TV to grill Old Man Joe on why he hates kids? What would justify me hacking the Joe’s Deli web site or maliciously editing Old Man Joe’s Wikipedia page? What would justify me goading a handful of my city councilman into standing up at the next town meeting and publicly calling on Old Man Joe to reinstate his donation?

Nothing. Nothing would justify that. Nothing at all.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure on Friday apologized and reversed its decision to end funding grants to Planned Parenthood.

And so Komen continues to support death and destruction.

In Washington, 26 U.S. senators - all Democrats except for independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont - signed a letter calling on Komen to reconsider its decision.

Despicable!

I debated writing this… I’m going to get some push back on this for sure (or at least I’m fairly certain. Or perhaps people will read this, shake their heads in disgust and move on).

So there’s this picture of a quote from Stephen Colbert (above) going around “The Facebook” and it goes like this:

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

Now, before I go any further, understand this; I am in no way opposed to helping the poor and needy. I am in no way suggesting that we despise the poor and oppressed. Indeed, as Christians, it is our duty to help the poor and needy as Stephen Colbert indicates.

What I am going to push against is the implied notion that this help must necessarily be done by means of the government. Again note that I feel this is implied in the statement. But it is not explicitly stated. Since it is not explicitly state, I could be getting the wrong implication.

However, the point I am going to make stands regardless.

This is the argument I hear from folks who want to perpetuate government welfare programs (for instance). That as a Christian Nation, we have a duty to help the poor, so therefore we must have welfare, government healthcare, free education (provided by the government) etc. etc.

If I were to say something like what Colbert said, I would rephrase the first part to this:

“If we are going to be a Christian nation, but the people of this nation are not characterized by their generosity to the poor…”

You can see from my rephrasing where I might be going with this. There are three spheres of authority that are biblically delineated. Those are:

1. Family
2. Church
3. Civil

There is of course some overlap of all three, but the idea that civil government would be involved in charity is misplaced in my judgement. Helping the poor and needy, the widows and the orphans falls into two of the three spheres of authority: Family and Church. For the civil government to care for the needy would necessitate (as we see today) that they derive those resources from those under it’s jurisdiction. For the government is not a producer of resources, but must therefore acquire those resources by taking them from someone. This is known by another name: Socialism. It is nothing more than wealth redistribution.

Government is there for the enforcement of civil law and for defense of the land. That (along with a couple of other very limited things) is the job of the civil government according to a Biblical worldview.

The real problem we have in this nation is that the Church, and her members (families) have abdicated the God given calling to exercise care for the poor, for the widow and orphan. We have allowed our civil government to take over this duty that belongs only to us and it is wrong. But it’s a vicious cycle. That the government does this makes it hard for us to do that which we have been called.

Because it is a circular problem, it is very hard to break, but break it we must in order to get our nation back into a biblical framework.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s press secretary Moira Bagley tweeted on Monday that Transportation Security Administration officials were detaining her boss in Nashville, Tenn.

I feel so much safer now knowing this hardened criminal was captured and detained before he could do any real damage.

Oh, wait…

From the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 6:

“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

I’ll be joining Ralph Bristol on Supertalk 99.7 WTN at 6:35am Central Time to talk about the need to stop foreign-based online piracy.

I was saddened to see Marsha Blackburn is still campaigning for SOPA. This is of course the big day of protest. And Marsha chooses to continue campaigning for this reprehensible legislation.

I am reminded of what Mark Twain said:

Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.

I think Marsha Blackburn is at that point…

Robert Jeffress was correct when called Momonism a cult, but he could not be more misguided in some of his latest comments.

I a piece run by Fox News, influential pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX, is telling evangelicals to be patient in the GOP primaries—not terrible advice in itself. His general reason is admirable: that we should not “abandon principles for pragmatism.” Indeed. But his applications and interpretations of that reason for Iowa and New Hampshire border on libel.

I don’t think that I was under the delusion that someone with the eschatological views that Jeffress holds would endorse Ron Paul, but I’m linking just in case any else did.

Jeffress blithely talks about Dr. Paul’s neo-Nazi ties, which is getting a bit old, and has frankly been debunked already.