I should have posted this earlier, but here is how my ballot is filled out for tomorrow's primary election.

            Tony Perry wrote an interesting article in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times regarding the restrictions placed on American fighter-bomber crews in the war in Afghanistan. Reporting from the USS Eisenhower, Perry covered how the polices of Army General Stanley A. McChrystal practically play out for the pilots and commanders of the Eisenhower’s carrier air wings.

            In the past years, there has been a concern for the number of Afghan civilian casualties and how that has led to a decline in Afghan support of the U.S. led war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This has led to McChrystal’s statement that “mission No. 1 is to avoid civilian casualties, even if it means letting suspected Taliban fighters escape.”

            Excuse me for a moment, but isn’t the United States’ “mission No. 1” to defeat the terrorists and those who harbor and support them?

            The commander of the Eisenhower’s air wing, Captain Roy Kelley told Perry he states McChrystal’s mission to his pilots in this way, “They [need] to know what our objectives are – that we’re here to protect [the Afghan] people, and that mean’s limiting civilian deaths.”

            Capt. Kelley’s statement sounds noble and I do not doubt for a second that he is a fine fighter pilot and defender of our country. But notice the subtle change from what we went to war for when we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. The stated mission then was to destroy the terrorists who attacked us. The mission now is to protect the Afghan people.

            My question is, why did this change?

            I understand there was political pressure that civilians were dying and I certainly get that it is a tragedy when anyone loses their life in war. But isn’t it a little difficult to defeat an enemy that, if smart enough to figure out how to commandeer airplanes and crash them into buildings, is certainly smart enough to figure out how to hide behind women and children?

            I certainly do not believe we should be indiscriminately bombing the Afghan populations but when our troops on the ground are in a firefight and soldiers and marines are dying, it is beyond common sense that “infantry commanders, sometimes with lawyers at their elbows, go through a checklist to make sure their request fits the rules of engagement.” If you open fire on the United States military, there should not be any possible way you find sanctuary hiding in civilian populations or a mosque.

            Rear Admiral Philip Davidson, the commander of the Eisenhower strike group made the comment that, “often in this war, it’s the bombs that you don’t drop that are the most important.” That’s easy for you to say Admiral when you drinking coffee on the bridge of a carrier. Maybe you should put yourself into the shoes of the lieutenant or captain who’s had one of his men die when an IED exploded and is now taking rounds from guys with AK-47’s. The bombs that “are the most important” are the ones that eliminate the threat, not withheld to protect Afghans who are harboring enemy forces.

            My reading of history tells me that Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, and George S. Patton would laugh at the orders as dictated by Gen. McChrystal, (who it should be noted might have his hands tied by President Obama.)

            Afghan President Karzai has been very outspoken about us limiting civilian causalities. He needs to understand that he would not be in power without the United States of America. Either let us destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda without limitations placed by your government, or how about we go home and we’ll see how effective you are at handling it?

            America needs to remember that we are fighting a war against the terrorists who attacked us. We are not fighting to prop up an Afghan administration, although that will be a side benefit of defeating Al Qaeda. As it stands, we will protect more Afghan people in the long run if we do not allow the enemy sanctuary but attack them where they are, regardless of where they are hiding. Then the Afghan people will understand it is in their interest to disassociate with the Taliban and take up their own arms to help defeat them, instead of allowing the Taliban to use them as human shields.

My random thoughts can be followed on Twitter at @plh55. 

Friday, a Tacoma, WA special-education teacher was shot and killed on the campus of the elementary school where she worked. The shooter was a man who had been stalking the teacher, Jennifer Paulson, who he had worked with in the school cafeteria at Seattle Pacific University.

Paulson had found it necessary to obtain an “anti-harassment order” due to the shooter/stalker frequently calling her daily calling, sending her unwarranted gifts, and appearing unannounced at her school. He had already been arrested once this month for violating that order.

There was one option not available to Paulson to defend herself – carrying a concealed handgun.

Whether she would have carried one is of course unknown, but due to the anti-gun culture we live, the waiting period that would have precluded her from buying a gun when the order was violated and getting it before she was killed, and the liberal logic that guns should not be allowed on school campuses, having it never would have been an option.

A situation like the one in Tacoma makes one realize how deadly the recent school shooting in Colorado could have been. In that one, a man opened fire with a bolt-action rifle. If not for the heroic actions of a math teacher supervising the pick-up of children, who tackled the shooter, lives would have been lost there too.

Imagine if the Colorado shooter had a semi-automatic weapon and didn’t have to throw the bolt after every single shot. The actions of the math teacher would have been impossible.

A couple of years ago, a Medford, OR teacher who had been issued a concealed-carry permit wanted to be allowed to carry her Glock concealed on campus because she feared her ex-husband might come there to harm her. The superintendent of her district, Phil Long, refused stating teachers and students are safer without guns on campus.

Maybe Long can drive up to Washington and tell the family of Ms. Paulson how she was safer without guns on campus.

Twitter @plh55

Eva La Rue, a star on CSI Miami, is upset the Glendale, CA City Council refused to give her an exemption to city codes for a gate on her property. http://bit.ly/cedrHO. She believes having the gate will protect her from a man she claims is stalking her.

Are you kidding me Ms. La Rue? Do you truly believe a gate will stop someone who is truly bent on harming you? Or is it you want special treatment because of your TV star status?

There is a simple solution to your dilemma. Either hire a security guard or buy a gun. Either one is highly effective at personal protection and does not require you circumventing city municipal codes.

Twitter @plh55.

The LA Times today reported on a Valencia couple falsely accused of child abuse by one of their teenagers nine years ago. http://bit.ly/b6Ma59

Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times, a paper not known as a bastion of conservatism, deserves credit for countering arguments by left-leaning historian Robert Greenwald and others who are essentially claiming a History Channel series on the Kennedy family is a conservative hack job. http://bit.ly/14IVcX. Greenwald has started a petition to boycott a Joel Surnow ("24") produced series due for release in January 2011 called "The Kennedy's."

Imagine you have been in a traffic accident and need urgent medical attention. The Chicago Fire Department arrives on scene and is going to try to save your life. Question. Do you want the person working on you to have scored a 68 % or a 95 %? I'm going to go on a limb and guess you would want the one with the higher score. (That's the 95 % for those of you who scored a 68 % on the Chicago Fire test, a test that involves some basic math.)

Christi Parsons, in today's LA Times http://bit.ly/aKouIM reported the Obama health care plan would create a panel of experts to "block premium increases that were deemed excessive."

Starting Monday, possession of firearms will be allowed into National Parks and Wildlife Areas. http://bit.ly/9A79jP 

On December 30th and 31st, Richard Winton of the Los Angeles Times wrote articles detailing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's gun exchange program. Winton specifically mentioned the 281 weapons the Sheriff's collected, 58 from one person, at a Ralph's supermarket in Compton, CA.

     This morning I read of the tragic death of a Los Angeles domestic violence victim, Flor Medrano. If you are not familiar with the events, Medrano reported to LAPD patrol officers she had been the victim of a rape and identified the suspect as a man she had been seeing "off and on" who had been "abusing her physically." Medrano declined to press charges, was contacted by the suspect during the LAPD investigation, and was advised on obtaining a restraining order while going to a shelter, but she still wished to go home. LAPD officers and/or detectives, went beyond the requirements of their duty and took Medrano home, checked her apartment, and remained outside should the suspect return. Somehow, the suspect was able to gain access to Medrano's apartment through a rear window where he proceeeded to stab Medrano to death. The officers outside, realizing something was happening in the apartment when Medrano's phone was cut off, responded and used lethal force to kill the suspect. It is extremely important when events like this occur, to remember the primary responsibility for our protection resides with the individual person, not law enforcement.

     Of course the single-minded view of the media reporting this has been questioning of the LAPD. How could this killer elude the police? Why weren't more officers there? Frequently when there is a murder, it is common to hear, "Where were the police this happened?" These questions create the misguided perception that the LAPD, and other police agencies, exist as a protection force.

Last night my wife and I watched the Weather Channel's "When Weather Changed History." This particular episode focused on the Great Chicago Fire. I was struck by the mentality of the people following the disaster. Instead of wallowing, they immediately went back to work to make Chicago a better city than it was before the fire. City father, William Ogden, at the age of 67, dedicated himself to fixing the problems that fed the flames. This despite his own home and belongings being destroyed, as well as the business that earned him his wealth which was destroyed in a similar fire storm in Wisconsin. Many of the residents returned to their burned down properties to clean the debris and immediately begin rebuilding. Young architect Louis Sullivan, saw an opportunity to establish himself and came to Chicago. He ended up designing numerous famous structures and earned himself the title "Father of Modernism." Chicago ended up rising from the literal ashes, all without the help of FEMA.

Contrast this with the attitudes which came out of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. The focus was not on what the people of New Orleans could do to make their city better, but on what the federal government was going to do to solve their problems. Many people who could have provided needed services were turned away because they did not have proper FEMA credentials. Many New Orleans' residents, instead of going home and beginning to rebuild, were responsible for widespread looting. Many were also provided trailers (by FEMA of course), to give them temporary shelter until their homes were rebuilt. Most of these trailers are still being used homes, now nearly three years later.

Why mention this? This presidential election campaign has brought the argument from Senator Obama that capitalism and the desire to earn profits is evil and seeks to take advantage of the needy, while the government is good and desires to help people. Louis Sullivan, instead of being hailed as a hero for helping rebuild Chicago, would be denigrated today as greedy capitalist. Further, he would have not been allowed to help today, because government "experts" would be utilized instead. Our economy is in a rough state right now. Which method of rebuilding would you want? Chicago's, where the city became bigger and better? Or New Orlean's, which continues to be dependent on the nipples of the federal government and refuses to take their city to another level? If you choose Chicago, the choice Tuesday is clear, John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Over our Christmas vacation and our trip to Oregon, I had the opportunity to read Mark Dever's (senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington D.C. and 9Marks.org) book on evangelism. For me, as I'm sure it is for many of you, evangelism is lot like prayer. You know it is something you should spend much more time in. Dever's book is not only challenging in encouraging the reader to tell the lost the truth of the Gospel, it is very helpful in teaching us how to do it.

Dever begins with the premise that none of us would have a problem telling our friends about a great occurrence in our life, such as winning the lottery, etc. How true that is! I think of how easy it is to converse with people about politics or sports, but shy away from the most important truth there is.

Dever then gets into the heart of the matter, forming his chapters based on common questions regarding evangelism. Chapters include "Why Don't We Evangelize?", "What is the Gospel?", "Who Should Evangelize?", "How Do We Evangelize?", "What Isn't Evangelism?", and "Why Should We Evangelize?" Each chapter was informative and counters any argument you could possibly make to avoid evangelism.

Especially important to me, Dever emphasizes the gospel is not simply that man is neutral toward God and that "God is love", but that man is at war with God. Too often you hear people talking about coming to Jesus for their self-esteem, to have fellowship, or to have freedom from guilt. Dever's point, as the Bible clearly teaches, is that man has offended a holy God and will be punished eternally in hell as a result. Unless of course they come to Christ. This book teaches how that can happen, and how to communicate that truth to others.

Finally, Dever covers three reasons why Christians should evangelize the lost; a desire to be obedient, a love for the lost, and a love for God. I know for myself it is very easy to ask someone to church and let the pastor do the evangelism. Dever reminds us the church is for believers, its our job to tell others the gospel and bring them when they are saved.

Sharing Christ with others can be quite intimidating. Its amazing to think however that in America the only type of persecution we most likely will face is either some small mocking or indifference to the truth. Its almost unheard of that we face "real" persecution such as torture or execution, yet, as Dever points out, "our fear of man is greater than our fear of God."

I highly recommend this book and hope that you and I will put its wise words into practice.