Legalization or Amnesty, the Result is the Same

This isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last time, that the Drive-by media
and I have completely differing interpretations of poll results. According to the NY Times “there is broad support among Americans” for the “immigration bill before Congress.” (see this New York Times/CBS News Poll)

Now I found the NY Times’ conclusion surprising because I know President Bush has been running into a lot of problems pushing his ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ through congress. As I read further, though, I realized how the NY Times was able to come up with their conclusion…”the nationwide telephone poll did not ask respondents about the immigration bill itself.” So you see, by not actually asking people if they were in favor of the immigration bill, the NY Times finds it easy to conclude that people support it.

If you dig into the poll results a little deeper, though, I think you will see why this immigration bill is facing so many obstacles. “Buried on inside pages of the NYT or omitted from the print version were findings that contradicted the front-page lead of the story. 82% of those surveyed believe the federal government could be doing more to ‘keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country.’ 61% consider illegal immigration a ‘very serious’ problem for the United States, while 75% favor higher fines and increased enforcement being directed at employers who knowingly hire illegals.” (Immigration-poll distortion)

There are an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the US and a half million more sneaking across the border each year. And with such poor control of our borders, who’s to say that some of those illegal crossings are not made by Islamic terrorists that want to do us harm. I can see why the American people are skeptical of Bush’s amnesty…I mean ‘earned legalization’ plan; all it is likely to do is create an incentive for more illegal immigration.

There is a great website that illustrates this point called The website points out that our government spends more money prosecuting and trying to collect back taxes from tax cheats than they are able to collect in return. The website advocates forgiving these people and stopping spending money to prosecute them and thus saving money and letting the law breakers come out from the ‘shadows’ of society. This is of course, absurd, because such action would only encourage more tax fraud.

We have seen that this tax cheat analogy translates well to the illegal immigration debate. In 1986, the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized an estimated 3 million illegal aliens. It called for tougher border enforcement and penalties against employers hiring illegals. Now 20 years later, instead of solving the problem, the number of illegal aliens has quadrupled. (see Unauthorized Resident Population- United States) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Just as Good Yet 10 Times Less Expensive

When I was about 13 years old (1989), I was on the eighth grade basketball team. I loved playing basketball and I loved the comradery with my teammates. The coach determined that we should all get the same basketball shoes, and he chose ones costing $65, which was way out of my parent’s price range. I begged and pleaded but my parents would not consent to buying them. I felt like such an outcast, not having the high-end shoes everyone else had. Instead, I had a $20 pair that looked relatively similar to the team’s.

When he was growing up, New York Knick’s NBA star Stephon Marbury couldn’t afford the top brand basketball shoes either, so he has decided to do something about it (news source). In September 2006, he launched a line of Starbury basketball shoes to sell for $14.98 a pair. The Starbury would be of comparable quality to the high priced shoes endorsed by other celebrity athletes. A pair of LeBron James basketball shoes, for example, will cost as much as $150; ten times as much as the Starbury.

Marbury claims that if you take his shoes and the $150 shoes, and cut them both down the middle, you will see they are exactly the same. ABC’s John Stossel put Marbury’s statement to the test. A pair of Starburys and a pair of Air Jordans (costing over $100) were brought to Professor Howard Davis of the Parsons School for Design, and he concluded that they are indeed “constructed the same way”. (another source) He added, though, that the quality of materials used in the Starbury was inferior to the Air Jordans.

Even if the quality is lower than the more expensive brands, for $15, I thought it is worth a try. But the Starburys can only be bought at Steve and Barry’s sporting goods store, and there are none here in Memphis. We were recently traveling through Hannibal, MO, though, on our way to Nauvoo, IL to visit Heather’s parents. Hannibal has a Steve and Barry’s store, so we stopped by and got a pair of Starburys.

To give even more credibility to his line of shoes, Stephon Marbury wore his Starburys for the entire 2006-2007 basketball season. He had one of his best seasons ever. His teammate Steve Francis has also started wearing them and now Ben Wallace of the Chicago Bulls is wearing and endorsing the shoes. Tonight, I’ll be giving the Starburys a try, so we’ll see how they stand up to Church basketball.

Seat Belts Do Not Save Lives?

I read an article recently about some teenagers that got in a car accident. The only person to survive was the one who was wearing his seat belt. It takes a liberal to read a story like that and conclude that seat belts are ineffective in saving lives. You see, the people not wearing seat belts died, so obviously the multi-million dollar ad campaigns to get people to wear their seat belts are not working and should be abandoned.

Crazy as it sounds, this is the logic of the liberal politicians use when they say that abstinence does not work. Democrat congressman John Dingell recently called abstinence education a “colossal failure” and Democrat representative Diana DeGette said abstinence education does not work and labeled spending money on it as “squandering.” (see this FoxNews article) Like the seat belt example above, they say it doesn’t work because a great many teens do not heed the warning to abstain from sex before marriage. While we wouldn’t stop advising our kids to use of seat belts because some do not heed the advice, we definitely should not abandon abstinence education programs.

If anything, we should push abstinence even more because, the fact of the matter is that abstinence is the only method guaranteed to work 100% of the time. Seat belts don’t even have that guarantee. When seat belts fail (or people fail to use seat belts), Democrats say we have to increase funding and expand the program (i.e. the $30 million Click It or Ticket program), but when abstinence educated has lackluster results, those same democrats want to get rid of it entirely.

Abstinence works every time it is tried, and we as parents, and society at large must do more to encourage kids to wait until they are married to engage in sexual activity. But unfortunately (Democrat run) government is failing us and Hollywood, TV and movies continue to glorify sex outside of wedlock. I would expect these societal trends to continue, which leaves abstinence education up to the parents. And this parent will continue to teach abstinence before marriage to my own children and all within the sound of my voice, because while you may be able to prevent 90% of the physical consequences, there is no condom for the emotional, mental or spiritual consequences of premarital sex.

50% of Americans Have Little Use for the Internet

On Tuesday, May 15th, I will be starting a new position here at FedEx. I will be moving from a Marketing Analyst role on the Small Business Team to a Marketing Specialist role with Particularly, I will now be working on the application to prepare shipments online at

Given this new direction professionally, I was particularly interested when I saw this recent headline “Nearly 50 Percent of Americans Have Little Use for Internet and Cell Phones, Survey Finds.” This article is based on a 2007 article from Fox News with data provided by the Pew Research Center.

While the headline above seemed shocking to me, as I looked at the data, it all made sense. The study puts Americans in 10 buckets according to their use of information and communication technology (ICT).

  • Top 4 buckets = Elite Tech Users (31% of American adults)
  • Middle 2 buckets = Middle-of-the-road Tech Users (20% of American adults)
  • Bottom 4 buckets = Few Tech Assets (49%)The elite users of ICTs consist of four groups that have the most information technology, are heavy and frequent users of the internet and cell phones and, to varying degrees, are engaged with user-generated content. Members of these groups have generally high levels of satisfaction about the role of ICTs in their lives.

    The middle-of-the-road users consist of two groups whose outlook toward information technology is task-oriented. They use ICTs for communication more than they use it for self-expression. One group finds this pattern of information technology use satisfying and beneficial, while the other finds it burdensome.

    For those with few technology assets (four groups), modern gadgetry is at or near the periphery of their daily lives. Some find it useful, others don’t, and others simply stick to the plain old telephone and television.

    Take this quiz and find out what kind of tech-user you are:

Unbiased vs. The Truth

Being a Mormon, as I am, there has been a lot of discussion lately among my family and friends about the PBS special entitled The Mormons. Personally, I did not like the overall tone of the piece, but you can click here to see the Mormon Church’s official response. Some say it did good at showing both sides, but unfortunately, one side was frequently an attack by Mormon detractors and the other side was Mormons on the defensive.

This documentary was touted as “balanced” and praised for its “unbiased” approach. While that may be true, this approach made no effort to uncover the truth and, in fact, it led the documentary to propagate many lies. For example, in its discussion of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the Mormon Church’s side was presented by stating that there is no evidence that Brigham Young had anything to do with that event. Then the documentary presents the other side with a detractor of the church saying that he thinks Brigham Young ordered the massacre. The truth was told, the fact that there is no evidence that Brigham Young was involved in the event, so giving the baseless opinion concerning Brigham Young’s involvement does nothing more than muddy the water and further propagate a lie.

To provide so-called journalistic integrity, news media personnel frequently think they are on the high road by not taking sides and presenting an unbiased or balance view. (Take CNN journalist Bernard Shaw’s refusal to be debriefed as a prime example. After returning from Iraq, he refused to be debriefed by the US military because he didn’t want to take sides in 1991 Gulf War conflict.) The truth has no side, though. But, if you really want to consider the truth as a side, then the other side must be a lie. So you see how this kind of journalistic integrity should never be confused with the truth.

Sometimes, I fear, we stop short of arriving at the truth and become satisfied with that “unbiased” presentation of both sides. Obviously, the reason some news media present that balanced approach is so that consumers of their medium can arrive at their own conclusion of the truth. But when they intentionally counter the truth with lies, this destroys any pretense of objectivity. When they knowingly present a lie just to balance the truth, this kind of “objectivity” actually reveals their intention to hide the truth. And that kind of unbiased objectivity should never be confused with the actual truth.

It’s That Time of Year Again: Tax Time

Well, tomorrow at midnight is the deadline to submit your federal income tax, so I thought this would be a great occasion to talk about the subject. For those procrastinators out there, you better get busy. As for me, I filed my taxes just as soon as I could; I’m not too fond of giving the government an interest free loan because of their over-taxation, so I want to get my refund just as soon as possible.

Also, given the upcoming presidential elections in 2008, I think this is a particularly good time to have a lesson on taxes. You see, Republicans tend to run on a platform of cutting taxes and Democrats tend to accuse Republicans of only favoring tax cuts for the “rich”. That begs the question, how do you define rich?

Rich is a relative term; to the poorer half of Americans, the wealthier half of Americans would certainly be considered “rich.” Using that definition of rich, just about any tax cut proposed would be a tax cut for the “rich.” You see the wealthier half of Americans pay 97% of all income tax. And if you think you are not among the wealthiest half of Americans, you may need to think again. If you make more than $44,000 a year, you are in this classification of “rich.” And most people with a college degree, working full time make more than $44,000 a year.

Now, maybe you don’t like that definition of “rich.” Maybe to you, “rich” is the top 25% wealthiest Americans. In that case, still you have the “rich” paying 85% of all income tax, and therefore once again, just about any tax cut proposed would be a tax cut for the “rich.”

When I graduated from college in 2001 and began working full-time, I indeed was making a little more than the average mentioned above. President Bush had just been elected and he had run on a platform of tax cuts. His opponent, Al Gore, had made that accusation that Bush’s tax cuts would only help the rich (see Yet later that year, I (a hard working, middle class, bottom of the corporate totem pole, worker) got a tax refund check.

So the next time a political candidate proposes tax cuts or accuses the tax cuts of only being for the “rich,” remember that one man’s “rich” is another man’s “hard working middle class.”


Benjamin Franklin: Still Relevant and Funny Today

I just completed reading the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin and I very much enjoyed it. What surprised me was how funny the book was. Not laugh out loud funny, but funny in how well I related to a man 270 years older than myself. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

The Vegetable Diet
“I had stuck to my resolution to eat nothing that had had life. I considered the taking of every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had done or could do us any injury that might justify the massacre. All this seemed reasonable. But I had been formerly a great lover of fish, and when it came out of the frying pan it smelled admirably well. I balanced some time between principle and inclination, till, thought I, ‘If you eat one another I don’t see why we may not eat you’; so I dined upon cod very heartily, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet.”

Good Presbyterians versus Good Citizens
“Though I seldom attended any public worship, I had still an opinion of its propriety and of its utility when rightly conducted. (The local Presbyterian minister) used to visit me and admonish me to attend his administrations, and I was now and then prevailed upon to do so, once for five Sundays successively. Had he been in my opinion a good preacher, perhaps I might have continued, but his discourses were…very dry, uninteresting, and unedifying; since not a single moral principle was inculcated or enforced, their aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good citizens.”

Good Sermons Composed By Others
Referring to a preacher who was run out of town for plagiarizing sermons, Franklin said, “I rather approved his giving us good sermons composed by others than bad ones of his own manufacture.”

“Industry and Frugality as the Means of Procuring Wealth”
“We have an English proverb that says, ‘He that would thrive must ask his wife.’ It was lucky for me that I have one as much disposed to industry and frugality as myself.”

“I have always thought that one man of tolerable abilities may work great changes and accomplish great affairs among mankind if he first forms a good plan, and cutting off all amusements or other employments that would divert his attention, makes the execution of that same plan his sole study and business.”

“The inhabitants of London choose voluntarily to live much by candlelight and sleep by sunshine, and yet often complain, a little absurdly, of the duty on candles and the high price of tallow (an ingredient of candles).”

Arriving at Moral Perfection
“I conceived the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wished to live without committing any fault at any time. As I knew, or thought I knew, what was right and wrong, I did not see why I night not always do the one and avoid the other. But I soon found I had undertaken a task of more difficulty than I had imagined. While my attention was taken up and care employed in guarding against one fault, I was often surprised by another; habit took the advantage of inattention; inclination was sometimes too strong for reason. I concluded at length that the mere speculative conviction that it was our interest to be completely virtuous was not sufficient to prevent slipping, and that the contrary habits must be broken and good ones acquired and established before we can have any dependence on a steady, uniform rectitude of conduct. For this purpose I therefore tried the following method…”

The Thirteen Virtues

  1. Temperance-drink not to elevation
  2. Silence-speak not but what may benefit others
  3. Order-let all your things have their places
  4. Resolution-Resolve to perform what you ought
  5. Frugality-waste nothing
  6. Industry-be always employed in something useful
  7. Sincerity-use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly
  8. Justice-wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty
  9. Moderation-avoid extremes
  10. Cleanliness-tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation
  11. Tranquility-be not disturbed at trifles or at accidents common and unavoidable
  12. Chastity-…
  13. Humility-Imitate Jesus and Socrates

“There is, perhaps, no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride…For even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome it, I should probably be pride of my humility.”

Those Who Wish to Be Happy
“Vicious actions are not hurtful because they are forbidden, but forbidden because they are hurtful…it was, therefore, every one’s interest to be virtuous who wished to be happy.”

“Human Felicity is produced not so much my great pieces of good fortune that seldom happen as by little advantages that occur every day.”

“When men are employed they are best contented; for on the days they worked they were good-natured and cheerful…but on our idles days they were mutinous and quarrelsome.”

Not Seeking Out Nor Refusing An Office
When some told Franklin there was no way he would be re-elected and that he should go ahead and resign, he said, “I had read or heard of some public man who made it a rule never to ask for an office and never to refuse one when offered to him. ‘I approve,’ said I, ‘of this rule, and shall practice it with a small addition: I shall never ask, never refuse, nor ever RESIGN an office.'”

Other Grain = Gun Powder
Referring to the Quakers in Pennsylvania, who were ‘officially/doctrinally’ opposed to supporting war, Franklin noted, “They would not grant money to buy powder, because that was an ingredient of war, but they voted an aid to New England of three thousand pounds…for the purchase of bread, flour, wheat and other grain. The governor was then quoted saying, ‘I understand very well their meaning; other grain is gun-powder;’ which he accordingly bought, and they (the Quakers) never objected.”

Serving Others Freely and Generously
After declining to accept a 10-year patent for the sole vending a stove he designed for the better warming of homes, Franklin said, “as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously.”

Why I Oppose Gay Marriage: Politically

During my MBA program, I had two good female friends with whom I liked to partner for the many group projects we had to do. After I had known them for about a year, they felt comfortable telling me that they were gay. I had never suspected this, but it changed nothing in our friendship. They were very glad to realize that I still considered them good friends after I learned their sexual orientation. For me, continuing to be their friend was something I didn’t even have to think about; we continued to work together on many projects and to this day I considered them good friends.

Now, if those two someday read this posting, I hope they still consider me a friend; I think they will. We rarely talked about politics, so I’m not sure my friends knew where I stood the subject of my post today: gay marriage. Specifically, I want to talk about why I am opposed to gay marriage, or in other words, why I think marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I don’t want to talk about the because-it-is-my-religious-belief reasons why (even though it is my religious belief, see The Family: A Proclamation to the World) but I want to analyze why it is harmful to individuals and society, and why, politically, I oppose it.

Research shows that traditional marriage (a mother and a father) is best for the healthy development of children. Dr. A. Dean Byrd of the University of Utah says, “children ordinarily develop best and develop most fully when they are reared by both a mother and a father and are able to experience regular family interaction with both genders’ parenting techniques during their childhood” (see the Dual-Gender Parenting: Optimal Child Rearing article on Also see the article on Why Children Need Father-Love and Mother-Love on Research also shows that the majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists all come from fatherless homes (Daniels 1998; NFI 1996).

Homosexuals Have a Greater Occurrence of Mental Health Problems. Studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems such as suicide, depression, bulimia, and substance abuse than do heterosexuals, according to Dr N.E. Whitehead on

Research shows that married people live longer, happier, healthier lives, and that that a cohabiting partner cannot replicate these benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. (from Focus on the Family, Why Marriage Matters,

  • 70 percent of chronic problem drinkers are either divorced or separated, and only 15 percent are married
  • Unmarried people spend twice as much time as patients in hospitals as their married peers
  • Married people have the lowest morbidity [illness] rates, while the divorced show the highest.
  • A married man with heart disease can be expected to live, on average, four years longer than an unmarried man with a healthy heart.
  • Researchers have consistently found the highest rates of mental disorder among the divorced and separated, the lowest rates among the married and intermediate rates among the single and widowed.
  • A study in 17 industrialized nations with diverse social and institutional frameworks found that married persons have a significantly higher level of happiness than persons who are not married.

People can and do change their sexual orientation. Psychological data demonstrates that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so. In a article, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer said this, “Like most psychiatrists I thought homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue–some people can and do change.” He found that 89% of the men and 95% of the women who had participated in the therapy to change their homosexual orientation reported that they were bothered “slightly” or “not at all” by unwanted homosexual feelings. Spitzer concluded that the changes occurred not just in behavior, but in core features of sexual orientation as well.

Since the beginning of recorded human history, marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of family life and civilization. Even without the benefit of statistics and research studies, 6,000 years of our forbearers realized the importance of marriage as the best way to raise children and the best foundation for society. Now with the aid of statistics and research studies we know that our forbearers were right all along. And for the sake of all, I hope we continue to fight for this right and good institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

Making the Case for War in Iraq, Again, Lest We Forget

As a follow up to my previous blog posting, it occurred to me it might be worthwhile to make the case for war in Iraq, again, lest we forget why we went there in the first place (and based on the news of the day discussed in my previous post, I think many people have forgotten).

The World Changed on September 11, 2001
Well, according to Condoleezza Rice, the world had already changed, but the US had not woken up to that change. “Before September 11th, this country simply was not on a war footing“, with Islamic terrorists. But shortly after 9/11 came the Bush Doctrine. Said President Bush, “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Iraq, a terrorist regime itself, was clearly a place where terrorists could find safe harbor. We could no longer allow Iraq to go unchecked.

Iraq had Violated 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions
Between 1990 and 2002, 17 UN Security Council resolutions were passed against Iraq. Many of these resolutions said the same thing over and over again; it was as if, each time it passed a new resolution, the UN was childishly and naively saying ‘ok, this time you better comply.’ And each time, Iraq replied, ‘Or what? You’ll pass another resolution?’ It was high time someone started enforcing these UN resolutions. Here is a sample of some of the resolutions.

  • Iraq must not “use, develop, construct or acquire” any weapons of mass destruction.
  • Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
  • The UN “condemns” Iraq’s “serious violation” of its previous resolutions.
  • The UN “further condemns” Iraq’s noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  • The last resolution, passed in November 2002, called for “immediate and complete disarmament”, for “full access to Iraqi facilities and documents” related to nuclear development and the if they did not comply with these demands they would “face serious consequences.” UN Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq

    Saddam Hussein was a Mass Murderer
    Next, let me remind you that hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were taken by Saddam Hussein and his evil regime. Here are just some of the many atrocities they perpetrated.

  • A 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens, 8,000 of whom were rounded up and executed in the desert.
  • In 1988, as many as 182,000 people were taken and executed in the desert. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.
  • Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents (i.e. weapons of mass destruction) , killing 5,000 people immediately and causing long-term medical problems, related deaths, and birth defects among thousands more.
  • The 1991 massacre of Iraqi Shi’a Muslims after the Shi’a uprising at the end of the Gulf war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians were killed.
  • 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a “prison cleansing campaign”
  • At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001
    Mass Graves of Iraq: Uncovering Atrocities
    Crimes of Saddam Hussein
    Life Under Saddam Hussein
  • Bottom Line
    Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a danger to the US, a danger to its own citizens and a danger to the world. Bush declared at West Point, “America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves — safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life.” The war in Iraq has begun to do that, but our troops must be allowed to finish their mission. Many of Al Qaeda’s top leaders have been destroyed, Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terror, the people of Iraq have voted, they have a constitution and political freedom for the first time since before Saddam’s rule. I leave you with a quote from the movie, The Majestic, “When bullies rise up, the rest of us have to beat them back down, whatever the cost. That’s a simple idea I suppose, but one worth giving everything for.”

    Giving the Iraq War Its Proper Perspective

    Dispite her many statments and votes in support of the Iraq war just a few years ago, on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said “we never should have gone” to Iraq. This flip-flop should come as no surpirse, but it is evidence of political pandering at its worst. You see, since the start of the war in Iraq back in 2003 until the present, the American people’s support for the war has slowly been declining. There has been a USA Today/Gallup Poll taken monthly since the start of the Iraq war. It asks, “In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, Do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq?” In March of 2003, 75% of respondents said we “Did Not Make a Mistake.” But by March 2007, nearly 60% said we “Made a Mistake.”

    I hope this trend will change, and I encourage the American people to do everything they can to support this important front on the war against terrorism. I think a major reason for the loss of support for the war is the under-reported good that has happened and the over-reported negatives that have happened. When we look at the entire context of this war (the good and the bad), you will see that this war in Iraq has been an overwhelming success. As we examine the broader context of this war below, you will see that the American’s people’s first inclination, in support of the war, and President Bush’s unaltered position, is right; it is best for American, our safety and security.

    First, The Good

  • There has not been a terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11/01. President Bush has said all along we are fighting the terrorist there (in Iraq and Afghanistan), so the war doesn’t come to our shores as it did on September 11th.
  • 26 million people in Iraq are now free. The mass graves are no longer being filled. There is political freedom and growing economic prosperity. Women can now vote and get an education. It is a wonderful, miraculous thing our soldiers have done for the people of Iraq.
  • Iraq is no longer a state where terrorists can find safe harbor.
  • Iraq is no longer a state possessing or seeking to develop more weapons of mass destruction.

    Next, The Bad
    Some major reasons for the American people’s change of heart, no doubt, is the seemingly endless bad news coming out of Iraq and the ever increasing death toll on our soldiers. There have now been more than 3,000 US deaths in the war in Iraq. I love, honor and support our soldiers in this important mission and my heart goes out to the families of those lost. I thank God daily for these brave men and women that are serving to protect us. Many opponents of the war would focus on that statistic and use it to criticize the president and use it as a reason to get out of Iraq.

    Lastly, The Context
    As you can see from the chart below, the war in Iraq, in terms of American deaths, has been far less costly than many previous wars of great importance.

    World War was an epic struggle against evil regimes in Germany and Japan. It cost the lives of over 407,000 American soldiers. No doubt there are those that don’t feel this battle was worth it either, but at the time, and still for the most part, Americans feel it was a war that had to be fought; the price for not defeating the evil regimes of that day was greater than the cost to defeat them. WWII Casualties

    The US Civil War was the bloodiest of all American wars. Even at the time, President Lincoln struggled to convince the American people that the war was worth it. But Lincoln knew this nation was something special and he would not let it be dissolved. And God bless him for his remarkable leadership during that struggle. Civil War death toll

    Proper Perspective
    The major news media portrays Iraq a hopeless struggle and a daily bloodbath, by their endless coverage of the negative. But they rarely, if ever, put the Iraq war in its proper perspective. Rarely do you hear about the great visionary George Bush has been in seeing this war through and do so much good for our nation and for the country of Iraq. It’s time we started applauding President Bush and the military leaders of our great nation for the marvelous job they have done in conducting this war of paramount importance, and doing so with relatively few casualties.