My whole family is abuzz about the soldiers killed at Ft. Hood, the murderer and the press' reaction to him, and the lack of government awareness of how close this guy was to out-and-out loony with his "faith."

And then there's the Islamic issue. Or is Islam the only issue?

My son called me tonight and said that he wants to know what the Qur'an really says. I think I'll get him this book.

I've done a lot of thinking about faith and killing - what it's really all about.

In any society, there are those who make the decisions, those who protect the decision-makers, and those who just live in the society.

If I'm angry at the decisions made, wouldn't it make sense to target the decision-makers? Or those who protect the decision-makers?

Instead, we get people like Nidal Hasan (the Ft. Hood terrorist), John Allen Muhammad (one of the DC snipers), and the 9/11 hijackers who target random people who just happen to live in the society. They weren't going after the decision-makers, or those immediately around the decision-makers. They chose the innocent. They targeted their victims indiscriminately.

Here's a graphic from Michelle Malkin's site, drawn and written by Lee Malvo, the second of the DC snipers.

All of the people I listed above did so because they believed their faith, Islam, urged them to do so.

Abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor killers also do it because they believe their faith prompts them to do so, but they target those involved in the deed - not just random people. The people at the World Trade Center were targets of opportunity, not decision-makers.

Christians don't kill those who believe differently than they do. Abortion clinic killers kill those who are actively killing, and justify their action as a preservative and protective measure. They're killing the killers. They're not out to convert anyone to Christianity through murder. They don't kill you because you're not a Christian.

Islamic killers target non-Muslims in a non-Muslim land. You're guilty and worthy of death because you don't think like they do. Hasan believed that Muslims in our nation's military should be able to file for conscientious objector status when the enemy is Islamic. He was a Muslim first and foremost, and being an American was a distant second. While some Christians are a Christian first, and an American second, I don't see any Christians in the military who refuse to kill other Christians, or who target non-Christians just because they're not Christian.

America was founded on the premise of maximizing and preserving individual freedom. If you don't believe in freedom, you're in opposition to the very premise of America.

Freedom of religion - my right to determine my own faith - is central to the reason this nation began. Christians who assert that America is a Christian nation and work to force it to be a Christian nation stand in opposition to any freedom of religion. The way they interpret that is not a freedom of choice of personal religion, but a freedom to practice Christianity. I recently asked a very devout Christian, who believes that this is a Christian nation, where I, the non-Christian, belong in America, if America is a Christian nation. She shrugged.

This planet needs a haven where freedom is maximized and preserved. A haven where laws are based on the preservation of individual liberty. A haven where I can be a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist, and people respect my right to choose my own faith and the laws of the nation don't have a religious basis. A haven where I choose my own vocation, keep what I earn through my work, and the government is limited. A haven where I can determine the direction of my own life, so long as I don't step on the liberties of others.

Is that America?

I believe that America was founded to be that haven, but it's not that haven today, and never will be according to some Christians and some Muslims.

Faith is waning in America. I reckon that the urgency of religionists to enforce their faith by pushing it on others is part of the reason for that decline. People innately crave freedom of religion. There's a reason it's part of the First Amendment.

Any person who doesn't respect freedom of religion sends others the clear signal that they're not welcome in this country. That's mighty offensive.

You can kill me for not believing like you do, or you can push your religious agenda into our nation's laws. Neither respects my freedom of religion. Neither wins converts.

I'm coming to believe that respecting the individual freedom of others is the highest moral there is. If I can disagree with someone and not work to strip their liberties through force or through legislation, that's the greatest respect and honor I can show them.

A fellow Army doctor who studied with Hasan, Val Finell, told ABC News, "We would frequently say he was a Muslim first and an American second. And that came out in just about everything he did at the University."

Religious fundamentalists tend to be people who don't like or respect individual freedom. America is all about individual freedom. If you have a problem with individual freedom, then you can have your citizenship elsewhere, that's fine, but don't claim to be an American citizen.

So if you like the government being able to fine you for not having health insurance, then vote Democrat. If you think that's wrong, don't vote Democrat.

It's that simple. Because the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted her into her position as Speaker of the House, the only way to remove her from that position is to give the Republicans control of the chamber.

Agreed?

One of the greatest recorded acts of this kind of genocide deliberately sought after the men, women, and children and slaughtered every last one. And a well-recognized religion of peace has no problem with this. In fact, it celebrates the guy who did this.

Numbers 31 in the Old Testament tells of Moses, giving the order to kill the Midianites.

"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

So it's okay when Moses did it - because God told him it was okay and Moses and God were tight like that. But Muslims? To listen to some people yesterday, they were about ready for internment camps over the incident at Ft. Hood.

I've already stated my position: any act of killing in the name of God or a prophet or a religion is wrong. If what's written in the bible is true, then Moses was an murderous asshole - just like the guy at Ft. Hood.

Christians like to forget that their god is "the Lord of Hosts." That used to mean something to people, but I'll bet that most folks don't know what that phrase means any more. It means: "The Lord of Armies." The Christian god is a military god, who according to the bible waged a bloody campaign against the Midianites by the hand of Moses and the Israelites. If you believe that the bible is the word of God, there you go.

To a Christian, is that an atrocity?

If it's not because your faith dictates that you must accept it as the will of God, then surely you understand how a Muslim can believe the Qur'an and its dictates - some of which can be interpreted to murder infidels. I mean, true believers act on their faith, right?

"Well yeah, but that was different..." will be the reply of devout Christians. "Muslims don't know the one true God. God told Moses to do that. God didn't talk to Muhammad."

Yes, of course. What a fundamental difference, to be sure.

Christians come from a bloody faith and they justify, rather than repudiate, the despicable acts that spawned their faith because anything less would require them to either question their faith or to equate that element of their faith with the horrific religious fundamentalist acts done today. Just because it was done thousands of years ago doesn't make it any less wrong. It is the height of hypocrisy to allow yourself to accept a murder done in God's name in one instance and not allow someone else to accept murder done in God's name in another.

Unless of course, you know, God tells you that it's okay.

Back during the summer, John McHugh - a little-known congressman from upstate New York - voted for the Democrat Cap and Trade bill. He was nominated and later sworn in to become Barack Obama's Secretary of the Army this past September.

By becoming the Army Sec, he left a vacancy that had to be filled, and the Republicans of New York's 23rd District chose a tax-loving liberal in the person of Dede Scozzafava to be his replacement to represent the Republicans; at least until conservatives around the nation got wind of it.

At this point in this election night, it appears that Constitution Party candidate Doug Hoffman, a quiet accountant who believes in freedom and limited government, will lose to Democrat Bill Owens, for whom the former "Republican" candidate, Ms. Scozzafava, stumped.

I think the best outcome has happened, should Hoffman loses by a shred. Nancy Pelosi already has her majority; a win by Hoffman wouldn't erase her majority or substantially change anything.

But what it will do is to demonstrate to the leaders of the Republican party that nominating RINO's is a loser strategy. If Hoffman wins, they narrowly miss skinning their knees.

If Hoffman loses, their knees stay skinned for quite a while. They lost a seat that they didn't have to lose. The activists stay mad about it, and are therefore not complacent. And Newtie? His time is pretty much up within the ranks of the Republican party.

It started out as a RINO district. I won't be surprised much if Democrat Owens wins. RINO's are, after all, Democrats wearing a Republican jersey. What's the difference? Since they voted one into office with McHugh, Owens isn't much of a stretch.

In the event of a loss, the leaders of the Republican have to live with their unnecessary loss for a year before the next election.

"Mom, I skinned my knee."
"Were you doing something you weren't supposed to?"
"Yeah..."
"Well, then don't do that and you won't get hurt."

I bought a book not too long ago - Get Out the Vote - and it listed all of the methods politicians use to increase voter turnout.

Long story short, the most effective method for getting out the vote is: the door-to-door visit.

Mailers, robo-calling, TV campaign ads - all of these take a big backseat to the door-to-door campaign.

The bigger the district, the more volunteers you need - because a politician can't physically visit every house. But volunteers can.

The guy running against Rickert? Well, I never heard from him at all. I expect Rickert to win. As a matter of due diligence, I went out to the other guy's web site and checked him out. He too favors lower property taxes, but he tried to engage in some negative campaigning, I discovered. So Tamara and I gave the "A" for effort to Rickert, the guy who bothered to come to our door and traded a few email with me.

Electioneering takes work, and a strong pool of volunteers. There are no shortcuts.

I like that description. That describes me pretty well. I strongly support gay marriage, I am devoutly capitalist, I believe in individual freedom and limited government, and I'm definitely a fiscal conservative.

"Purple fiscal conservative" - that'll work.