The Unbankable Mittness of Being

Forgive my O’Reillyesque silliness. Actually, I stopped watching him months ago because I got sick of his bloviating self-promotion, and more importantly, his woefully uninformed commentary on various subjects including religion in general, Christianity in particular, and constant sniping at the tea party.

It’s really not a big deal, but it made me feel better. I thought of this while pondering Rick Santorum suspending his presidential campaign and after reading Robert Stacy McCain’s excellent article (link below).  Now I’ve always been a Bachmann supporter, but after Michelle Malkin endorsed Santorum, while noting his flaws, I decided if he was good enough for Malkin, he was good enough for me, figuring if he went all big government on us, Malkin would make him pay. Anyway, I wrote this in response to Robert Stacy McCain’s outstanding article regarding Fox being in the tank for Romney, how delegate numbers for Romney have been blown out of proportion and misrepresented, Newt’s ego, and how most assuredly Romney will lose in November. As McCain says, “Mitt makes Bob Dole and John McCain look like unbeatable juggernauts by comparison.” Please read McCain’s entire article. You won’t regret it…and follow his blog, The Other McCain, if you want to remain sane as we all watch the GOP implode over the next few months.

http://theothermccain.com/2012/04/11/memo-from-the-national-affairs-desk-foreboding-gloom-pervades-vanuatu/

 

 

There once was a candidate Mitt,

who the GOP establishment said was It.

He pandered severely,

but in the end, voters merely

Etch-A-Sketched his ass, to wit.

 

 

Like I said, it’s no big deal, but it makes me feel better. I’ve felt for a long time that Mitt was not the guy, that he was a big mistake, largely because of Romneycare. And what do you know? Today, Obama cheers the signing of Romneycare. Voters who continue to ignore this great big huge elephant in the room deserve to be squashed by it when it sits on them. Romney is a top-down, mandate-loving, big government solutions guy. How is that different than Obama? The fact is the Republican establishment, or elites, or whatever you want to call them, have shoved Romney down our throats which clearly demonstrates their foolishness, and more importantly, results in us not having a choice. There is no difference between Obama and Romney–you will get exactly the same thing…which also goes along with what I’ve been saying for some time…that there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats anymore. Every time there’s a ceiling hike, enough Republicans go along with it. Every time there’s a tax hike, enough Republicans go along with it and so on. (There was a good article recently documenting this…I’ll try and find it and post the link here.)  Some have even written that the Republican party, which seems unwilling to stand for anything anymore for fear of having to take some heat, is destined to go the way of the Whig party. I agree.  (I will post that link, too, shortly.)

I still believe that Michele Bachmann could have been the one to carry the banner to victory. She could have debated Obama ably. She’s a true conservative (there was that one little thing with the farm subsidy, but compared to all the rest of the candidates, that was peanuts). She’s smart, savvy, well spoken, informed. And yes, as a woman, the Republican party could have said, “See, the GOP isn’t the same old thing it’s always been.” (We have smartphones! We do social media!) But not surprisingly, the party establishment cut her off at the knees. Damn Palin, the Quitter. Damn DeMint and all the rest who could have made a difference. But apparently, the Republican party is the same old thing it’s always been. Such a shame…because it’s going down in flames on November 6th.

I would have voted for Santorum had he been the nominee, but will now write in Bachmann–because it doesn’t matter if either Obama or Romney wins.

 

 

 

 

 

Smokescreens on the water, and fire in the sky

http://connect.facebook.net/rsrc.php/v1/yQ/r/f3KaqM7xIBg.swf

http://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?api_key=113186182048399&app_id=113186182048399&channel_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df3baa66ba4f757%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fconservativeinca.wordpress.com%252Ff29d360e7d7017e%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&client_id=113186182048399&display=none&domain=conservativeinca.wordpress.com&locale=en_US&origin=1&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df1d52c30c3511a6%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fconservativeinca.wordpress.com%252Ff29d360e7d7017e%26relation%3Dparent%26transport%3Dpostmessage%26frame%3Df2d81650d9fef8&response_type=token%2Csigned_request%2Ccode&sdk=joey

http://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?api_key=113186182048399&app_id=113186182048399&channel_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df336ef82640d86c%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fconservativeinca.wordpress.com%252Ff29d360e7d7017e%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&client_id=113186182048399&display=none&domain=conservativeinca.wordpress.com&locale=en_US&origin=1&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df127f6f84de2679%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fconservativeinca.wordpress.com%252Ff29d360e7d7017e%26relation%3Dparent%26transport%3Dpostmessage%26frame%3Df396b65da863712&response_type=token%2Csigned_request%2Ccode&sdk=joey

http://www.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?api_key=113186182048399&app_id=113186182048399&channel_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df1c4cf5b11ad24%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fconservativeinca.wordpress.com%252Ff29d360e7d7017e%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&client_id=113186182048399&display=none&domain=conservativeinca.wordpress.com&locale=en_US&origin=1&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%3Fversion%3D3%23cb%3Df1c956801dca7ce%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fconservativeinca.wordpress.com%252Ff29d360e7d7017e%26relation%3Dparent%26transport%3Dpostmessage%26frame%3Df3fd0c5ab12d944&response_type=token%2Csigned_request%2Ccode&sdk=joey

Excuse me while I borrow from Deep Purple’s awesomeness and remember one of rock’s greatest guitar riffs.

Years ago, we were driving toward the south entrance of Yellowstone National Park past massive Yellowstone Lake one evening when we saw thick, gray smoke hovering on the water on the other side of lake, and above the smoke, seemingly floating in the sky, massive flames obscuring the hillsides to the east. Deep Purple’s Smoke on the Water immediately came to mind. With what’s going on regarding the latest manifestation of Obamacare mandates, I am reminded of that bizarre sight, and wonder if what we’re seeing is really what’s going on.

Following is a response I posted to a Human Events article by Rep. Charles Boustany and Rep. Phil Gingrey today which discusses not only the trampling on religious freedom that mandategate, as I like to call it, engenders, but also the abortifacient agenda it exposes.

 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49504

Once again, we have a terminology impasse: liberals keep trying to frame the issue in terms of women’s rights while most everyone else is framing it in terms of religious freedom. It reminds me of the post-Roe v. Wade era in which liberals were repeating the mantra about women’s rights, and everyone else was talking about life…which makes me think that it’s really not about contraception at all, but the morning after pill–and thus, abortion. Just in the way that we see a shift of more people being pro-life these days because of the pro-choice smokescreen being exposed for being the pro-abortion agenda it is, we need to expose how Obama tried to sneak in this abortifacient under the guise of contraception.

Representatives Boustany and Gingrey correctly point out the abortifacient aspects of the Obama contraception mandate. And while there certainly is the issue of religious freedom at issue, I believe that Obama is using the firestorm surrounding the religious aspect of the mandate to obscure his real agenda which is greater access to abortion at will under any circumstances. A pundit on one of the Sunday shows this last weekend spoke about liberals “worshipping at the altar of reproductive rights” (the latest, greatest euphemism for abortion), which Obama certainly does, for if nothing more, than to appease his leftist base.  On one hand, I find Obama’s enthusiastic support of abortion oddly counter to the social justice agenda he promotes, considering the path of destruction abortion has wreaked on the black community. Lloyd Marcus in an article yesterday in American Thinker points out not only Margaret Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood) call to exterminate the black community, but also reminds us of these chilling statistics:

“Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black  neighborhoods.  Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of  America’s aborted babies are black.  Half of black pregnancies end in  abortion.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/why_the_babies_why.html#ixzz1mOb6Qf5Q

On the other hand, Obama’s support for abortion is completely in line with his ideology.  And, he is an ideologue. And that is the real point here, that increased access to abortion is the goal.

I am not trying to minimize the importance of freedom of conscience as it relates to religion, I am simply saying that Obama is sitting back, bemused by all the Christians and evangelicals–who have united with Catholics–fussing over contraception. Thus, we saw him on Friday appear to soften, and subsequently, “compromise” by shifting the cost and dispensation of contraceptives (the smokescreen) and abortifacients (the real goal) to insurance companies which many pundits have called, accurately, a shell game. Was the heavy-handed, all-out mandate at the beginning a calculated effort to give him wiggle room that he already knew he’d fall back on? I wouldn’t be surprised. At any rate, we’re all still going to have pay for it through higher insurance premiums, taxes or fines–seared consciences be damned. He still gets exactly what he and his fellow Progressives/Statists want.

George Will commented this weekend about the Catholic bishops “getting what they deserve” for supporting Obamacare.  I don’t recall the bishops’ reasoning at the time for supporting Obamacare, but I remember thinking it was odd.  They should have known what greater government control of such a thing as health care would mean. It’s not rocket science.  Now, I don’t think it’s right to revel in someone “getting what they deserve”, but Will has a valid point in noting the bishops should have anticipated that with the individual mandate would come other mandates. And, with this latest manifestation of Obamacare, Stupak settling for an executive order was also revealed as a fool.

http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/02/13/george-will-catholic-bishops-got-what-they-deserved-for-supporting-obamacare/

Senator Santorum said it well in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox New Sunday on Feb. 5:

“…this is the problem when government tells you that they can give you things.  They can take it away. But even worse, they can tell you how they’re going to exercise this new right that they’ve given you, consistent with their values instead of the values guaranteed in our Constitution.

Transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/02/05/make-or-break-rick-santorum?page=2#ixzz1mOsI9efh

Video: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1435427278001/

Now, to that I give a hearty, “Amen!”

Too little, too late

A reply I posted to Erick Erickson’s article in Red State on the evangelical leaders voting to support Santorum. 

So sad…debating whether it’s about economics or social issues. Debating whether someone can win or not. Evangelicals had someone running who could tackle the economic and social issues and who could win: Bachmann.  But they blew it.  They sat on their hands…and their sexism…asked her to leave the race…wrote emails (Santorum) about how children would be harmed by her candidacy and how women didn’t belong in the Oval Office…and, frankly, blew it. Oh, and let’s not forget the undiluted damage done by evangelicals themselves, like Thune, a fellow Biola graduate, who endorsed Romney. I now have no doubt that the historic first of a woman president will go to the Democrats because they are not shackled by principle.

I didn’t support Bachmann because she is a woman. I supported this articulate, knowledgeable debater because she is solidly conservative and has a stellar record fighting the establishment. The fact that she is a woman is a bonus and offered the GOP the chance to say, “See, we aren’t doing the same old thing we’ve always done.” She was also the only one in the values forum who said in no uncertain terms that she asked Christ into her life. The others talked about their church membership. Perry came the next closest, but she was the only one who acknowledged that she was saved by grace.

Steve Deace, in a Townhall article in December said it well regarding why Christians haven’t had a single policy victory in over 30 years, “We debated who COULD win instead of who SHOULD win.” No matter who gets the nomination, I believe the Republican candidate will lose, and lose badly. Go ahead, blame me, but I have a feeling I won’t be the only one who won’t roll over and do the bidding of the GOP establishment, even in the face of another four years of Obama wrecking the country further. In 2008, I held my nose and voted for McCain. I can’t betray everything that I am again. I’m drawing a line in the sand. I cannot support any of the remaining candidates and will write in who SHOULD win.

Note:  Romney being Mormon has nothing to do with my non-support of him.  It has everything to do with Romneycare, my allergy to mandates, and his penchant for changing his position on virtually any subject based on how many votes it may get him. In other words, he is rudderless and doesn’t have a core of conviction (yes, I know, a not-so-subtle reference to Michele Bachmann’s book). As for Democrats not being “shackled by principle”, it’s meant to be sarcastic toward those evangelicals who may have rejected Bachmann “on principle” as a presidential candidate because she is a woman. And although many would scoff at such a notion, I believe there’s a lot more of it going on that one might  think.  So much for “too evangelical” Iowa. 

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/16/the-evangelical-vote/

The Evangelical Vote

Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

Monday, January 16th at 4:46AM EST

“The evangelical movement might have just sown the first seeds of division for 2016 — seeds that, like in 2008 and 2012, prevented evangelicals from getting one of their own the nomination.”

I had the privilege to attend the meeting of evangelicals in Texas this weekend.  Due to pressing matters before me Saturday I could not make the Saturday portion, but was there Friday hearing the advocacy for the candidates, the run down, etc.  I did not vote.

As with all meetings of Christian conservatives, we all pledge to have an off the record meeting and a handful of the sinners start leaking like sieves.  It is aggravating and typically why I never say a word in these meetings.

Since a few have decided to leak so many details from the meeting as background and anonymous sources, I want to clarify a few things from my perspective and I will do it decidedly on the record.

The first thing you need to know is that taking shots at Tony Perkins for his statements this weekend is both ignorant and wrong.  Tony was selected to speak for the group as a whole and he has done a tremendous job reflecting the views of the consensus whether they are his or not.  He didn’t really volunteer as much as he was chosen (I cannot have been the only Presbyterian there) and he has done his job ably.

The second thing you should note is that I personally view the state of the Christian conservative movement poorly.  It is such an honor and privilege to be in the same room with James Dobson.  Truth be told, I’ve been in the room with him several times and have yet to work up the courage to meet a man who has meant so much to my wife and me.  Hopefully I’ll work up the courage one of these days.

But Dobson and the other men and women in the room exemplify my problem with the state of the Christian conservative movement — it is getting really old and I do not yet see authentic, strong voices rising up to succeed these pioneers.  I take it as a good sign that these men picked Tony Perkins as their spokesman.  In the generation that bridges the gap, Perkins is one of the few honest brokers and genuinely authentic good guys in the evangelical community and conservative movement as a whole.

A great deal of the passionate, younger voices of the Christian conservative movement are focused on Christ and not politics.  While that’s a far better position to focus on, I fear the Christian conservative movement is going to be handed down to a few good young men and women surrounded by others with less sincere intentions — people who advocate people and positions in furtherance of things other than Christ’s Kingdom.  The up and comers will have to rely on men like Tony Perkins to avoid irrelevance and charlatans both.

The third thing you should know about this weekend is just how well the Gingrich and Santorum camps handled themselves and how poorly the Perry and Romney camps handled themselves.  I won’t even get into the advocacy on behalf of Ron Paul, which didn’t go well.

There was a decidedly sympathetic view toward Rick Santorum going into the meeting.  He has been one of the leading advocates for socially conservative views.  They like him on that.  I was, frankly, stunned that even when some of the people chosen to speak objectively about the field pointed out that this will be an election about economics, the crowd really was focused on social concerns.

I won’t go into quotes from the men who advocated for the various candidates.  Even on the record here, I want to respect the organizers’ wishes more than others have on background, but both Santorum’s advocate and Gingrich’s advocate (each candidate had someone to speak for them) did those men a great service.  The Santorum pitch was largely focused on what he had done for the movement, including for the babies.  The Gingrich pitch really reflected what Jonah Golberg wrote recently in his column about Newt.  If you think the end of the world is nigh, you want the Churchill, not the technocrat.

Rick Perry had a lot of supporters in the crowd, but too few who thought he could win and many who want him to get out and endorse Gingrich or possibly Santorum before South Carolina votes.  His advocate, a friend, was not as well prepared as the others, but many in the crowd did speak up for him.

The Romney advocacy did more harm than good and I think the biggest story to come out of this event has to be both the hostility between evangelicals and Team Romney and the absolute endorsement for “Not Romney.”

If you are reading this from the media, I think the story you should tell is that Mitt Romney will probably become the nominee of the Republican Party with even less good feelings between evangelicals and him than John McCain had.

The problem for Team Romney is that the distrust of Romney is overwhelmingly about his record and shiftiness, but the Romney campaign fundamentally believes it is about his religion.  When Team Romney concluded the pitch (read from an iPad seemingly without a passionate delivery) with an admonishment to not be an anti-Mormon bigot, it was game over.  Several of the attendees felt like the Romney campaign was almost implying that they’d win without evangelicals and would expect everyone to line up when it was over even without Romney reaching out.

Note to Team Romney: when you are in a room full of Christian leaders like those who were in that room and who have all long been attacked by the left as bigots, it is unwise — no, it is damn foolish — to accuse them of being anti-Mormon bigots, something too many Romney supporters have descended to as the only possible explanation for daring to not get on board with Romney.

It’s interesting that the outreach concerns are so universal.  Inside the conservative blogosphere, among social conservatives, and among specifically the evangelical community there is a great deal of concern that, unlike John McCain, once the Romney camp has it in the bag they’ll go off to woo independents and leave smoldering or un-repaired bridges back to the base.

As to the vote itself, there was a consensus, but not as strong as the reported vote would have you believe.  According to several I talked to who were still there for the vote, it was divided with many thinking Gingrich is the only one who can win and many not sure they want to hitch a wagon to the Gingrich train.  On this, there is no difference inside and outside the evangelical community.

What gets me is that given Rick Santorum’s polling in South Carolina, his funding and campaign apparatus, the admonition from one influential person that Santorum doesn’t have the campaign to run for President, etc. separate reports suggest a number of  people present decided to vote for Santorum not to beat Romney, but to be Romney’s running mate — something that most likely will not happen.

At this point, a vote for Santorum really does help Mitt Romney, but few are willing to acknowledge that.  When given the chance to beat Romney, I was kind of shocked by the people who were already reconciled to his win, though that was not the majority view.  Most want to fight till the end, fight to the convention, broker a convention, or do anything else to stop Romney.  But by voting for Santorum, the group largely undercut more serious efforts waged by Gingrich to stop Romney and, even more troubling if Romney is the nominee and loses, potentially sets up a claim by Rick Santorum, a man who will have been out of office a decade by then, to be the 2016 front runner.

In a year when we could possibly see Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Scott, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and others, the evangelical movement might have just sown the first seeds of division for 2016 — seeds that, like in 2008 and 2012, prevented evangelicals from getting one of their own the nomination.

That brings up a problem with the evangelical movement within the political sphere — it is often poorly advised on strategy and cuts short term deals that undermine long term goals.  But that’s a topic for another day.

As I read Erickson’s close, I can’t help but think of Deace’s article (again) in noting the failure of Christians to enjoy a single policy victory in over 30 years–that is, that Christians began to think of themselves as sovereign over the process, instead of God. I believe God will honor evangelicals’ votes if they put it in God’s hands. Maybe not in the way that evangelicals would like, perhaps. And, not in Erickson’s view apparently. He feels it lies entirely with strategy which has gotten us exactly nowhere in 30 years. I’ve thought for a long time that the way we’re going to change people’s minds regarding abortion is by bringing them to the saving knowledge of Christ–one heart at a time. Perhaps that applies to politics in general as well. When Christians were being killed in the Roman arenas, some may have prayed that God would destroy the arenas, or even the rulers and raise up one of their own, but instead, history saw a slow implosion and contraction of an entire political empire–in stunning comparison to the explosive spread of the message of Jesus. God heard the pleas of the oppressed, I believe, and answered them, but definitely not in the way that any human may have guessed. 

Days until Obama is reelected: 303 UPDATE: 296

Thanks, Iowa, you really manned up.

With Bachmann out, America has lost its last, best chance for beating Obama. What are we left with? The same old tired candidates the Republican party has always offered up, demonstrating that Republicans have not learned a thing from 2008, and are utterly unable to think, or vote outside the White Male Candidate box.  It doesn’t matter who they put up, Republicans are toast. Is it really any stretch of the imagination that Obama’s campaign can easily point to any of the remaining Republicans (and I’m not including Huntsman, who is a Democrat, or Paul is who is a foreign policy nightmare) might become the nominee and say that person’s administration won’t be the same old establishment thing the Republicans have always done? Gee, I wonder how many undecided voters will find that appealing. With the whiners still crying about 2000′s “illegal” election, they’ll lap that up and the p2s will tweet that ad infinitum. #sameoldthing. Barring a disaster that again showcases Obama’s ineptitude and inertness, he will easily win reelection. I believe Romney’s defeat will be spectacular, something on the order of Dukakis’.

No, I don’t support Bachmann because she is a woman.  I support her because she most closely reflects my views and she has a solid record of fighting the establishment. Furthermore, she’s authentic, inspirational, knowledgeable and articulate and never had an oops moment in a debate. The fact that she is a woman offered the Republican party something new and fresh that would show that the GOP isn’t the #sameoldthing. Cain, who I don’t believe was ready to be president, also offered that glimmer of hope.

However, I have come to realize that sexism in the Republican party is rampant and perhaps, insurmountable.  I recently learned that Santorum’s campaign sent out an email (after Bachmann’s announcement) noting, in so many words, a woman’s proper place remained in the home and not in the Oval Office. To say that makes my blood boil is mild. If I was unsure about Santorum before, which I was, I’m sure now that I would never vote for him–and yes, even against Obama (mostly because I believe voting against someone never works, just voting for someone). Coupled with the pastors who asked her to step down…I’m beside myself. Nowhere does the Bible say that women shouldn’t be in leadership. Deborah, anyone? While rare, it’s not forbidden. The only thing the Bible specifically speaks to is that women should not exercise scriptural or spiritual authority over men, in other words, doing scriptural exposition in mixed groups that include men. We have women speak in our church all the time.  As long as they’re not interpreting scripture with men sitting in the audience, I don’t have a problem with it.

These pastors who asked her to stand down are the worst kind of sexists. You expect the rest of the world to be sexist, but Christians achieve the greatest freedom through Christ. Evangelicals should have been enthusiastically behind Bachmann 100%.  So much for Iowa being “too evangelical”. As a side note, the fact that Iowa went with Romney, who wasn’t supposed to do anything in Iowa and instead, won, tells me that Iowa has become much more moderate and/or secular since four years ago when Huckabee won. Furthermore, the deafening silence toward and lack of support of Bachmann from supposed conservative warriors like DeMint, or Thune, a fellow Biola graduate who endorsed Romney, sickens me. 

There’s only one other person I’ve supported who has demonstrated a similar unwavering commitment to conservative values, and that is Chuck DeVore (@chuckdevore on Twitter) who has literally been the lone wolf decrying and voting against bloated, tax-raising, earmarked California budgets as a state assemblyman. And when he ran for the U.S. Senate, who endorsed unknown, big-business ”electable” candidate Carly Fiorina over DeVore?  Santorum and Palin. And that’s why Santorum and Palin are both on my will-never-support list.  When Santorum had a chance to show what he’s made of and endorse a true conservative with a solid record, he went with the “electable” one who went on to lose badly to that scourge on society, Barbara Boxer. And so, folks, Santorum’s like all the rest of ‘em. These days, DeVore is moving to Texas for better opportunities. As California descends into the septic tank of liberal, anti-business, exponential regulatory and tax bloat policies, it’s Texas’ gain and California’s loss.

I am re-registering as a conservative because one, the election is already lost, and two, Republicans are hopelessly mired in the past.  I have no doubt the first woman president will not be a Republican. The Democrats will easily claim that historic first because they are not shackled by principle. This election, there is literally no one for me to vote for. Four years ago, at the urging of family and friends who said look at the alternative, I held my nose and voted for McCain.  I can’t do that this time.  I just can’t.  As for me, Steve Deace said it well in a townhall.com article, we “debated who could win instead of who should win.”

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2011/12/03/we_wont_get_fooled_againor_will_we/page/full/

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2012/01/03/will-president-obama-fool-america-again/

Will President Obama Fool America Again?

By Aaron Goldstein, on January 3rd, 2012

To paraphrase Pete Townshend of The Who, “Meet the new year; same as the old year.” (1)

That was my reaction to Andy McCarthy’s New Years Eve article at National Review Online about President Obama recruiting Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi to mediate secret peace talks between the United States and the Taliban. (2) As McCarthy notes Qaradawi issued a fatwa exhorting Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Iraq.

For President Obama to ask Qaradawi to act in America’s interests in Afghanistan would be like asking Hell’s Angels to provide security at a White House concert; asking Michael Vick to take Bo out for a walk or asking Jerry Sandusky to babysit prepubescent male children.

But even if Obama hadn’t sought out Qaradawi that still leaves the secret negotiations with the Taliban. The idea that our armed forces spent more than ten years fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan only for President Obama to legitimize and leave with them in power in the vain hope that they, like the Muslim Brotherhood, will become a largely secular organization is an insult to our military’s duty, heroism and sacrifice. It would be like our forces leaving Japan with Tojo still in power after bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then again, it was President Obama who wanted to apologize to Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 2009. (3) Fortunately, the Japanese government had the good sense to put the kibosh on such impropriety and imprudence.

Suffice it to say, I am not surprised that President Obama sees fit to negotiate with the Taliban nor I am surprised that Obama thought it a good idea to ask Sheikh Qaradawi to intercede. After all, this is the President who was prepared to engage Iran, North Korea and Venezuela without precondition. This is the President whose administration saw fit to give guns to Mexican drug cartels. This is the President who thought it sensible to give in excess of half a billion dollars to the sinkhole known as Solyndra to manufacture overpriced solar panels no one wanted to buy. This is also the President who has accumulated more debt in less than three years in office than all his predecessors accumulated in 220 years.

And yet in ten months time, Americans might very well see fit to bestow Obama with another four years in office. Although Obama’s Gallup numbers are lower than those of Jimmy Carter at this stage of his Presidency, the White House’s current resident has some things going for him. As Charles Lane of The Washington Post notes:

On the plus side for Obama, majorities continue to like him personally and to describe him as honest and trustworthy. His foreign-policy ratings are strong, blunting the GOP’s traditional edge in that department. The man who presided over the demise of Osama bin Laden scored a phenomenal 63 percent approval rating on fighting terrorism in an early November Gallup poll. (4)

I would add to that a billion dollar war chest and a media that, despite its disappointment with him, is still largely sympathetic to his agenda. Put together, these assets are considerable and may prove to be insurmountable for any Republican challenger to overcome. At this point, Mitt Romney is considered the odds on favorite to win the GOP nomination despite the fact a critical mass of the conservative movement is at odds with him both personally and substantively. Yet with one Republican challenger after the other rising and falling while Romney stays steady, GOP activists might very well settle for the former Massachusetts Governor. But even if Republicans settle for Romney that doesn’t mean the rest of the country will be prepared to do the same.

Then again what if Ron Paul decides to run as a third party candidate should he fail to win the Republican nomination? Nothing would delight the Obama campaign more because not only would Paul’s presence help Obama in November he would make Obama look like Abraham Lincoln.

Of course it was Lincoln who famously said, “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Yet President Obama doesn’t need to fool all of the people to get re-elected. Whatever the sheer stupidity of negotiating with the Taliban, allowing Sheikh Qaradawi to mediate the negotiations, allowing weapons to get into the hands of Mexican drug cartels or accumulating record levels of debt, there will be a segment of the population that will not know or will not care about such details. They will only remember that Obama gave the order to kill Osama bin Laden even if Team Six did the heavy lifting. Even though bin Laden’s killing doesn’t end the threat of Islamic radical terrorism against the United States; for an American public weary of war, it might be just enough to get Obama over the finish line.

The big question facing America in 2012 is whether President Obama will be able to fool us again?

(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

(2) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286854/obama-recruits-qaradawi-andrew-c-mccarthy

(3) http://news.investors.com/Article/587698/201110111829/Apologies-Not-Accepted.htm

(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gloomy-numbers-for-obama/2012/01/02/gIQAuGI3WP_story.html

.
Aaron Goldstein writes about the things that pique his insatiable curiosity. In addition to politics, he is an aficionado of baseball, poetry, music and ketchup flavored potato chips. Aaron satiates his various appetites in Boston. | Aaron Goldstein | aargold24@hotmail.com | Print | Category: Politics: General, Culture: Government, Elections & Political Parties, Terrorism, War on Terror

Why I’m voting for Michele Bachmann

Steve Deace, in this Town Hall article,  makes a strong case here for voting for the candidate who has been the most faithful, who has shown the most conviction–which is why I’ve been drawn to supporting Michele Bachmann from the beginning. This article has given me the confidence to go with what I’ve been feeling for some time in view of the numerous articles,  pundits, and Fox News hosts frantically predicting the future while urging voters to move to the center and vote for the most electable.

Deace points out that as Christians (or, as I like to call myself, evangelical) we haven’t experienced a single policy victory in 30 years. Why? He says it’s because Christians started to believe that they were sovereign over the process, not God.  In 2008, I held my nose and voted for McCain, at the urging of my then 18-year-old, who reasoned McCain was better than the alternative. I’ve felt uneasy about it ever since, and the 2008 results almost seem to cry out as a testament that mine wasn’t the only heart that wasn’t in it. There are some Christian sources that argue there is some validity to voting for “the lesser of two evils”, that is, at least some evil is restrained…which some believe is better than none.  But Deace makes a point that in voting for the most faithful, the one with the most conviction–which in his opinion (and mine) is Michele Bachmann–that God will honor that and that we as Christians must trust that God has everything under control, despite the fact that the outcome might not be what we want it to be.

As for me? I’m with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Thank you, Steve Deace, for giving me the confidence to stick with my convictions.

http://townhall.com/

http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2011/12/03/we_wont_get_fooled_againor_will_we/page/full/

Steve Deace

We Won’t Get Fooled Again…or Will We?

            12/3/2011

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

Proverbs 25:26

For the past three years I have worked on a book project dealing with the 30-year failure of the Religious Right to win on a single policy issue despite all of the elections its won, the money its raised, and the headlines its generated.

Titled We Won’t Get Fooled Again: Where the Christian Right Went Wrong and How to Make America Right Again, the book features interviews with several leading figures in the Christian Conservative movement, answering questions about why the country is worse off than it was before the movement trying to save it even began.

After concluding this project I learned several reasons why a generation of Christian political engagement tragically failed to accomplish any of its goals, but one conclusion stands above the rest.

We put a corrupted process ahead of faithfulness.

Christians acted as if they were sovereign over the process, and not God. We forgot Founding Father John Adams’ wise axiom that “duty is ours but outcomes belong to God.” We behaved as if God is powerless to act until we do, and then arrogantly presumed He would bless those faithless actions because our intentions were obviously so good.

That pagan paradigm gave way to some stinking-thinking. We debated who could win instead of who should win. We supported candidates with positions, and not candidates with convictions. Because of this we have been fooled time and time again by well-funded sellouts and weak-kneed opportunists. As a result, we have not only sadly misspent at least some of our Christian integrity in the political arena in full view of the American people, but have also needlessly wasted valuable time pursuing a Faustian bargain for a seat at a very wobbly table.

In concert with the Republican Party establishment repeatedly turning its back on its own base and its own platform, we have at least been unintentional accomplices to the cannibalizing of our own efforts to preserve our freedoms and liberties for future generations. Which is why in the end we always seem to get more big government, more depravity on demand (a lot of it subsidized), and more of what the radical left wants even when the Republicans win.

By going for “the winner” as opposed to the most faithful, we (and our children’s futures) often end up being the biggest loser.

The main reason rewarding faithfulness should matter to Christians is because the Bible is clear that God rewards faithfulness, and He doesn’t necessarily covet the same qualities we the people do.

His master said to him, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.”

Our national anthem puts it this way:

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”

The Christian faith is unique to all religions in world history, because it doesn’t base its claims on teachings, doctrines, or creeds. Rather, it bases its teachings, doctrines, and creeds on the objective truth of a supernatural act by posing this question: did God supernaturally intervene in human history by raising His Son from the dead or did He not?

When Christians act faithlessly (like follow polls and fundraising numbers more than their principles) they act contrary to their own faith. God commands faith with works, not works with faith. We are to do what God wants us to do and the way He wants us to do it, and then trust that a God who loves us enough to offer up His own Son in our place will see fit to bless our obedience.

Some of you reading this will bristle at the very notion of rewarding faithfulness with pleas for pragmatism. However, what could be more pragmatic then basing your decisions off of the example set by a sovereign God who is undefeated for all of eternity?

Besides, there is ample evidence that this pragmatism isn’t pragmatism defined as doing what works at all, but really defeatism at a slower pace. For a generation Christians have practiced this defeatist paradigm, and what do we have to show for it? Is the government any smaller? Is the culture any less secular? If you know a tree by its fruit, then this tree is in dire need of a good pruning.

So what do we do when our choices in the general election are the lesser of two evils? Simple, you take part in primaries to ensure you don’t have to make that choice. Take this presidential primary for example.

There are several good candidates running, and I’m still an undecided voter myself. But there is one candidate running whose worldview lines up almost completely with my own. This is also the only candidate that doesn’t have a YouTube’s greatest hits of flip-flops, tough-to-justify endorsements of pro-infanticide RINOs, a comfy couch moment with Nancy Pelosi, nor any hint of scandal.

That candidate is Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann didn’t cave on the debt ceiling fiasco, she didn’t cave on the unconstitutional (illegal?) TARP, and she’s never caved on life and marriage when it came time to go on record as a lawmaker. Frankly, she’s shown more chutzpah than most of her male contemporaries. Instead of blogging about who can win or playing wannabe king-maker, this modern day Deborah deserves an “atta girl” from some of the men she’s shown more principled and determined leadership than.

That’s not to say Bachmann’s principles alone qualify her for the presidency, but it’s a good place to start. Sure, she still needs to better and more specifically explain how her principles will shape the way she governs going forward, and she needs to explain the implosion of her campaign following her victory in the Iowa Straw Poll. Being a good president is just as much about administrative capability as it is moral consistency.

But no other Republican presidential candidate running this cycle has been more consistently faithful as a public servant both in their personal and public life, so she at least deserves every opportunity to make her case to the voters before we move on to the “more electable” candidates and potentially get fooled again.

By the way, as for those “more electable candidates” here’s something to consider. In the last 10 years Bachmann has won seven truly contested elections – including becoming the first woman ever elected to Congress from Minnesota – if you count the Iowa Straw Poll. How does that stack up with a few of her campaign rivals?

Rick Perry: 4 (2002 Texas governor’s race, 2006 Texas governor’s race, 2010 Texas gubernatorial primary, and the 2010 Texas governor’s race)

Mitt Romney: 3 (2002 Massachusetts governor’s race, 2007 Iowa Straw Poll, and the 2008 Michigan presidential primary)

Herman Cain: 0

Newt Gingrich: 0

Rick Santorum: 0

Are there things Bachmann has said and done I do disagree with? Absolutely! Heck, there are things I’ve said or done that I now disagree with. Nobody’s perfect, so there’s no need to make the perfect the enemy of the good. But we’re not looking for perfection. We’re looking for integrity, which I define as a moral consistency between belief and behavior. It’s pretty clear that Bachmann has that integrity, which is why she has also been found faithful.

Maintaining that integrity is more important than ever, because the clock is ticking on our civilization. Historically-speaking, nations that embrace the moral and financial bankruptcy crippling this nation don’t last very long. We do not have another generation to waste on bargaining with an ineffective and immoral system that seeks to snuff out all virtue at all times We need to challenge this failed system with integrity, and stop pouring new wine into old wineskins.

It is vital that we as Christians cease playing the political process game that has led to us being fooled time and time again, and instead do what is right no matter what the politicians, the pollsters, or the people around us are pressuring us to do.

We can start by supporting candidates that have proven their faithfulness, regardless of what those unfaithful to our Constitution and “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” try to tell us to do. Why would we take advice on how to do what’s right from those who don’t know right from wrong?

Steve Deace

Steve Deace is nationally-syndicated each weeknight from 9-Midnight EST by the Salem Radio Network. His radio program has been featured in major media such as Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Politico, The Weekly Standard, and National Review among others. He has been a columnist for World Net Daily and the Washington Times, and is now a contributor for Town Hall.com.

Beloved Riser

We are mourning the loss of our dear, sweet pet of 14-1/2 years, Riser. If what is said about “dog” years is right, then he was 101-1/2 years old!

I’ve come to the conclusion that animals, particularly the ones we love as pets, enrich our lives much more than, perhaps, we enrich theirs. Pets make us better people. Now, as I wander around the house or the yard, I remember his presence in various spots, including some of his favorite spots, the way he would hold his head, or how he would come up and lay his slobbery muzzle on the knees of my pants if I was sitting down. How I long for that slobbery muzzle now so I could pet the top of his head and tell him how much I love him. I remember how when he knew it was time to eat,  he would stand at the door waiting for me to let him out, and if I took too long preparing his food, he would look back at me like, “What’s taking you so long?” I’d say to him, “I know, I know.  I’m slow.  I’m coming.” How I long for those little moments.

I was reading in the Bible recently, I can’t remember which book, where it talks about how God didn’t give the ostrich “understanding”.  And while I know that Riser didn’t really understand what I was saying, I think he certainly could understand the tone in my voice.  I think they can sense caring, too.  I don’t really know at what level, but I think he knew we cared for him, certainly his physical needs, but perhaps at a deeper level, too?  I don’t know.  The Bible also says God cares for the sparrow that falls.  How much more for a beloved pet?

Thankfully, he was relatively healthy his entire life and didn’t have to deal with the big things, like cancer.  Early in his life when we would go for walks he would pull constantly.  Then, about 7 years ago when arthritis started to affect my mobility, it was difficult for me to take him on walks because of the pulling. Then, as arthritis set in for Riser,  he started to slow down, and in the last few months, I was even walking ahead of him at times. We were buddies and we’d often “chat” lately about how it’s tough getting older.

No–and I even hesitate to say this–but he wasn’t perfect. He used to jump up on people all the time when he was younger, which was kind of cute when he was a puppy. But when he was 70 pounds and he outweighed many of my daughter’s friends when she was young, it wasn’t so cute.  We spent many years trying to teach him not to jump up, and eventually he got better about it. He used to eat everything, too. He ate entire loaves of sourdough bread, rolls of paper towels, paper plates, socks, along with more unsavory things, some of which made him sick, and which one time led to him having to have surgery to remove an obstruction from his stomach.

It is the journey, I think. The journey through life, if you’re lucky, with a beloved pet. My daughter says he was with her for 2/3rds of her life.  He was with us through the second half of our marriage, currently at 29 years, and about  1/4 of my life.  It’s not the numbers, though.  It’s the time we spent with him. And I spent a lot of time with him. There were the “mundane” things: feeding him, being outside with him, giving him his eye medicine, giving him treats, picking up after him so he wouldn’t eat, oh, you know, something he shouldn’t. But there was also watching tv with him and having him keep putting his head under one hand or the other so we’d continue petting him. His smile.  (Yes, he smiled!) Walking with him. Cooking dinner with him under my feet expectantly waiting for something to fall to the floor. How good he smelled after a bath.  How he would jump in the pool with us if we were in it.  How he didn’t like the rain or going outside in bad weather. How he only barked his deep, rich barrel-chested bark on rare occasions. How, when we were grieving over a loss, he was the unconditional listener. How “fetch” to Riser was getting the toy and then keeping it away from us. His favorite spots where he liked us to scratch him. How unique and distinctive the red tone to his fur was and how people would often remark about it. How he couldn’t get close enough to us and would lean on us like he was going to melt into us. There are a million other little moments and memories of Riser that I will treasure.

When we were at the vet’s office, I expressed the thought that I didn’t know if it was Biblical, but I wondered if we would see our pets in heaven. Riser’s veterinarian, who took care of him his entire life and who is a Christian, expressed that C.S. Lewis thought we would. I found comfort in that.  I looked up a few things online on the subject, and I saw a number of commentaries on it. The bottom line is there is nothing in the Bible that specifically speaks to it, but some theologians feel there are passages that can be cobbled together that would indicate that we will. One of the things that speaks to me is that God knows the longings in our hearts.  And yes, I long to see our Riser again. Of course, it goes without saying that I long to see the believers and family members who have passed before me, but yes, I also want to see Riser, give him a big bear hug and bury my head in his fur again.  And yes, see him smile.

I love you, Riser.  I will miss you terribly.