Evidence of Inconsistent Thinking

This Gallup poll is an interesting one, at least to me. Let me list some of the findings of the poll. The first number is the percentage who find the thing "morally acceptable" and the second number is the percentage who find it "morally wrong".

Abortion: 39 to 48
Having a baby outside of marriage: 54 to 41
Gay or Lesbian relations: 56 to 39
Sex between an unmarried man and woman: 60 to 36
Pornography: 30 to 66
Divorce: 69 to 23
Married men and women having an affair: 7 to 91

So, for at least 9% of the respondents, abortion is okay but porn is not. For at least 24%, having a baby outside of marriage, which usually involves heterosexual fornication, is okay, but porn is not. Speaking of heterosexual fornication, at least 30 percent of those who think it is okay think porn is not. For at least 39%, divorce is okay, but porn is not.

So... it is okay to engage in heterosexual fornication and homosexual behavior, but someone watching video of the same is wrong.

Of course, the opinions of the public are probably more nuanced than allowed by the poll. A few points on this:

1) Most people would not consider selective abortion and abortion to save the mother's life equivalent. But do people know that many birth control methods are abortive, rather than contraceptive? What do they think of using fertility treatments and/or IVF, having multiple embryos implanted, and then having some of them aborted?

2) Most people would not place all divorce in the same category. Divorce to get away from an abuser who married under fraudulent pretenses is not the same thing as divorcing to "go find oneself".

3) What is meant by pornography? Photos from Playboy magazine? Romance novels? Stuff found on Cinemax? Hardcore video?

Another interesting thing to me is that very high majority of Americans have viewed (and continue to view) porn, yet 66% say it is wrong. Also, it is apparent that a lot of people have affairs knowing they are wrong. Of course, neither the reality of behavior not always following professed belief, nor the reality that some people have internally inconsistent worldviews, are newly discovered.

But what are we to think, given that Americans take these views:

Doctor assisted suicide: 45 to 48
Suicide: 15 to 80

So, for some reason, at least 30% of Americans think suicide is wrong, unless you drag a doctor into it to essentially make the doctor a killer. I'm not sure what sense can be found in that. But then, most people would make a distinction between a serial child rapist-killer committing suicide as opposed to a father of three minor children with a financially dependent wife killing himself because he was stressed.

The Cafeteria Plan of Bible Study

Bob Doud of Glendale wrote in to the Los Angeles Times about the printed opinions on the PCUSA's recent move.

I applaud the decision of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. to allow openly gay and lesbian members to become ordained ministers.

Again, this is not what happened, because that was already going on. What the PCUSA decided to do was to let ministers engage in fornication, whether homosexual or heterosexual, openly and unrepentantly.

I am heartened at the ability of people devoted to the Bible to be able to find in it the deeper meaning of biblical love, justice and dignity. They did this against the grain of less important but more explicit and time-conditioned condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible.

They show that our understanding of the Bible grows through time and experience under divine influence.

So Bob apparently thinks God would put together the entire Bible, which from the first book to the last teaches that for all people, sex is something to be reserved for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes, then God would preserve that Bible through persecution and over thousands of years, and then God would later want us to figure out that we are now supposed to ignore that teaching.

I wonder what other "more explicit" teachings of the Bible "God" will lead us to abandon in the future. Love thy neighbor? Love your wife as Christ loves the Church?

Isn't Same-Sex Marriage Inevitable?

These are the questions and statements I address over at The Opine Editorials:

Isn't same-sex marriage inevitable?

Don't most Americans now support same-sex marriage?

Isn't this just like bans on interracial marriage?

Isn't this a civil rights issue?

Isn't this harmful discrimination against a class of people?

Isn't marriage a fundamental right?

We can't have "separate but equal."

Don't gays need same-sex marriage for hospital visits, insurance, tax, inheritance, and Social Security?

Why not just let them have it?

Why does it matter? Aren’t there more important things to deal with?

Aren't you just trying to impose your religion or morality on others?

There are no non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage, and given separation of church and state, aren't religious arguments disqualified?

Isn't this really all about hating gays?

My sister and her partner have been together for years and they love each other and have children; shouldn't they be able to marry?

You can't prove any harm has been done as a result of same-sex marriage.

How does this hurt anyone else's marriage?

Churches won't have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

If marriage is about children, we do we let infertile people or people too old to have children marry?

How can anyone talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage when there is a 50% divorce rate, so much adultery, and joke weddings like Britney Spears had in Las Vegas?

States that are against same-sex marriage have a higher divorce rate.

Why not get government out of marriage entirely?

Why should I care about defending marriage?

A Politician’s Worldview Matters

Responding to Los Angeles Times opinion columnist Tim Rutten, Marilyn Melzian of San Pedro wrote the letter of the day:

Although I agree with Tim Rutten that "genuine religion [cannot] be reduced to mere ethics or a series of legislative votes,"

I disagree that politics and religion are "distinct aspects of human experience."

It may be true that it is best to keep the institutions of state and church separate, but how can the individual person keep separate his or her faith from public action without a serious loss of integrity? How can one's worldview, whether ideological or religious, not be taken into account when one is trying to decide an issue?

The concerns of the church may transcend politics, but they do not exclude politics, which, after all, is ultimately about life in community.

Most definitely. Religion is about how we relate to God, each other, and the world. My religion is built on my relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ can't be my Lord and Savior if there are parts of my life closed to Him. Does that mean I would, in a political position, attempt make everyone else live the same way? Certainly not. The teachings of Christ allow for others to reject Him, and compel His followers to treat them with dignity and respect even thought they do. As for me, my perspective and actions will be influenced by what I believe about Jesus Christ and what He has done and continues to do.

Where Did The Cookies Come From?

From some of my Facebook friends comes this:

A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party and a Big Corp CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the tea partier and says, "Look out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

Wait a minute. Where did those dozen cookies come from in the first place?

As it turns out, the Big Corp CEO was working 12-16 hours per day, seven days a week to research recipes, ingredients and the cookie market; convince investors to put up the money to buy the ingredients, build the industrial kitchen, and buy and install the equipment to bake the cookies; and hire and train the cookie chefs. The Big Corp CEO then oversaw the baking of the cookies, and sales and marketing. There were some trial and error along the way, and the whole operation was almost shut down in the struggle to survive, but finally there was a successful recipe that was well-produced and people wanted to buy the cookies, so they were being sold by the dozen.

During all of this, unionized public employees were interfering in all of the voluntary exchanges taking place to bring about this cookie making business, restricting options, taking some of the money off of the top, and slowing things down. They even were trying to charge a special fee, claiming baking the cookies was causing local warming or local climate change.

One of the chefs turns out have joined the TEA Party. (Of his own free choice. He wasn't forced to join to get a job, or forced to pay union dues against his will.)

The employees working under the Big Corp CEO agreed to get paid in cookies. So when the latest dozen cookies comes out of the oven, the Big Corp CEO hands one to the TEA Party Member/Chef and warns the Chef about the unionized public employee. Sure enough, the unionized public employee takes a third of the Chef's cookie, and tries to convince the Chef that making the Big Corp CEO "give" six of the remaining 11 cookies to the unionized public employee will somehow help the Chef, even though the Chef's livelihood depends on the well-being of the Big Corp CEO's business, not just for employment, but because the Chef has chosen to be an investor as well.

Will Shamnesty Disappear the Graffiti?

Responding to an opinion piece that ran in the Los Angeles Times, Bob Harris of Lancaster wrote a latter to the editor:

Let's not forget the undocumented minors brought to this country when they were very young children.

Yes, let's not forget that their parents are to blame, and this does not obligate us to change anything about our immigration policy.

I work at a community college and encounter students who have lived in this country almost all of their lives but do not have a Social Security number.

Do you get that? He's encountering illegal aliens who are using a taxpayer subsidized higher education system when legal immigrants and citizens could be in those spots, or the money could go to other things or not be taken from the taxpayers in the first place.

One example is a young woman whose parents entered this country without a visa, bringing her here when she was 2 years old. She now aspires to be a nurse and eventually to enter medical school.

She is thoroughly assimilated and every bit an American, but she will never be able to achieve her dream.

He writes this as though this is typical. There are also millions of illegal aliens who are perpetuating a balkanized set of foreign cultures, engaging in serious crimes, and otherwise being a net drain on our system - essentially stealing from legal immigrants.

In fact, if caught, she faces the possibility of deportation along with her parents.

She's more likely to get struck by lightning.

What she needs is an amnesty program that will allow her to become a citizen without the need to hire an expensive immigration lawyer.

What she needs to do is stand in line.

How does denying her the opportunity to achieve her goal benefit America?

How does writing me a speeding ticket stop other people from speeding or getting in traffic accidents? (I've never received a moving violation, but I needed an example.) We're not ignorant of history. We know now that shamnesty would draw millions of more illegal aliens. Also, doing something that grants her permanent legal status will also grant permanent legal status to so many of those other illegal aliens who are unlikely to be like the shining example you present her to be.

Her parents actions matter, unfortunately. And they may have done a rational, even moral thing by leaving wherever they came from to bring their children here, based on how bad some of the places in the world are. But there are, and should be, consequences. Our immigration and border control policy need to benefit our nation as a whole, or we won’t be able to be the great place to which people flee from corrupt and murderous cultures.

Still More PCUSA Fallout in Los Angeles Times

There's been more opinion printed in the Los Angeles Times about the PCUSA's rejection of Biblical authority, specifically to allow the ordination and continuing leadership of individuals openly and unrepentantly engaging in fornication, including homosexual behavior. Of course, the homosexual aspect is what gets all of the attention.

There were some letters printed. Geoffrey Cushing-Murray of Studio City hits the nail on the head:

I'm not taking sides here because I couldn't care less what the venerable Presbyterians do, but you seem to be saying that eventually God will come around to see things your way. I'm not sure that's how it works.

And then there's this commentary by the Rev. Randall Tremba, "minister of word and sacrament at Shepherdstown Presbyterian Church" in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Isn't it nice that the paper prints things from ministers? It restates the false implication that the PCUSA, up until this recent action, denied homosexual people ordination. It is clear to me that homosexuality advocates want to practice sleight of hand when it comes to interchanging homosexual behavior with homosexual feelings or identity, with the implication that someone with homosexual feelings, who they claim have as much of a distinct identity as males, females, Asians, or Latinos, can't help but engage in homosexual behavior, though I doubt they'd say that all Asians must engage in certain behaviors that make them distinct from others.

In taking this action, I believe our church moved a step forward and brought itself closer in line with Christ's all-embracing love.

Based on what? He doesn't say, so I'm left to guess if he means to say Christ must surely see things Randall's way.

But it's not a step all Presbyterians welcome. I know this because for years, I was on the other side.

What changed Randall’s mind? Studying the Bible or church history? No! An emotional experience.

In 1976, I was installed as minister for the Shepherdstown Presbyterian Church in West Virginia. I became acquainted with several gay and lesbian members of the congregation. As it turns out, they were not just faithful members of the church; their lives were exemplary.

Would someone be a faithful, exemplary member of a vegan organization if they were eating beef most nights of the week, and ignored the conflict?

As a longtime evangelical, I had studied the Bible extensively. But after arriving in Shepherdstown, I slowly began to see Scripture in a new, more inclusive way.

...based on emotional experiences.

He goes on to write about one woman in particular, who was engaging in homosexual behavior with another woman. What if she generally denied the existence of God? Would this guy now be writing about how important it is to let good, open atheists serve in positions of leadership in the PCUSA?

When we came back together, each elder spoke. Some spoke for ordination, and some against. We listened to each other and then took a 20-minute recess to be alone, to pray for guidance.

Praying for guidance is something you should do when the Person to whom you are praying hasn’t already made Himself clear in His written word.

We came out of it feeling that our decision was indeed a celebration of God's infinite love.

Yeah, people have all sorts of feelings that defy reason, logic, and reality, or go against duty. What about a group the comes out of a parallel situation feeling great in their decision to deny ordination and position to someone engaging in homosexual behavior? Would you say that there decision was equalliy valid, based on how they felt? Or what do you say to the teenager who is fornicating with his girlfriend, and they both feel just great about it? I don't always feeling like taking care of my family with my earnings; should I spend my earnings on, say, selfish items that will make me feel good? I follow Jesus Christ based on the evidence that He exists and demonstrated He is God, not based on whether or not thinking of him gives me the warm fuzzies. The Bible calls on followers of Christ to follow Him not just with all of the heart, but their mind, too.

Yes, a few members left. But many estranged believers and formerly "un-churched" people have walked through the door.

What good is going to a "Christian" church that denies the authority of Christ? There are other charities or clubs to join, other places to hear motivational speeches or music. This is like saying a university that does not educate is swelling with admissions. So what?

The church's action last week recognized an important teaching from the book of Galatians: "We are all one in Jesus Christ."

Context, context, context. Pray tell, what couldn't you use that out-of-context verse to justify?

P-Funk at 3:51 PM May 15, 2011 has a great question:

Why do gay apologists feel it necessary to include the phrases "long-term" and "committed" when describing the relationships of gays for whom they're advocating? The inference is that "short term" and "casual" relationships are positionally inferior.

That would be hateful, wouldn't it?

False Prophets Destroy Christian Credibility

Some professing Christians do so much to give others one more excuse to mock God. Something I've known about for a while now is now making the rounds in MSM, giving Christendom a back eye. Tom Breen of the Associated Press reported a while on those who are setting dates for the "end of the world".

If there had been time, Marie Exley would have liked to start a family. Instead, the 32-year-old Army veteran has less than six months left, which she'll spend spreading a stark warning: Judgment Day is almost here.

Exley is part of a movement of Christians loosely organized by radio broadcasts and websites, independent of churches and convinced by their reading of the Bible that the end of the world will begin May 21, 2011.

How is Marie going to feel when she realizes she made major life decisions based on false prophecies?

In August, Exley left her home in Colorado Springs, Colo., to work with Oakland, Calif.-based Family Radio Worldwide, the independent Christian ministry whose leader, Harold Camping, has calculated the May 21 date based on his reading of the Bible.

Yes, and Harold Camping also wrote a book that claimed that 1994 was going to be the year. Look it up. If we were living in a certain time and place, Camping would have been stoned to death as a false prophet. Instead, dupes send him money.

Camping, 89, believes the Bible essentially functions as a cosmic calendar explaining exactly when various prophecies will be fulfilled.

The Bible documents God's love for us, and teaches us how to have fellowship with God. It isn't there so we will guess about the dates of future events.

The retired civil engineer said all his calculations come from close readings of the Bible, but that external events like the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 are signs confirming the date.

"Beyond the shadow of a doubt, May 21 will be the date of the Rapture and the day of judgment," he said.

Camping and everyone who believes this should be willing to sign a legal document right now that transfers ownership of all of their worldly possessions as of May 22, 2011 to those who don’t believe this.

The doctrine known as the Rapture teaches that believers will be taken up to heaven, while everyone else will remain on earth for a period of torment, concluding with the end of time. Camping believes that will happen in October.

The doctrine of pretribulational premillennialism (on which the Left Behind series is based) is just one of many models to explain what the future holds. The non-negotiable in orthodox Christian doctrine is that things will not continue as they are now – Jesus Christ will return in visible, bodily form, bringing judgment and an end to this age. Some people are going to have eternal life in fellowship with Him, and others will spend eternity without that fellowship. Other than that, some Christians believe nothing else has to happen before that moment arrives, others think there is going to a special future Tribulation period, and some of those people believe that also believe that Christians will be taken away at the beginning of that period, to return later with Christ.

One important thing is that the Bible teaches nobody knows the day or the hour. Camping tries to get around this, but there is no getting around it.

"If May 21 passes and I'm still here, that means I wasn't saved. Does that mean God's word is inaccurate or untrue? Not at all," Warden said.

Think of how many people are going to be disillusioned. It has happened may times before.

The Book of Revelation, which comes last in the New Testament, describes this conclusion in vivid language that has inspired Christians for centuries.

Some Christians believe that the book, except for the last couple of chapters, is more about what was going on in the first century Church and what the Church was facing in the coming years.

For me, the bottom line is to focus on God like today could be my last day of this life – because it could be, even if it is the end of my life but not the end of the world. But I also need to plan and work as though I’ll have to take care of myself and my family for the rest of the century. I have thrown myself on His mercy, because I have sinned against Him. I look to Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, recognizing that He paid for my sins on the cross.

For intelligent Christian teaching and analysis that isn't alarmist nor based on false prophecies, I recommend these websites, among others. And not all of these websites agree on everything, by the way:

Stand to Reason
Christian Think Tank
Please Convince Me
J.P. Moreland
William Lane Craig
Walter Martin
Christian Research Institute
Reasons to Believe
R.C. Sproul
Norm Geisler
Answers in Action

LA Times Editorial Praises PCUSA For Being PC

It's always nice to have the Los Angeles Times around to tell churches what to do.They ran this editorial to praise the PCUSA for becoming more PC, as if their news coverage wasn’t enough of a clue about how the powers at the paper feel.

Religious institutions in this country that object to homosexuality have nothing to fear from the gay-rights movement.

Maybe not, if by "gay-rights movement" you are referring to the people who aren't homofascists.

Freedom of religion constitutionally protects them from having to perform same-sex marriages or elevate gays and lesbians to the clergy.

Yes, but that won't stop homofascists from doing everything they can to bully churches into ignoring Biblical teachings on sexuality, marriage, and church leadership.

Yet as society opens itself to new viewpoints over time, those perspectives influence people of faith.

There's nothing really new in the viewpoints of moral relativism or in sexual behavior deviant from the Biblical ideal.

So it was that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) this week voted to allow the ordination of gay ministers, elders and deacons. In doing so, it joined three other mainstream churches, including the Episcopal Church.

Except that the PCUSA already allowed their ordination. What it didn't allow was for the ordination of people who were known to be unrepentantly sinning (current) in the area of sexual behavior. That's what changed. Should the editorial board read their own paper's articles more carefully?

Americans' views on gay rights have been undergoing a rapid and dramatic change toward acceptance.

There's a difference between gay rights (I'm in favor of everyone having their rights protected) and homosexuality advocacy that infringes on the rights of others.

It was inevitable that religious congregants, affected by the more tolerant viewpoints in the secular world, would begin asking questions about long-held beliefs in their houses of worship.

In other words, a lot of people allow the culture to drag them away from following Christ, rather than being change agents for Christ in the culture.

Tuesday's stamp of approval from a venerable institution will further influence public opinion.

Perhaps, though the PCUSA is becoming more and more irrelevant, and this will only speed that. But it is refreshing to see the editorial board hoping a church will have further influence on public opinion.

No doubt, some people of faith will never accept homosexuality, and they have that right.

Weasel words. We accept homosexual people. We do not deny the Biblical teaching on sexual behavior.

But this welcome move by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) indicates that religion has a role to play in this nation's lurching progress toward gay rights.

And what’s that? To change doctrine and practices when a tiny fraction of the membership holds their breath, stomps their feet, and wants everyone else to applaud what turns them on? If you want someone who is going to make you feel better about what you already do, collect sycophants who pretend to be friend, or find a therapist who will do so. A church is there, among other things, to call you to be better.

MSM Lies About Presbyterian Church USA

I'm tired of how the MSM misleads and outright lies when it comes to churches, especially when it comes to homosexuality advocacy issues.

Take, for example, this Los Angeles Times headline on Mitchell Landsberg’s article: "Presbyterian Church Votes to Allow Gay Ordination" In the article, it again states:

A debate that has raged within the Presbyterian Church for more than three decades culminated Tuesday with ratification of a measure allowing the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers and lay leaders, while giving regional church bodies the ability to decide for themselves.

Read on.

Hold Andrew Cuomo Accountable

The New York Governor is trying to neuter marriage licenses and get the credit from marriage neutering advocates without getting the blame from people who only want marriage licensed as marriage. Read about that and Reuters' bias over at The Opine Editorials.

This Post Does Not Exist

Is atheism a religion or not? It may depend on which atheist you ask, and when. Some insist it isn’t, and so it shouldn’t face restrictions placed on religions (“separation of church and state”). Others say it is, hence the need for atheist chaplains in the military.

Religion or not, some atheists do try proselytize. Consider kind of billboard written about in this Orange County Register article by Deepa Bharath.

"Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

People (dis)believe all sorts of things. Some people believe they can wish themselves to wealth. Some people believe doing kids is fine. None of these people are alone.

Those are the words printed on a billboard the Orange County Coalition for Reason unveiled Wednesday evening at the corner of Beach Boulevard and 19th Street.

Dig the name of that group. As if reason = atheism. Perhaps they think so, but there are good reasons to be a theist, and most explanations I've encountered for someone's belief in atheism have been emotional, not reason-based.

Bruce Gleason, a resident of Villa Park and member of the coalition, said the "Godless billboard," being put up at a cost of $6,450, is part of a nationwide campaign to let atheists, agnostics and humanists know they are not alone.

"There are millions of people in the United States who don't believe in a supernatural deity," he said. "This is not a campaign against God or religion, but a way for us to reach out to non-believers."

I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free enterprise, so I would not want to even try to stop these people for spending their money this way.

Mayor Margie Rice, who helped spearhead the In God We Trust movement in Orange County, said she still believes in God, but that the atheists have their rights and freedom of speech.

"That billboard is going to turn my stomach every time I drive by," she said. "But there is not much I can do about it. I guess it's fine to make a statement, but if I could help it, I would not allow it."

Why not? It doesn’t bother me. Yes, it is sad that people reject God, but that's their choice.

The response to the billboards has by and large been positive, said Fred Edwords, national director for National Coalition for Reason. So far, there were reports that three of them were defaced in Sacramento and Detroit.

"We were able to repair and use two of them," he said. "But those incidents have been rare. When they do happen, we use them as a basis for talking about it more. Our purpose is to let the public know that folks like us do exist and deserve respect."

Wait. Who says? (I have an answer, but Edwards wouldn't like it.)

John Furman, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, which is just blocks from where the billboard will be situated, called it a "foolish" move because The Bible says, "The fool says in his heart there is no God."

"My first reaction to it is, yes, I'm offended," he said. "But I do support tolerance for what others believe in. I hope it will give us an opportunity to reach out to people who don't believe in God. I see it as an evangelical opportunity."

Good for Furman.

Gleason, who is a member of a grassroots group in Villa Park called Backyard Skeptics, said his hope is to dispel several myths about non-believers in a county, which is predominantly conservative and Christian.

"The most common misconception is that atheists are not moral," he said. "But in fact, atheists are more moral because we question things and do not base our decisions on blind faith or superstitions."

Who says that makes you more moral?

Gleason hopes atheism will be eventually accepted in Orange County and the rest of the country.

Why? Hundreds of millions of people were killed in the twentieth century by atheist governments, while charities, universities, and hospitals were built in the name of God.

Since the overwhelming majority of people believe in some form of a deity or the supernatural, I do not see atheism as a default position, but rather one requiring the burden of proof.

Oh, and what if I say I don't believe Bruce Gleason exists?

Don't Base Laws For All on Rare Hard Cases

The MSM loves to do things like focusing on a bright, attractive student who is a high achiever, and note that since the student was brought here illegally by his parents when he was only two years old, he isn't eligible for certain things like in-state rates at taxpayer-subsidized universities and certain loans or grants, and wouldn't it be horrible for this person, who is likely to find a cure for cancer (despite not being able to be employed legally), to be deported? This is supposed to garner support for shamnesty and free higher education for illegal aliens, and it ignores all of the dependency, crime, and infrastructure wear & tear that comes along with some illegal aliens, and that most illegal aliens won't be doing stellar work at top universities.

The rare cases that make for captivating news stories are not typical. That is what I think about when papers like the Los Angeles Times feature a same-sex couple that has been together for 40 years, facing mortality, and want to know why they can't get a marriage license in California without a bride. They did have their chance in 2008, but I guess 37 years just wasn't enough time to decide if they were right for each other or not.

Marriage Neutering and Democrat Politics

Minnesota and Marriage

Marriage neutering advocates have a lot of time to send around videos, it seems. In apparemt lockstep, they champion the same snippets, usually featuring appeals to emotion instead of discussing what is good public policy and why. I take a look at coverage of the latest over at The Opine Editorials.

OBL, BHO, and the Economy

The Orange County Register consistently has some good letters to the editor.

Here are a couple that give credit where it is due when it comes to killing Osama bin Laden.

Elena Conboy of Westminster wrote:

The wicked terrorist Osama bin Laden is finally dead. A world of gratitude to those wonderful, brave Navy SEALs for accomplishing the difficult but heroic task. All hail to President G.W. Bush for his great leadership in the war on terrorism, and thank you to President Barack Obama for continuing those policies. Stay the course.

Rich Walborn of Anaheim:

Congratulations to the military and the Navy SEAL Team Six for killing Osama bin Laden and to President Barack Obama for approving it. Now I can agree with at least one thing the president has done.

Claudia Hiatt of Huntington Beach had a good question:

Why did we give Osama bin Laden a proper Muslim burial when he was not a proper Muslim?

R. Marlena Bricker of Cypress says thanks, but...

However, how does bin Laden's death help me when gas prices go up weekly? How does bin Laden’s death help me when food I bought last week costs me more this week? How I can pay for my health care coverage since my company has increased the rates? How does bin Laden’s death help my neighbor who was out of work nearly two years and finally found a full-time job – with a 35 percent cut in pay? How does bin Laden’s death help my husband and I regain lost home equity – our retirement? How can we retire when what little savings we have earns almost no interest in the bank?

So, yes, I am proud that Osama bin Laden died from a couple of American bullets but I would prefer a president who is equally “gutsy” about solving our economic problems.

Here's the thing, though. The President is given the Constitutional authority to protect us through military means. This does help our economy, because our economy is damaged when terrorists carry out their evil attacks. The President does not have a Constitutional mandate to freeze prices, get people jobs in the private sector that pay them as much as they want, or to meddle with your housing situation. The best thing the President (and Congress, for that matter) can do for the economy, after providing us with military protection and protecting us from international or interstate crime, is to get out of the way.

Fewer Criminals Willing to March

The annual March of the Criminals is getting smaller. Sam Quinones of the Los Angeles Times reports.

Few people felt the low turnout at this year's May Day march as acutely as Salvador Ramirez.

Ramirez, an illegal immigrant from Jalisco, Mexico, pushed a cart among the few thousand immigrant-rights and labor activists Sunday on Broadway, selling American flags.

So much for hiding in the shadows. The paper can’t bring itself to use the correct phrase, illegal alien.

Only a few thousand people showed up for the nine-block march that started early and ended quickly. Los Angeles police declined to issue a crowd estimate, but marchers didn't even fill the intersection of Broadway and 1st Street, where the demonstration ended.

Heh heh.

But six years with no significant legislative reform "has started to chip away at the spirit of the community," said Pedro Reyes, a former L.A. resident who recently moved to Santa Maria, Calif., where he teaches English to migrant farm workers. "It's definitely causing a toll."

Yay! Enforce existing laws.

This year handmade posters were largely replaced with pre-printed signs and T-shirts. And instead of young couples pushing strollers, most marchers were union members - particularly from the Service Employees International Union, which turned out hundreds of people - or members of a socialist or communist group.

Pathetic.

Many of the protesters are angry at Obama for not granting them all citizenship and paying their way through college. Ingrates. They should be marching to denounce the corruption in their home countries, and express appreciation to Americans for letting them hang out there and use our infrastructure and public services.