President Obama and Hasty Vows

Hello all!

Today, while reading (and watching) some material covering questions of whether President Obama has been as transparent as he promised during his campaign, I was struck by a few things that I would like to “throw” out for y’all to take or leave. 🙂

Without getting into all the nitty-gritty details of the charges and response (which I will admit I am not as familiar with as I would like to be) I believe that during the campaign Senator Obama made more than a few rash vows, and as a result I think the accusations have a lot of merit.   However, with that said, I also can easily understand and agree to the statement made by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that, “Not everything the President does is for the cameras and for the press.”  

To my thinking, the real problem here is not that the President isn’t allowing the media to cover all the things they want to cover, or think should be covered, — the real problem is/was the rashness of the vows made by Senator Obama on the campaign trail.  As a Christian, I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that a rashly made oath is foolishness.   Leviticus 5:4-5 clearly teaches that rashly making an oath, be it for a good purpose or with a good intent, is a sin: 

“Or if a person swears thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good in whatever matter a man may speak thoughtlessly with an oath, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty in one of these.  So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.” 

Proverbs 20: 25 says…“It is a trap for a man to say rashly, “It is holy!” and after the vows to make inquiry.” 

I believe that the promises made by Senator Obama were in large part good and I understand that in a campaign you are trying to paint a best case picture of what your administration would be and would do.  However, Senator Obama should have more prudently and/or thoroughly considered the ramifications of his rash vows and considered whether the promises made by ‘Senator Obama’ could be upheld by ‘President Obama’.  His promises of transparency were clearly more than could have or should have been reasonably promised.   Perhaps the problem is that President Obama has never differentiated between the things that should require transparency, the things that ought to be kept and done out of the view of the public and simply promised over-arching transparency in general.   I can see this being the case, but at the very least the President created an impression (purposely, I assume) and never clarified or defined the exact intent and extent of his stated purpose and goals. 

Probably no segment of our society demonstrates the ease and carelessness with which rash promises are made (and broken) more than the political world.   As Christians, it is our responsibility to clearly advocate for integrity and prudence in vow making and then to hold our elected officials to their word.  Most importantly though, it is up to us, in accordance with God’s word, to demonstrate the integrity and prudence in our own lives that we expect of people around us and representing us.  

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Advertisements

Charmaine Yoest explains the threat of gov. funded abortion

Hey all!

Some of you may be a little confused or wondering as to how exactly the government health-care proposals on the table would effect abortion, specifically, whether government funds could be used to fund abortions under the guise or category of “health-care”.   

Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life (AUL), from the beginning of the health-care debate has been on top of the issue and in the front line of the health-care fight, bringing much clarity to the issue and fighting to keep government health-care dollars from funding abortion.   In the imbedded video she explains how the current health-care proposals would indeed inevitably lead to abortion funding through…the courts?   Yes…and I believe she is absolutely correct.   Be sure to watch the video… 

Additionally, I’ve linked below an article written by Yoest in The Washington Times.   For those who don’t have time to read the entire article I have pasted the key portion of article directly below, so be sure to read that if you can.  Remember this is an important issue!

The truth is that the health care packages under consideration do include abortion funding. Without a specific statutory amendment that includes an explicit ban on federal funding and coverage, we face health care reform that includes abortion.

Lost in the debate over whether or not abortion is “in there” – whether or not you can flip to a certain page and point to a particular clause related to abortion funding – is an understanding among political elites that this is a watershed battle over definition. It’s existential, if you will, and comes down to a very straightforward question: Is abortion health care, or is it not?

An inadvertent answer from the abortion advocates’ side emerged during the debate over H.R. 3200 in the House Education and Labor Committee on July 22 after Rep. Mark Souder, Indiana Republican, offered an amendment to exclude abortion funding from health care reform. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat, clearly miffed, responded:

“[Abortion] is a legal medical practice and by even having to talk about it … we’re not talking about having your tonsils out. …”

No, indeed we are not. As a matter of public policy, we still have the ability to differentiate between an abortion and a tonsillectomy. But this is precisely the debate we confront.

Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby define abortion as health care, as being morally equivalent to a tonsillectomy, and health care reform is their vehicle for imposing that view definitively with the full force of the federal government.

For the record, the Souder amendment to bar federal funding of abortion failed, as have all similar attempts to provide a clear and unequivocal abortion exclusion.

This is literally a defining moment for the pro-life movement. On Planned Parenthood’s Web site, the very first category under Health on the navigation bar is Abortion.

You can read the entire article here.  It provides some background that isn’t included in the video.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/is-abortion-health-care-or-is-it-not/

In closing, this is an incredibly important issue were are dealing with here and it’s vital that we get the word out about the dangers facing us.   More importantly, it’s important that we spread the word about the danger facing the unborn.  I hope some of the information in here was helpful.   If it was, be sure to pass it on through email, facebook, blogs, twitter, myspace, etc., and/or use it as a base for additional research. 🙂

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

More Mortgage Trouble?

Hello all! 

I haven’t been posting much in the way of politics and/or economics recently, as you may have noticed,  but an article from money.cnn.com caught my attention and I thought it would be good to share.  In the article, Karen Weaver, global head of Deutsch Bank’s securitization research division (responsible for analyzing credit default swaps, collateralized mortgage obligations, “and other exotic Wall Street products”) argues that “48% of U.S. mortgage owners will end up owing more than their home is worth by 2011”. Excerpt:

 

“The figure may have left many Americans wondering how this could be possible. But consider that 27% of U.S. homeowners with a mortgage are already “underwater.” And according to Deutsche Bank, home prices may fall another 14% before hitting a bottom.

How many Americans are underwater?

Currently we estimate that 14 million homeowners have negative equity. However, based on our home price forecast, as prices continue to fall we think that number could reach 25 million, or 48% of all mortgagors.

Where does this leave us?

The obvious takeaway of falling home prices and being underwater is what it does for defaults. But there’s a bigger implication, which is that when we look at the economy over the past decade or two, it’s been very much a consumer economy.

What has been driving the consumer hasn’t been gains in incomes. What has been driving them is easy credit and rising home values. And the fact that their home price was rising and they could borrow against that through home equity lines or loans or refinancing, it augurs for a very different economy going forward if people don’t have that option….So by creating products that lowered the payment, or lowered the amount of down-payment, it enabled more people to buy a home. It also perpetuated the bubble.”

 

The point of the article is…the after effects of the housing bubble – created largely (more than any other single factor at best) by artificially and unsustainably cheap credit – aren’t going away anytime soon.  Even if the Weaver’s estimates are too high, we should still be concerned.  I don’t personally think the economy will be stabilized until the bulk of these “toxic” loans are gone, and defaulting will probably end up being a major instrument through which the toxic mortgages are ended.  

Ironically, even if our governments attempts to stimulate and stabilize the economy work reasonably well,  Weaver thinks many who are underwater on their mortgages will default anyway just as a matter of common sense – unless of course there is an unprecedented economic boom resulting in a significant income increase for those underwater on their homes or the government bails them out (my words, not hers).  Excerpt:   

 

“At what point of being underwater do homeowners start falling into foreclosure rapidly?

Once you get to the point where negative equity is significant — for example, 25% or more — there have been studies that suggest you get more strategic defaults.

People say, “I bought my house for $500,000, it’s worth $250,000, there are 10 available for sale in my neighborhood. It makes no economic sense to spend the rest of my life trying to pay off a $500,000 debt when there’s no reasonable likelihood to expect this house to go back up to $500,000.”

This might sound extreme, but we have borrowers who bought a $500,000 home in California at the peak of the market on $50,000 of income. So for them to devote their gross income for the next 10 years solely to paying off [their] mortgage doesn’t make any sense.”

 

If you have time to read the whole article then I would recommend that you do.  It’s not very long, and its case is made mostly on the basis of common sense.  

At the end of the day, I think many mortgage holders will tire of the stress that comes from being underwater on their homes, and with the excess of cheap homes available thanks to the recent burst housing bubble, it makes sense that lots of people will sooner or later default on their underwater mortgages and opt for cheaper, more economically sound, affordable, and stable housing.  When and if they do, it’s probably either going to prolong the recession we are already in or send us into another mini-depression…at best perhaps. 

Of course, this is somewhat speculative, so ultimately we shall see what we shall see. 🙂  Just don’t be surprised if housing and mortgages continue to be a major drag on the economy.

 

God bless and veritas supra!

 

Georgia, On the Rebound

Hello all!

I doubt many of you will be interested in the following link, but I thought I’d share it anyway because A) it’s very significant in international affairs, and B) I think it’s interesting. 🙂   If you will recall, Georgia, a country struggling to implement a westernized values system emphasizing personal and economic freedom, was shamelessly invaded by Russia last year in a blatant power grab involving an oil pipeline running through Georgia, a pipeline that threatened a Russian monopoly on the oil supply to Europe.  This article gives you an update on what’s going on in Georgia as they try to recover and continue their forward progress.   I hope you find it enlightening and encouraging, if not interesting.  I believe it’s important to support the efforts of Georgia.  They are not a large country, but they are struggling to bring about social and political change that is desperately needed in that region of the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503091.html?wprss=rss_opinions

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Why I did not attend a TEA Party

Hello all!

As I have mentioned in several different venues, including my last blog post, I chose not to attend any of the many TEA Parties held on April 15th despite the fact that I was sympathetic to their cause, at least the basic premise. In this post I would like to lay out my reasons for not participating.

My primary motivation for this post, beyond explaining my reasons, is to offer some thoughts on grassroots activity, protestation, and related issues for future efforts. I believe strong grassroots organization and activity can and should powerfully impact our future, so it is of vital importance that all – non-professional grassroots activists, professional activists, political strategists, and politicians alike – give the matter much careful consideration.

My reasons for not participating are as follow.

First: Taxes are an effect, not a cause.

Some form of taxation is necessary to uphold and stabilize good government. Taxes, even high taxes, are not wrong in-and-of-themselves if they are being used for the right things and are obtained lawfully by the consent of the people. The problem today is not necessarily the rate at which we are taxed, it is the cause(s) that necessitate high taxes; things like an unnecessarily large and inefficient bureaucratic government, wasteful spending, political corruption, damaging social engineering programs of a highly questionable constitutional nature and massive unconstitutional bailouts of non-government enterprises all contribute to the tax problem.

Second: in connection with the previous point, grassroots energy is a precious commodity.

TEA Party protests tend (emphasis on “tend”) to not focus on root causes or education, I believe, nor does their mobilization of grassroots energy lend itself to productivity or sustainability. Our focus should be on the root causes, first identifying them, educating ourselves’ on the issues, educating others and mobilizing a focused, productive and sustainable opposition.

Grassroots energy is often difficult to find and sustain, and easily tends to be unproductive. Because the vast majority of grassroots activists have a limited amount of time, energy, and resources available, they should be deployed as effectively and strategically as possible and controlled to a great degree (i.e. focused and directed, not micro-managed) with a long term focus. Fundamental or root causes should always be their focus, not effects or mere lightening rod issues.

Third: It is easy to skew perception of protests such as the TEA Parties.

Perception is important because it largely influences people’s willingness or ability to fairly evaluate our message. If our perception is good people will be receptive to our message and respond positively. If our perception is bad people will respond negatively to our message. CNN, a liberal network hostile to the TEA Party message, understood this. They knew that if they could negatively portray the TEA Party movement, even if that portrayal was false, they could destroy or minimize its positive reception. So, unsurprisingly, they portrayed the TEA Parties as negatively as they could. Unfortunately, it wasn’t particularly difficult to do so – there were more than enough seemingly angry and/or upset people who came across as merely being hot heads to provide fodder for negative coverage – and by presenting these seeming hot heads them as accurately representing the overall spirit of the TEA Parties as a whole it was easy for CNN (and others) to negatively influence perception of the movement.

Perception is something that is often beyond our control – no matter how good a job we do of presenting ourselves and our cause in the best possible light – so we can’t allow anticipated perception to dictate everything we do. Still, we should factor it in, and when an activity lends itself to an unnecessarily high degree of negative exposure and negative public perception we should be very wary of attaching ourselves to that cause or activity, particularly if our time, energy, and resources are limited and can be better used elsewhere. Ultimately, our personal involvement should always be very calculated, long term in focus, and controlled on the emotional level.

Fourth (and last): I am uncomfortable with the symbolic aspect of the TEA Parties.

Taxes have always been a lightening rod issue, prone to arouse the less admirable instincts of man.

The stereotype of angry protesters waving incendiary anti-tax and/or anti-government signs is not a stereotype without reason. Historically, taxes have proven to be a lightening rod for expression of dissatisfaction (usually justifiably) with government. Taxes are so universally disliked that it is very natural for them to be the object of expresses ones frustration, particularly when one faces a daunting array of complicated issues that need to be addressed. So I am leery of tax oriented protestations. They are strewn with pitfalls stemming from the fallen nature of man. The historical symbolism at play in the TEA Party protests only serves to exacerbate an already precarious balance and heighten my wariness.

Anger should never be a primary (perhaps even significant) catalyst in our political and social activism. Anger should never be uncontrolled or semi-uncontrolled. It distorts our reasoning and rightfully mars the nobleness of our cause, casting reasonable doubt on our causes rightness and worth. It is a self inflicted impugning of our character.

It is unwise and potentially debilitating to automatically refuse participation in any activity that could include people involved for the wrong reasons. We can’t dictate or control the motives of those we work with in all of our political and social activity. Sometimes we just have to accept the fact that perfection will not be achieved (understatement) and make the best of things. Still, I believe it is wise as a general rule to avoid participating in the events and campaigns most likely to be fueled by wrong motives.

I by no means believe that all people involved with the TEA Party movement were involved for the wrong reasons. Remember, I am speaking not only of TEA Parties but also of activism generally. I believe the majority of those involved with the TEA Parties were involved for the right reasons and conducted themselves in a manner befitting the rightness of their cause. But, I also believe enough people were involved for the wrong reasons to dramatically damage the integrity of the TEA Parties in the eyes of the general public, especially with an incredibly biased MSM leaping on every available opportunity to negatively portray them.

At the end of the day, I think the net effect of the TEA Parties could be negligibly good, but more likely to be damaging to the TEA Party cause in the long term. Positively, they mobilized and energized a very significant number of people, some of whom may continue to stay involved in the future or increase their current participation. They demonstrated that there is a strong grassroots opposition to the policies our new government is seeking to implement and (in some cases) has already implemented, and they presented an opportunity to spread a constructive conservative message. Negatively, they diverted precious grassroots energy away from more fundamental issues, promoted among the grassroots a focus on effect instead of cause, were easily mischaracterized by the MSM, and fed a spirit of anger and frustration that is ultimately more damaging than it is helpful. Only time will tell what good the TEA Parties have done or will do.

If I had to take the over/under (over being positive, under being negative) on the effect of the TEA Parties I would take the under, which is why I didn’t participate. Still, I understand and recognize that there were good reasons to participate and respect the decision of those who did participate.

I know that was a long post, but I believe it accurately, though perhaps clumsily, presents my reasons for not participating in the TEA Parties. Keep in mind that many of the above thoughts and points were not aimed specifically at the TEA Party movement but were more broadly oriented thoughts on grassroots activism and political protestation in general.

As usual, I welcome any added thoughts, agreements, disagreements, corrections, etc. I am acutely aware of my own shortcomings in knowledge and philosophic development and coherency, so I am sure that virtually anyone reading this post has something beneficial to add.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Learn about and fight FOCA

Hello all!

Most of those reading this post have probably heard of FOCA, otherwise known as the Freedom of Choice Act, but some of you might not have and for those of you who know of it is possible you don’t know much about it.   For those who support life it is important to A) know the details of FOCA, and B) take such action against it as you can.   With that in mind, I have permission to share a post written by Nicole, an aquaintence from a forum we are both members of.   She did all the work collecting links and writing the post, then graciously granted me permission to use her work.  

Many thanks to Nicole for her passion and hard work!

Here is the info:

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
-Romans 12:21

“Nothing is inevitable. We can’t give up, we must never quit.

America is worth fighting for.”
-John McCain

Hey everyone!

I’m working on a campaign to fight the Freedom of Choice Act and I’d like to ask you all to join me. Obama is not going to hesitate to enact what he believes is “right” for this country. Thus I believe we cannot hesitate to stand for what we know is right.

If we wait until the Freedom of Choice Act is reintroduced to oppose it, I believe it will be too late. Many people know it is coming. And I believe they are already making up their minds. It will be very hard to convince those who are pro-choice if we wait until then to present the truth of the danger this bill will pose to what they really want for this country. In fact, it will be nearly impossible. But if we start now, I believe it is easily possible to turn even them against it.

Many who are pro-life still do not know the full truth of what this bill could accomplish. I didn’t until I spent several days compiling the facts. It is important that everyone who is pro-life knows the facts about this bill. For only when we know, can we begin to fully fight. And once the facts of this bill are known, I can hardly imagine how someone could not fight it.

I created this flier (link below) to spread the word about FOCA. It’s a great way to get all the facts quickly and to pass them on effectively and efficiently. This is something we can include with letters that explain our position, hand to friends, leave on cars and at bus stops, and most importantly encourage people to also make copies of and distribute.

What follows is an incomplete list of resources for further research, ideas for action, and contact information I believe would be helpful. I will be adding to this post in the future as I gather more information. I welcome your input — please let me know if there is any suggestions, ideas, resources, and contact info you can contribute.

Join me, will you?

The flier:

[UPDATED] http://www.cryaction.com/foca_flier.pdf

[NEW!] http://www.cryaction.com/foca_flier_bw.pdf

Articles and resources on FOCA:

http://www.aul.org/foca

http://www.frc.org/papers/focus-on-foca

http://www.frc.org/insight/focusing-on-foca-freedom-of-choice-act-would-harm-women-and-remove-protections

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4359.html

http://www.fightfoca.com/

http://www.fightfoca.com/open-letter/

Also informative on the subject:

http://www.aul.org/Pro-Life_President

Find out whether your congressperson is a co-sponsor:

http://www.aul.org/FOCA_Sponsors

Address directories:

http://www.frc.org/contact-elected-officials

http://forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=76

Ideas:

1.) Please be sure to sign the petition — and encourage everyone you know to do the same: http://www.fightfoca.com/ This petition will be sent to key Members of Congress upon the re-introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act in the 111th Congress, and to President-Elect Obama.

2.) Send letters (let me know if you’d like some sample letters) to doctors, hospitals, newspapers, newspeople, congressmen, senators, pastors, and friends. Include the flier.

3.) Have a letter writing party at your home or church — get together with your friends, student group, book club, Bible study group, or members of your church to collaborate on the project and get more people involved.

4.) Invite people to join The Rebelution forums or let me know if you’d like to start a new branch of this initiative at another forum (I’d like to be able to post a link to what you’re doing and keep track of the progress made).

5.) Start a petition in your state to send to your congressman/senator — take clipboards to hospitals, churches, religious conferences in your town, etc.

6.) Copy and distribute the flier — hand them out, ask to leave a stack of them at hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, churches, insert them in church bulletins, post them on bulletin boards, leave them on benches, on cars in parking lots, at bus stops, newspaper and real estate guide stands on corners, sitting areas in malls or elsewhere, at people’s doors… leave them, post them, get them anyplace you can think of! Throw them off rooftops and into the street! Just hand them to five friends — or five people each week. Awareness is key.

God bless you all!

Nicole T., for CRY ACTION
 

As Nicole said, it’s important that we don’t allow this to sneak up on us.   Once you reach the point of decision you are basically stuck with what you’ve got.   Then the time for changing hearts and minds, as well as mobilizing those already of likeminds, will be past. 

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Judd Slams Palin: Why She is Wrong

Hello all!

Are you familiar with the brewing feud between actress Ashley Judd and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin? If not, the basic premise of the feud is explained in the following abbreviated article from www.foxnews.com.

“Actress Ashley Judd and Governor Sarah Palin are going at it tooth and nail over Alaska’s wolf hunting laws.
Judd taped a web video for the Defenders of Wildlife foundation that blasts the state’s predator control program, which Palin supports.
“It’s time to stop Sarah Palin and stop this senseless savagery,” Judd says, describing the shooting of wolves from airplanes. “Palin is … casting aside science and championing the slaughter of wildlife.”

The video then directs viewers to the website www.eyeonpalin.org and asks for donations.

Palin responded to the ad with a statement from her office.

“The ad campaign by this extreme fringe group, as Alaskans have witnessed over the last several years, distorts the facts about Alaska’s wildlife management programs,” she said. “Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations. Our predator control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife.”

Defenders of Wildlife countered, saying “hundreds of wildlife scientists have repeatedly condemned her program and she has not once provided any evidence to refute their charges that what she is doing is unscientific.”

It is not the first time the group has raised money using Sarah Palin as their foil. Last fall, when Palin was John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, the group raised $1 million with ads denouncing Palin and her state’s predator control program.
“It is reprehensible and hypocritical that the Defenders of Wildlife would use Alaska and my administration as a fundraising tool to deceive Americans into parting with their hard-earned money,” Palin said.

In Alaska, private citizens are permitted to shoot wolves from the air or conduct land-and-shoot hunting of wolves in rural areas.”

The purpose of this post is to address Judd’s supposition that the environment is harmed when animals are killed and that it is cruel or inhumane. Before you read any further though, be sure to watch Judd’s video here.

God created earth and called it good. Sadly, the world is fallen as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, but God’s creation is still a marvelous thing to behold. I believe firmly in being a faithful steward of the environment, using and managing it in a manner that is pleasing to God, and I believe in encouraging others to do the same. I believe that, as a Christian, if I am to be like Christ then I must place value on the things He values and I must love the things He loves. I believe God loves His creation…so I love it…all of it. So, do I agree Ashley Judd is correct in asserting that Palin is perpetrating “inhumane” and “senseless” acts by placing a bounty on wolves? No I don’t, and my reasons for believing that are partially practical, but at the root of things my disagreement with Judd is based on my love for God and His creation not my lack of love for it.

The reasons for hunting predators are quite simple; among other things, they prey on other animals, and if there are too many predators they kill too many of their prey. The effects of this are too few prey, in turn leading to famine and disease among the predators. By controlling the predators to prey ratio you can help avoid the negative effects of self-correction in nature. Simply enough, is it not?

Why is there a bounty on the Alaskan wolves? It’s quite elementary. There are too many wolves! Many Alaskans depend on game to feed themselves and control food costs for their family, and a large portion of the Alaskan economy depends on tourism and out of state game hunters that come to Alaska because of its abundant wildlife.

In a statement released by her office, Palin says in response to Judd and the Defenders of Wildlife Foundation…“The ad campaign by this extreme fringe group, as Alaskans have witnessed over the last several years, distorts the facts about Alaska’s wildlife management programs. Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations. Our predator control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife. These audacious fundraising attempts misrepresent what goes on in Alaska, and I encourage people to learn the facts about Alaska’s positive record of managing wildlife for abundance.”

That’s a pretty straightforward explanation. As I mentioned earlier, nature regulates itself ideally, but there are occasions when man’s intervention is necessary for both maintaining the health of nature and avoiding the negative effects of self-correction. Sometimes, constructive intervention requires performing distasteful jobs like killing wolves, and, yes, I would find the job distasteful. Clearly Alaska is currently in a situation calling for human intervention in the wolf population. The economic woes throughout our entire nation only increase the importance of wild game as food and work for Alaskans.

(This next paragraph is non-essential to this post and slightly repetitious, so if time is short please skip it)

In parts of Texas the reverse of what is happening in Alaska is taking place. There are places where predators have been hunted too much, leading too an overpopulation of Deer. Deer rely (unknowingly, of course) on their natural predators to cull out the sick and weak, thus preventing wide spread disease among the deer population. Predators also prevent famine among the deer by keeping their population level at a healthy number. It’s interesting to note that East Texas deer are bigger and healthier than West Texas deer. Why? Because in West Texas deer natural predators have been over hunted, reducing their numbers too much, so the sick and weak deer are not being culled as they should be, and food is scarcer for the deer. In contrast, the healthier East Texas deer are not dying miserably of disease, and they stand a better chance of eluding their predators. That in turn weeds out the less hardy of their predators, leading to hardier predators and less deer, then hardier deer and fewer predators, and the cycle keeps repeating.

(End of non-essential paragraph)

In the video, Judd says: “Palin even proposed a $150 bounty for the severed foreleg of each killed wolf.” After thinking about this, Judd’s apparent assumption that this is some sadistically motivated act of barbarism seems to be the least reasonable of Judd’s assumptions, and it seems that perhaps she is purposely distorting reality and common sense.

The severed foreleg is not to satisfy some sadistic desire to mutilate animals; it is proof that a person actually killed the wolf they claimed to have killed. The bounty is not on the severed foreleg, it is on the wolf from which the foreleg came. Once the severed foreleg is presented as evidence that the wolf was killed by the person that claimed to kill it, I imagine the foreleg will be disposed of. It’s not inhumane or barbaric; it’s common sense.  Ashley Judd is being blinded by the sort of radical animal rights and environmental ideology that actually does more harm to animals and the environment than good.

For the reasons listed above I strongly feel that Ashley Judd is very wrong in her assessment of Palin’s actions and would strongly urge her to reconsider her statements and beliefs.

In closing, I would like to stress that I do have appreciation for Judd’s efforts as a whole and appreciation for many of the efforts of the Defenders of Wildlife Foundation. I disagree with them on a significant number of issues, but I appreciate their passion. I just wish they would devote all their efforts to real environmental problems, and this certainly isn’t one. I also wish that more people with a proper Christian perspective on God’s creation would be more vocal in promoting their views.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!