If America is racist, then Barack Obama's numbers in the polls should be rising not falling.

Assume as time passes in the campaign knowledge about the candidates' character increases. Also, assume knowledge of the candidates' race would be constant over time. Finally, assume Barack Obama is an excellent candidate for the presidency.

Interestingly, none of these scenarios match the current trends. However, if we remove the assumption that Obama is an excellent candidate for president, then we can actually make one of these scenarios fit.

Media bias is one factor I have left out here. If you believe that the main stream media hates Obama and is succeeding at turning us against him, then you might not believe this explanation and you might also need a brain scan.

The fact is America is only racist in our tendency to give people of color the benefit of the doubt, but believe or not, in the end, America judges people "not by the color of their skin but the content of their character."

Recently the Fred Thompson campaign has been sending around an email ripping on Romney's health care plan he put together in Massachusetts. They make the following points:

1) You must have health care or be fined.
2) The Commonwealth care plan allows $50 copay for abortions.

The message also says Romney has tried to distance himself from the plan.

Go to http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/ for more info, but here's the basic scoop.

In Massachusetts you are required to have insurance. The biggest push is that you get it from a non-government source. However, if you have 3 times the poverty level of income or less (see http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaideligibility/downloads/POV07ALL.pdf for poverty line info), you may be eligible for "Commonwealth Care." This plan is typically cheaper than the independent sources (it's actually free for those at the poverty line), and it does actually offer $50 copay on abortions. So, the point is, everyone is required to have health insurance one way or another.

Mitt Romney hasn't denied he pushed for everyone to have healthcare; he actually states it clearly in his website (https://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Health_Care). He says that since everyone takes from the health care system, everyone should be required to contribute to it. The fact that laws require people to have health care is something Romney will take credit for. He won't however, take responsibility for everything the Commonwealth Care plan covers (ie abortions).

This makes sense in this country, because emergency rooms are required by law to treat anyone who needs it. This means those who can't or won't pay for the treatment, still get it. So, who pays for those services? Everyone else pays, through higher premiums and doctor bills. Basically, Mitt is saying those people who are getting something for nothing need to be stopped, and this is the only way to do it.

The question is whether or not there is another way to stop this problem. Will a Christian nation repeal the laws that say emergency services must be given even when they are not paid for ? Will a Christian nation allow a man to bleed to death, because he can't afford to pay for medical attention? Unfortunately, unless we are ready to let him die, we probably have no other option than what Mitt is suggesting.

I hope someone else has a better idea, because even though I can see the point, I can't feel good about being forced to have health care.

Mr. Jackson said (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson/2007/11/09/romney_secrets_the_media_are_hiding_from_you),

"When he was elected, Massachusetts had a Republican governor for nearly two decades. When he left, it didn't. What it had was a Hillary disciple who is now transforming the Cradle of Liberty into an amalgam of the Soviet Union, Sodom and Las Vegas."

On the one hand, Jackson implies the state was conservative before Romney because they elected GOP governors for two decades, and it was Romney's fault they became so liberal they elected a democrat after him. At the same time, he must be a liberal, because the state is liberal, and they elected him. Was the state conservative or liberal before he was elected? Sounds like he is saying both.

The truth is the state had been electing conservative governors for a very long time even though it was fairly liberal and continues to become more liberal through the years. Even when they last elected a Democrat, Edward Joseph King (1979-1983), he was conservative on most issues.

Gov. King is described on the governor website (www.mass.gov) in the following way: "Governor King froze property taxes, reduced state spending on social programs, and undertook a variety of efforts to encourage business formation and agriculture in Massachusetts. He identified the need for greater centralized data and technology planning in state government, creating a new division for this inside the Executive Office of Administration and Finance. Advocating capital punishment, President Reagan called King his "favorite Democratic Governor," which mobilized the liberal members of King's own party to defeat him."

As even Jackson mentioned, the state had been electing conservatives before him, so electing him as a conservative is easy to understand with over two decades of precedent.

If you go to http://www.givingback.org/, you will see an admirable display of good will toward all people in need. I am sincere when I say it is admirable. I actually participate in these activities, although not through that particular site. Actually, you won't notice anything at all to disturb you. You will probably feel very "warm and fuzzy" inside. This is good. It's called human caring and empathy. The fact that you don't notice anything amiss is the very thing that is most disturbing. When you stop to think about it, a charity website even using the phrase "giving back" is not only disturbing, it is divisive and even calculating.

What exactly does "giving back" mean?

The answer to the question depends largely on the context. In the most literal sense, the term would apply when a borrower returns what was borrowed. It can apply if you do a favor for someone who has done favors for you. It could apply to helping your parents who have obviously given a lot to care for and raise you. In short, it can apply anytime there is some manner of debt that is somehow being repaid.

Ask yourself if the use of the term "giving back" applies to the many times we hear it. The answer, of course, is that it does not apply. For example, if you go to http://hiltonworldwide.hilton.com/en/ww/promotions/charities/, you will see how the Hilton company is connecting the term "giving back" with their charity work.

Well, what is charity?

Merriam-Webster, as always, has many definitions of charity, but the most applicable to our discussion is "a gift for public benevolent purposes." A gift is defined as "something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation." The key here is there is no compensation. In other words, the giver hasn't been given anything in return. There is no debt or obligation applicable to the giver. In other words, the giver can't be giving back, because he/she hasn't received anything in return. As established above, giving back implies a debt repaid.

Back to the Hilton charities; the most alarming fact is they are accepting the "giving back" label. Surely, they know they don't owe the money they give; they probably just know that using the "giving back" phrase is very good for public relations and marketing. They aren't the only ones. I have heard this term used to describe charitiable activities by Toyota and Target, and I am sure there are many more.

You may ask, "Where did they get all their riches? Don't they owe something to the community that made them rich?"  Well, let's think this through step by step. Yes, they are rich. Where did they get their money? From paying customers. Why did the customers choose to give them money? In a free market with plenty of competition and unfettered by over-regulation, the customer had other choices for the goods or services, so they must have felt the exchange was beneficial for them. In other words, they either felt the exchange was equal or in their favor, or they would have chosen another option. So generally, for every million dollars a company takes,  they give a million dollars in goods and services. If they don't do this, then they will go out of business, because no one will patronize them.

So any largely successful business, is almost certainly giving out as much or more value as they receive, which is the very reason they succeed. Therefore, they don't owe anything to anyone. Any business that receives donations can truly give back to those who gave to them, but this is generally not what we are talking about.

Even if you accept that successful or "rich" businesses do actually owe something to others, you can only logically say they owe something to those who gave them their money. However, the liberal mind actually looks the opposite way. They will say the business owes something to their employees. Wait a minute! There is only one kind of transaction here; a "customer" can give money to a "provider" in exchange for goods and/or services. Between business and customer, obviously the business is the "provider", and the customer is the "customer." Between business and employee, the employee is the "provider", and the business is the "customer." So how is the business in debt to both the customer and the employee at the same time? Lets say the "customer" owes the "provider", then the customer owes the business and the business owes the employee. If we decide the opposite, where the "provider" owes the "customer", then the employee owes the business, and the business owes the customer. There is no scenario where you can apply a consistent standard and end up with the business in debt to both customer and employee at the same time, but somehow popular thinking says they are.

Actually, there is another party completely removed from the transaction that the business is said to owe. In fact, Hilton's charities are not "giving back" to the customer or the employee. The business is said to owe the underprivileged or the "needy." The fact that they are in need is what defines them as the proper recipient for "giving back." Remember, the needy likely have absolutely nothing to the success or riches of the business.

So, how does the business always end up in debt to everyone else? The answer is actually simple. In fact, the standard is so simple you don't need the amount of reasoning you just exercised in reading to this point. A company's level of debt has only one factor: their income level. The more money they have, the more in debt to society they are. The less the have, the less in debt they are. The employee usually doesn't have large amounts of money, so they don't get targeted. There are exceptions to this. CEO's are frequently pointed out as selfish and villainous. As long as the CEO doesn't make too much money though, they won't be looked at. Customer's usually don't have too much money either, but if they do they will also get targeted.

The final analysis is one simple step away. The targets of the "giving back" mentality are those from which we have the most to gain. That's right! The motivation for the business to succeed is the same motivation for the "giving back" movement: money. Don't be fooled that these two approaches to attaining money are equal. As explained, the business seeks money through equal and voluntary exchange which is possible in the free market. The "entitled" seek money through guilt, the idea of "giving back", or by force through taxes.

The only proper use of the "giving back" mentality applies to those who are currently on the recieving end of the campaign. Those who receive charity can rightfully say they are "giving back" once they have succeed because of the good will of others to whom THEY are in debt!

In closing, charity is good and something we should all participate in when we can. HOWEVER, it needs to be recognized for what it is. It is a GIFT given freely by those who are kind and deserve public gratitude, not out of debt or obligation.

I have heard many arguments for a woman's right to an abortion. I think most people will agree that all arguments end when people agree that the unborn is a living human with the right to live. In others words, the question becomes, "Is having an abortion taking human life?"

Let's start with the issue of the unborn being human. Some have suggested that the baby is a part of the woman's body that she has the right to remove. The problem with this argument is that every cell in a person's body is marked with that person's unique DNA. This is how you body knows what to accept and what to reject. The baby's DNA does not match the mother's, and therefore is not a part of the woman's body. Furthermore, that DNA is human, which I think is the most obvious proof that the unborn is human.

Most will agree that the unborn are human, but what about alive?

How do we measure if a person is alive in other cases. The most obvious is checking for a heartbeat. Most people do know that the baby's heartbeat starts at around 2 weeks from conception. So this begins before pregnancy is even detectable by regular means.

Many people say, what about people who have a pulse but no brain waves? Well, just to clarify on that point, brain waves are detectable 6 to 8 weeks from conception.

Therefore, by 8 weeks from conception, the unborn have a heartbeat and detectable brain waves. If that isn't alive, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, doctors recommend that the best time to have an abortion is from 8 to 12 weeks from conception. (The exception to this is the abortion pill.) Therefore, common sense tells us this is taking a human life.

If you still aren't convinced, let me just say, it's not you that needs to be convinced. It's you that needs to do the convincing. Let me explain.

In law, we say "innocent until proven guilty." You may not know the exact reasoning (beyond common sense) how this policy came to be. If you have studied the principles of statistical analysis, you know that there are two types of errors you can make. You can mistakenly show a conclusion that is false, or you can mistakenly fail to show a conclusion when it is true. The principles of statistics tell us that it's better to make the second mistake than the first. In law, two mistakes are also possible in any given case. You can mistakenly convict an innocent man or you can mistakenly fail to convict a guilty man. Most people agree that it is worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free. This means we do all we can to avoid the first error and increase our chance of committing the second, by saying that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution; in other words, the man is "innocent until proven guilty."

In issues of life and death, it is obvious that the same principles should apply. In other words, we can make two mistakes. We can mistakenly take an innocent human life, or we can mistakenly preserve the development of a non-living ball of cells. Which mistake do you think is worse? Obviously, the first mistake is worse. In other words, the burden of proof lies with those who favor abortion. In other words, the unborn are alive until proven dead.

Unfortunately for the pro-abortion crowd, they are losing ground on this as technology improves. The more we know, the more the facts tell us the the unborn are alive. As one example, with current instruments, the baby's brainwaves are detectable at 6 to 8 weeks, but as instruments improve, this time is likely to move earlier.

Mitt Romney nailed Sen. McCain for his stance on gay marriage. McCain has stated he feels gay marriage should be illegal. At the same time, McCain says he would leave it up to the states. According to Romney, these two stances contradict each other. In other words, McCain is trying to have it both ways.

Romney's attack on McCain is hypocritical. Firstly, Romney says he is personally against abortion but will protect a woman's legal right to choose. Romney also states that while he personally doesn't favor abortions, he wouldn't force his views on others in this matter. Finally, Romney said he preferred not to be labeled "pro-choice".

Do you wonder why Romney doesn't personally “favor” abortions? Could it be that he views them as immoral? Why would Romney personally feel they are immoral? Could it be that he sees it as taking a human life?

Although there are admittedly some required suppositions in this line of thought, as Romney would absolutely avoid clarifying his beliefs on this issue, the most likely logical conclusion is that Romney doesn't favor taking human life, but he will protect the rights of others to choose on this issue.

Romney would never state the foregoing, so why would he make apparently contradictory statements? The answer has to do with Romney's desire to appeal to both conservatives and liberals. The answer is the very thing Romney is accusing McCain of doing; Romney is trying to have it both ways.

We all know the two conflicting arguments about our presence in Iraq. 

1) Iraq has to take care of itself. We can't stay forever. We need a timetable, so the Iraqis get this message.
2) A time table would give the terrorists a goal date that they need to hold on until, and they will be certain of their eventual victory.

What's troubling, is both arguments have merit.

I propose the proper answer may lie in a one to one approach. Basically, for every Iraqi troop fully trained and ready to maintain freedom in his country, one American soldier comes home.

This sends a message to Iraq that they are accountable to take care of themselves, but we will help them get to the point where they can succeed.

This also sends the message to the terrorists that they cannot wait for a certain time where they can succeed.

The ratio of Iraqi soldiers trained to American soldiers returning need not be exactly one to one, but with this approach, progress is measurable and definite.

I have never heard someone propose this. Doesn't it sound reasonable?

I truly believe many of our population don't understand the nature of decision making. I am aware of the passionate voices for freedom and rights, but their own arguments reveal their lack of understanding.

One example of this occurs in the issue of abortion. How many times have we heard that a woman cannot control her own reproduction without abortions? What are we to understand by this? Apparently a woman is forced into having sex as a regular occurrence, and since she can't find sympathy to prevent this problem, we must allow her to have an abortion, because after all, SHE had no choice in the pregnancy.

Let's look at this from another angle. If women cannot control their own reproduction without abortions, then men must need them too. After all, apparently nobody has any free will until after the conception. That being the case, men need abortion just as much as women to control their reproduction.

Luckily, we can help shed light on this problem with a very revolutionary idea....
You CAN choose what actions to take, but you CAN'T choose the results of those actions. You might rephrase this as the cause and effect principle.

I don't live in the dark ages and therefore overlook that fact that technology exists to "save" us from many horrible things, but what is the price? Again, we think we can make a choice of abortion without any consequence. I disagree.

At the very least, the "Pro-Choice" crowd needs to come up with a better argument for why abortion is so necessary. The current argument convinces us that we MUST act on what we feel. The current argument takes away our choice. The current argument leads to bondage.

I think all people desire the ability to have basic control of their own lives. I would argue that the ability to act for ourselves is what makes us intelligient beings.

The topics of choice and freedom are obviously linked. Unfortunately, not all of us agree on what freedom really is and where choice does or should have its limits.

Most people agree that people should be basically free to do as they please as long as it doesn't do harm. After this point, however, all idealist notions run into trouble. 

Exploring all examples of this issue is impossible, but just to get the blog going, here's some food for thought.

Which of the following approaches gives a person more choice?
1) Telling them they need to be true to themselves by doing what they feel.
2) Telling them that what they feel doesn't have to rule them.

If you are guessing that I am commenting on homosexuality, you are both right and wrong. I am making not judgement on good or evil here. I am simply suggesting encouraging a person that they always have a choice in how they act and the life they live, is surely better than ever trying to convince them that it's best just to accept that they must act on what they feel. The latter option can only lead to feeling trapped. The latter option can only lead to bondage.