For years now I’ve noticed how the left works off talking points.  One day you hear some theme and suddenly it’s everywhere, virtually word for word.  Whether it was “the politics of personal destruction” or “Republican corruption” it was clear that every Democrat talking head was working from the same play book, using virtually identical verbiage.  But I never really noticed Republicans doing it.

Suddenly I’ve become very aware of the very same thing on the right.  For several weeks it’s been lock step slamming of Huckabee with virtually the same language.  I noticed the consistency a couple of weeks ago but today I noticed a new twist and it follows the exact same pattern the left uses.

On caucus night I noticed that Laura Ingraham started calling Huckabee a populist.  Then she tied Huckabee to Obama with the populist label.  Since then I’ve seen the same language used by virtually every commentator on the right, including the comparison between Huckabee and Obama. 

Earlier this evening Laura Ingraham was filling in for Bill O’Reilly on FOX News.  She coined a new term, Barack-abee, saying Huckabee and Obama are both populists and implying that there is no difference between them.  Later this evening, on the way to the store, I was listening to the Rusty Humphries show on the radio.  He followed the same pattern but he took it a step further.  Humphries made the statement that populism always leads to something like Nazism.

The level of the rhetoric is escalating.  I mentioned in a previous post that I thought the tone was moderating.  It appeared so on caucus night but that is most certainly not the case.  I don’t know who’s writing the talking points but whoever it is is definitely afraid of Huckabee.  I can’t remember there ever being such a concerted effort on the right to derail a Republican.  And if they can’t do it with the facts they are perfectly willing to resort to demagoguery.  That’s just what this is.

I have no problem with anyone who has made up their mind for someone other than Huckabee.  After all, we’re all different and not everyone is going to agree.  But I have a real problem with demagogues whether they’re on the left or the right.  And I’m rapidly losing respect for a number of commentators on the right whom I’ve previously had tremendous respect for.  If Rush jumps on the same bandwagon come Monday I may have to give up talk radio altogether.

I’ve been a fan of jetBlue for some time.  They’ve driven the cost of commercial air travel down and that’s a good thing.  Like Wal-Mart, they’ve been a huge benefit to consumers.  But all that has changed for me now.

It seems that jetBlue is a sponsor of the yearly KOS convention.  You know, the web site that promotes views like the world would be better off without Tony Snow when he came up with cancer again.  Or how about promoting the idea that radical Islamic fascists have a right to attack US forces?  Or the Pope is a primate?  Or “better luck next time” when there was an assassination attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney?

jetBlue has had its problems and last year it nearly went belly up.  Still, I supported them because they benefited consumers.  Now, the new CEO has decided that the way to promote his airline is to get in bed with radical leftist web sites.  I think they’ve made a huge mistake.

Ford Motor Company has been sinking for over a year because of a boycott sponsored by the American Family Association due to Ford’s sponsorships of gay events.  But Ford is big enough to take it for a while.  JetBlue isn’t.  I can tell you that I will fly ANY airline except jetBlue.  There is no chance at all that I will spend my hard earned money with a company that actively supports such extremism.  And I think lots of other people will agree with me and vote with their wallets.

I’m not the sort to go after someone because they don’t agree with my views.  I’m a fan of Google, even though Google is clearly run by liberals.  But there is a line between holding differing opinions and promoting hate of the sort that DailyKos spews every day.  The DailyKos may be a very successful web site but that doesn’t change the fact that they are sickos who want to see America destroyed.  They don’t just hold a different opinion.  They want all those who disagree with them to die!  And they aren’t shy about saying so!  I don’t care how broad the exposure is, I could never ethically justify sponsoring such a web site just to advertise my product or company.  jetBlue clearly thinks it’s okay.  What do you think?

UPDATE:

Thanks to Jenn Sierra for tipping me to this update on billoreilly.com.  It seems that jetBlue has changed its position.  According to the article, jetBlue has a long history of supporting the troops.

So it appears that there is a happy ending to this one.  jetBlue has seem the error of its ways.  I suspect that the sponsorship was the result of a lack of knowledge of what the DailyKos actually is.  Now they know!

If there is one thing President Bush has placed a premium on it is loyalty. He expects those in his administration to be loyal to him. And he has expected the rank and file of the Republican Party to be loyal to him. The problem is, he doesn’t see the need to return that loyalty.

Conservatives like me have stood by the President in spite of some pretty awful stuff. Take No Child Left Behind or his signing of Campaign Finance Reform or the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. In spite of these many things that were hardly conservative, we’ve stood by our President.

Now, when both Republicans and Democrats have a big problem with Comprehensive Immigration Reform, is the President willing to be loyal to those who have consistently supported him? Not on your life. He doesn’t even allow that our’s could be principled opposition. Instead, the President, McCain, Graham, et.al., characterize us as xenophobes and bigots.

I scratch my head every day wondering why the President and others in the Republican Party are so determined to jam this through no matter how much opposition there is. I can understand that the Republican Party does not want to be seen as anti-Hispanic. But in the end the President and his cadre are doing two things that are extremely harmful to the future prospects of the party.

First, they are jamming a wedge into the party. Some have characterized it as tearing the party apart and that may be an accurate description. There is a war within the Republican Party today and it is being waged primarily by President Bush and his accomplices. They are at war with the rank and file of the party and that does not bode well the Republican prospects in ‘08.

Second, it is virtually indisputable that the vast majority of current illegals that ultimately become voting citizens will be Democrat voters. Clearly Ted Kennedy and the Democrat Party understand this. That’s why they’re willing to stand up to the unions on this issue. It takes something that big for the Democrat Party to stand up to unions.

The bottom line is, Republicans are screwed for a generation or more if this travesty of a piece of legislation makes it into law. Why then is the President doing it? Why is he willing to demagogue this issue? Why does he feel justified in calling those of us who oppose this xenophobes and bigots when he knows full well that isn’t true?

The only thing I can figure is the President is working on his legacy. He is as much a lame duck President as any ever was. His popularity is in the tank and it’s likely to go lower still with no rebound in sight unless there is a dramatic turnaround in Iraq. But if he can ram this down our throats he will be the President that dealt with the immigration problem. That’s what he’s counting on. The President wants his legacy and he’s willing to sell us out to get it! To hell with loyalty to the party or his supporters at the polls. His legacy takes precedence over loyalty. So tell me, why should anyone hold any loyalty to him?

I’ve never believed that Bush was a conservative. During his 2000 run I was not impressed and did not voter for him in the primary. But he got the nomination and I voted for him in the general election. Again in 2004 I voted for him just like millions of conservatives all across America who held their noses and checked off his name. We got some good for it. We got some good justices on the Supreme Court and we got tax cuts. But there is little else to show for our support.

I am finished being loyal to President Bush or any other Republican who puts his own interests ahead of his constituents. Lindsey Graham certainly falls into that category. Let this be a warning to Republican officials and candidates. We conservatives are not willing to be your lapdogs any longer. If you think I’m some lone malcontent, think again. There are many more just like me who will not continue to vote for you if you are unwilling to take a stand for conservative principles. We want to see a victory in ‘08. We don’t want to see Hilary in the White House. But we will not be lemmings. If you expect loyalty from us you’d better be prepared to be loyal to us!

I can’t begin to describe my emotions upon hearing the collective stream of BS coming from the Senate Floor. Senator after Senator took the floor to describe their wonderful immigrant ancestors. The message was clear. All of us who oppose the rising tide of illegal immigrants remaining here legally are actually opposed to ALL immigration. We don’t understand what this country was built on. We are bigots and xenophobes.

Listening to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter tell about his father and brother immigrating here was just wonderful. What an inspiring story. But what on Earth does it have to do with the situation at hand? Specter’s father and brother immigrated here legally. They came here, submitted to processing, filled out the paperwork and followed our immigration laws. They learned English and worked to assimilate into American society.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham did precisely the same thing last week. The video is below in this blog. He talked about a Hispanic guy in the Air Force that was an inspiration to him. Great! No problem! Does anyone believe that Hispanic man in the Air Force was an illegal alien? Did he sneak across our border and join the Air Force? Of course not. If he was an immigrant at all he was a legal immigrant.

This in contrast to the ever growing flood of illegal aliens crossing our borders. They are not interested in becoming Americans. They have no desire to learn English or assimilate into American society. Mostly they want to take advantage of the services offered here and send money back to their home countries. Did you know that one of the biggest aspects of the Mexican economy is money sent home from America? That’s certainly one reason the Mexican government has been so opposed to any effort on our part to do something about the border.

The Congress can’t seem to understand why the American public doesn’t trust them on this. Could it be that we have been here before? We were told we’d have border security with the immigration reform in the ’80s. Did we get it? Does 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country look like we got it?

Now, rather than engage in an honest debate, they prefer to lie about those of us who oppose this measure. They say we are bigots and xenophobes. They do not acknowledge that there is a difference between illegal and legal immigration. In short, they lie to support their position and, apparently, they believe that if they lie long enough we will buy the lie. Small wonder we don’t trust Congress!

If you guys in the Congress want to gain some credibility, stop trying to shove this sham of a bill down our throats and instead, ENFORCE OUR CURRENT LAWS!! If you do that consistently for a period of time, you might just build up a little credibility. But so long as you insist on playing politics with the American people, so long as they continue to lie and mischaracterize those of us who oppose their position, they have no credibility.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to change though. Graham, Specter, McCain and all the rest of the Republicans pushing so hard on this issue are not concerned with what we, the people they represent, think. They somehow think that doing this will enhance their future electability. As for Graham, I think he’s angling for the VP spot with McCain. The problem for Graham is, McCain doesn’t stand a chance of getting the nomination and Graham doesn’t stand a chance of keeping his Senate seat in ‘08. His political career as a Republican is all but over. He is already a lame duck and he is blind to the fact.

I can think of no better reason for resurrecting the issue of term limits. Career politicians are the biggest problem in this country. They are far less concerned with what is actually best for this country than they are about the next election. So long as power is the motivating factor, do not expect most of our elected officials to actually honor their promises and act in an ethical, principled manner.

I was on the phone with my father in Georgia last night. He’s been a big supporter of Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. But Chambliss is one of those Republicans working so hard to sell out this country. My dad can’t believe it! I don’t know what all the backroom deals have been. I know President Bush is looking for a legacy in a lame duck presidency and who can imagine what he has promised to Republicans who toe the line on this.

Here’s what I do know. If Republicans allow this legislation to become law, the Republican party is finished for the foreseeable future. All of Harry Reid’s predictions of massive Democrat Gains in the Senate will come to pass. Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House for the next ten years at least. Maybe a solid conservative like Fred Thompson will be able to pull out the White House, I don’t know. But I’d lay odds that we will again be saying President Clinton and that is a future I don’t relish.

Finally, if this legislation becomes law, the Democrat party will be the ultimate winner. The vast majority of the illegal aliens in this country are already indebted to Democrats for the services they currently receive. The Democrats will continue with their vote buying legislative agenda. It could be a generation or more before the Republican party can recover, if them. Why congressional Republicans can’t see that simple fact is quite beyond me.

Sorry but I stole that headline from Family Research Council. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has said the decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the federal partial birth abortion ban should have included O’Connor instead of Alito. The clear implication is that it would have been decided the other way under such circumstances. But Reid has repeatedly described himself as pro-life. Indeed, every time there has been an opportunity to vote on a partial birth abortion ban, Reid has voted in favor of. Reid, in fact, voted for the very law the Supreme Court ruled on in this case. So Reid apparently wants it both ways. He wants to go on record as support pro-life legislation but he doesn’t actually want such legislation to become law.

On another front, Reid again shot himself in the foot. This week at the National Press Club Reid said that the war in Iraq is lost.

So Reid believes that the war is lost and the the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State know this to be true. At the same time, Reid does not support withdrawing funding for the war. This is the height of hypocrisy and Harry Reid is on the verge of committing treason. Democrats in general have constantly engaged in activity that encourages our enemies for the purpose of consolidating political power. Now Reid has given considerable aid and comfort to our enemies by declaring that we have lost this war.

Harry Reid is either a moron or he is so consumed with political power that he will do and say anything to gain it. Either way he has no business being in the Senate. His constituents should do whatever it takes to replace him. Tom Daschle discovered that there was a price to pay for demagoguery and it is high time his replacement made the same discovery.

It’s been a little while since I wrote a purely political post and now it is time. I received an email today from Bobby Harrell, Speaker of the House in the South Carolina Legislature. He was enthusiastic over John McCain’s win in the Spartanburg straw poll on Thursday. It seems that as of Thursday even McCain was a distant third but by the time all the votes had been counted Friday morning, McCain had won by two points.

Speaker Harrell goes on to promote McCain as a conservative. My question is, what is Speaker Harrell’s definition of conservative?

It seems that the term conservative, much like many other terms in our day, has undergone a redefinition. Apparently it no longer means committed to limited government. It no longer means being dedicated to the Constitution of the United States, as written. If John McCain can be considered a conservative then the very word conservative has lost its meaning altogether.

You will remember that McCain, in his misguided attempts to blame his own shortcomings on others, managed to bulldoze through McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. That legislation represents the single biggest assault on constitutionally protected political speech in my lifetime, perhaps ever! But Senator McCain was convinced that we needed it. In fact, he is not satisfied to stop there and now wants to go after the 521s that resulted from his previous legislation.

What McCain has done is make it more difficult for anyone to challenge incumbents while severely limiting the ability of individuals to make their voices heard when it comes to politics. If the First Amendment’s free speech clause protects anything, it protects political speech in all forms but John McCain, apparently, disagrees or doesn’t care. His view of things takes precedence over the Constitution it seems.

John McCain, who has worked hard to build his reputation as a maverick, is anything but a conservative. He is an opportunist. He wants to be President and has done everything in his power to keep his face in the news to that end. His protege, Lindsey Graham, is following close in his footsteps. Neither is a conservative and neither will ever have my support.

I still subscribe to a more traditional definition of conservative. I believe in limited government and individual responsibility to go along with individual rights. I believe, as did most of our founding fathers, that a religious electorate is necessary to a republican for of government. I believe that political speech is protected by the first amendment but pornography is not. Call me old fashioned but that is how I view conservatism. John McCain has a different view. He opposed the tax cuts that he now thinks should be extended but he will not say that he was wrong in opposing them in the first place. He supports the troop surge but it that appears to be political expediency. While his position cost him support initially, he has clearly gain conservative support as a result. He is attempting to remake himself in a conservative mold. He has rightly judged what most in the Republican party have missed. That is, that conservatives have had it with Republicans who abandon conservative principles. Had John McCain stood for these things all along he would have me in his camp. But not only has he NOT stood for these things, he will not repudiate his prior positions.

John McCain does not meet my definition of a conservative. He never has and I expect he never will. I still do not believe he can get the Republican nomination but if I am proved wrong, I will have to do a lot of soul searching before I could vote for him. His motivation is his personal aspirations. He is not motivated by principles and I cannot support anyone who votes for or opposes anything based on how it will reflect on him personally.

This has been a difficult post to write. I’ve been working on it for several days. My biggest concern is that I not be misunderstood but I fear I cannot do justice to what I’m getting at. Some will read this post and just say “oh yeah!” Others will read it and conclude that I’m a horrible, judgmental idiot. But after days of working on it I just don’t see any way around that. So here it is.

__________________________

I mentioned in the comments of the Christian Dilemma post that I was going to write about the Social Gospel Movement. A movement that began in late 19th century, the social gospel teaches that Jesus can’t return until social justice and equality are achieved on earth through human effort. Various offshoots exist that may or may not relate to Jesus return but that still focus primarily on social justice, equity and other social problems.

Proponents of the Social Gospel and its variants tend to believe that people are poor because the rich have exploited them. Phrases such as “on the backs of working people” are common. The belief seems to be that any equitable system would ensure that everyone has pretty much the same thing. Indeed, most efforts appear to be geared more toward punishing those who have more rather than enriching those who have less. Little emphasis or thought seems to be given to exactly how the poor became poor in the first place.

I need to start off saying I don’t believe that we can achieve much of anything of lasting importance on our own. The notion that mankind can achieve some sort of utopia with our own effort is contrary to scripture and contrary to human nature and all of human history. To date, every Utopian thinker has been demonstrated to be wrong.

Lest anyone think I am just biased against anyone who happens to be classified as poor, let me say I understand that there are those who fall into poverty through little or no fault of their own. A woman whose husband leaves her with no means of support or whose husband dies are possible examples. Life for someone like that can be very difficult. Still, people in such situations have options. In the short term those options may not be very appealing but they still live in a society with class mobility. With the proper determination they have the power to change their circumstances. They also need and deserve help from those around them and as Christians we have an absolute obligation to provide help.

On the other hand, it is my heartfelt belief that most of the poor in this country are poor by choice. That is not to say they woke up one day and thought, “hmm, I think I want to be poor.” Rather, they simply refuse to do anything to raise themselves up. Manual labor is “beneath” them and there are plenty of jobs their “dignity” won’t let them do. How their “dignity” lets them take handouts rather than earn an honest living is beyond me.

Scripture has much to say about poverty. Following are but a few passages.

Prov 14:21
Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner,
but blessed is he who is generous to the poor.

Prov 14:31
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker,
but he who is generous to the needy honors him.

Prov 19:17
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD,
and he will repay him for his deed.

Prov 20:13
Love not sleep, lest you come to poverty;
open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread.

Prov 21:13
Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor
will himself call out and not be answered.

Prov 23:21
for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
and slumber will clothe them with rags.

Prov 28:19
Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread,
but he who follows worthless pursuits will have plenty of poverty.

Ezek 16:49-50
49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Matt 25:37-40
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Luke 3:11
11 And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”

Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

James 1:27
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

James 2:15-16
15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

1 John 3:17-18
17 But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

From these and other passages it is inescapable that we, as Christians, have a duty to help the poor. I have never argued otherwise. But many of these passages also indicate that some poor are responsible for their own plight.

I argue that as Christians we have a duty to ensure that what “help” we provide, as far as we can determine, is actual help. In other words, I believe we have a duty to make sure we aren’t actually making matters worse.

It would be simple if all we had to do was give some cash to whatever poor person crossed our path. We could do that without giving much thought to the matter. Knowing nothing about their situation we may be helping them to continue the behavior that got them into poverty in the first place, whether alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling addiction, etc.

The point I’m making is that we cannot escape our responsibility to be “our brother’s keeper” by simply throwing money at them. At root, their problems are not financial, they are spiritual. Money isn’t the solution to our national problems and it’s not the solution to an individual’s problems either.

You may suspect, based on everything I’ve said so far, that I believe I have it all worked out. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m struggling with this issue. I just believe that ignoring the poor or throwing money at them are equally unproductive approaches. Somehow we have to engage the poor on an individual basis and offer help that really helps. And I’m convinced that sometimes that will involve things that the individual may not appreciate at the time.

For example, I’ve run across a panhandler asking for money for food. When I offered to buy him a meal, he declined. He didn’t want the meal, he wanted the money. I wasn’t willing to just hand him money but I was more than willing to feed him. He wasn’t too happy with me but he did see that I cared enough to take him somewhere and buy him a meal. I don’t know if that ultimately made any difference or not.

I’m reminded of the commercials that say “friends don’t let friends drink and drive.” Have you ever tried to take the keys away from a drunk friend? If you have you know that often they are not appreciative in the least. They may become belligerent and combative. They may scream and yell at you. If you are more concerned about them being mad at you than you are about their safety, you may give in and let them drive. If you do that, whose best interest are you looking out for? True love requires that we think about what’s best for our brother, not how it makes us feel.

The same reasoning, I would argue, applies to everyone, poor people included, who is doing things to make their own situation worse, not better. In the end you may not be able to help them. That’s the rub. In the end, people have to be willing to help themselves before they can receive help. Just like forcing a drunk into rehab isn’t likely to get them sober, attempts to help people who will not accept any responsibility for their situation are unlikely to be truly helpful. They may make us fell better about ourselves but who is being helped then?

So I still don’t arrive at ready solutions. The panhandler on the street is still panhandling and my offer of a meal didn’t change that. I may see him again and if he approaches me I will offer again to feed him. Who knows, maybe he’ll take me up on it next time and I’ll get a chance to sit down with him over that meal and get to know him. Perhaps then I’ll be in a better position to give some real help.

Neal Boortz went on a rant this morning about a woman in Charleston, SC. Brenda Kelly has six kids (four living with her) with three different fathers, works a $6.00/hour job, gets food stamps and Medicaid and complains that life is stacked against her. Read all the details in the Charleston Post and Courier. The point Boortz was making was that this woman complains about her lot in life but she is, in fact, totally responsible for where she is. She blames other but she is to blame, not others.

This presents a dilemma for Christians. We certainly want to help this woman and others like her and we really want to help her children. The question is, how? How, in fact, do we define help and then deliver it? That’s not as easy to answer as some might think.

The gut reaction of some will be that we should do all we can to help her pay her bills and feed her children. On the surface this may seem to be help but is it? I submit that it is not help at all. To explain let’s look at a completely different but analogous situation.

Say you know a man with a bad drinking problem. He spends his pay checks on booze and it is costing him all he has. How do you help this man? Will paying his bills help him? Or is paying his bills simply enabling his destructive behavior and making the problem worse? I submit that the latter is true.

The same can be said for Brenda Kelly. Kelly’s first marriage ended in divorce and her ex-husband has custody of the two kids they produced. Of the other two men that Brenda had children with, one is in prison and the other also works a $6.00/ hour job and he’s already paying $75/week child support to another woman with whom he fathered a child. Do you see a pattern here? Brenda seems to have a lot of trouble making good decisions. She keeps picking losers and having children with them!

On top of that, Brenda (who is about to be evicted from her house because she refuses to pay rent any more), would qualify for public housing assistance but she’s tired of filling out paperwork so she won’t apply. She works 40 hours per week and, apparently thinks that’s plenty and won’t take on additional work. Oh, did I mention that at one point she made over $35k/year as a store manager? Yeah, she quite that job to spend more time with her kids.

The problem here is NOT that life is stacked against Brenda. The problem is that Brenda blames everyone else for her problems instead of taking any responsibility for them. In short Brenda is irresponsible. Clearly, providing direct physical assistance without any accountability is not real help. It is, as with the drunk, enabling the destructive behavior that put her in the position she is in. Providing assistance without strings only makes her situation worse, not better.

The real problem comes with her children. They are in no way responsible for the situation they are in. Their mother is responsible. What do we do about the children. Do we simply leave them in this unfortunate situation? Tough questions.

Christians and conservatives generally believe that children are better off with their mother. I presume that in this case many would say precisely that. I would disagree in this case. I think that Brenda should lose her children. They should be placed in foster care or with relatives who are capable of taking care of them. Brenda clearly is not capable of taking care of herself, much less her children. Of course, it is likely that Brenda will just have more children for others to have to take care of. But lets leave that for another post.

Brenda presents some difficult questions for Christians. How do we live up to Christ’s expectations with this woman? How do we show the love of Christ to her? I submit that tough love is called for. Brenda must live the consequences, all of them, of her bad choices. In this way, perhaps, Brenda can learn from her mistakes and work to improve her life. And at the point where Brenda has taken responsibility for her situation and is working hard to improve her life, then it would be Christian love and charity to provide financial and other assistance to her. But until she reaches that point, there is nothing anyone can do to help Brenda. She has to be willing to help herself first.

That is the bottom line. No one can be helped who is unwilling to help themselves. All the attempts to help end up doing more harm than good. Any parent knows this from experience. The child who is constantly bailed out of every situation never learns to take responsibility. Instead they learn the opposite. They learn that they never have to take responsibility so they can do whatever they want. Is that the lesson we really want to teach people?

The state approach to public assistance is completely flawed precisely because it typically comes without strings. It ends up encouraging that behavior the caused the need in the first place. It is self perpetuating and contributes to a dependent class rather than helping people get on their feet so they no longer need assistance. That, to me, is anything but a Christian approach in spite of what social gospel advocates may think.

My heart goes out to Brenda and her children. I genuinely feel sorry for them. But I do not believe that more public assistance will help them. The only thing that can help Brenda is suffering the consequences of her decisions.

Unless you live on a deserted island you are aware that 2/3 of American no longer support the war in Iraq. That coincided precisely with President Bush’s approval ratings which are the lowest of his presidency and one of the lowest of all time. For a multiplicity of reasons, Americans simply do not support the war and most believe it was a mistake in the first place and, perhaps, that it was based on lies.

The question remains, regardless of what most Americans believe or don’t believe, what are the realistic options regarding this war? Is a pullout, or as Democrats like to phrase it, a phased redeployment, actually a viable option? What can be expected if we do pull out? I think there are a couple of obvious answers that cannot be easily swept away.

First, American credibility will be decimated for the foreseeable future, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. We have already had too many instances where we did not follow through with our commitments and the world already suspects that we cannot be depended upon to do what we say we will do. Perhaps that is a consequence of our form of government, although historically we had a much better reputation. From here on out we will not be able to gain allies in any serious international endeavor because the world will now that when it gets tough we bail out.

As serious as such a consequence may be, it is not as serious as the second difficulty with the redeployment strategy. As noted above, much of the world already expects that when it gets really tough the US will run. Indeed, Osama bin Laden said as much following our exodus from Somalia and that has been the stated strategy of Islamic fascists the world over. They know they cannot beat the US in a military sense. So their strategy has been to make it too costly to continue to engage them. They understand that the longer they drag this out the less support the President will have at home and, eventually, that support will dry up and he will have little choice but to withdraw.

So what happens then? The Islamic fascists declare their victory over America to start with. And as much as politicians may want to deny it, the claim will be valid. And with that victory will come an incredible increase in the ability of the Islamic fascists to recruit. Their approach will have been fully validated and new recruits will flood in in numbers never before imagined.

And who will be running this new army of Islamic terrorists? Probably Iran. And since we already know what Iran’s goals are, it will not be surprising if shortly thereafter the incidents of terrorism in Israel increase dramatically. Of course, Israel will only be the next step, not the last step. The Islamic fascists refer to Israel as the little Satan. Great Satan is reserved for the US. And if you labor under the false belief that they will change that view if we pull out of Iraq, lets just dispel that right now. Make no mistake, They WILL come after us here on American soil and their goals will far exceed 9/11.

While many Americans have fallen for the ridiculous assertion that Iraq has been a distraction from the war on terrorism, nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever you may believe about the start of the war, whether justified or not, the Islamic fascist themselves claim that Iraq is now the central front in that war. Anything short of complete and total victory there will be disastrous for the US and the world.

I am not the best prognosticator around and I don’t claim to have any sort of crystal ball. But I know this much, the troop increase that President Bush is starting to implement is, at worst, the minimum required at this moment. Regular readers will know that I am not a Bush cheerleader. He has often disappointed me because he is not a conservative. But he is the Commander in Chief and he is the only person in the world who is capable of waging this war, a war that absolutely must be waged. I don’t know if Bush will use these additional troops in an effective way. My gut instinct is that he won’t because America simply does not have the stomach to do what needs to be done. Still, the alternative to adding troops is far worse.

I urge all Americans who value freedom to support the President now. I’m not asking you to like him or approve of his overall job as President. I don’t approve of his overall performance. But he, our troops and the world need us to stand as one and win this conflict. The consequences of failure are simply too dreadful to contemplate.

Today was the first day of Democrat control of Congress and the “historic” occasion of the first woman Speaker of the House. True to her word, Nancy Pelosi has already begun her 100 hour plan and, contrary to Democrat claims to want bipartisanship, they have completely stopped floor debates and even bypassed committees. The 100 hour legislation is going straight to the House floor.

While there are some good measures included, like earmark reform. Of course, we’ll have to wait and see if they are serious about that. One measure of particular concern, masked as ethics reform, is legislation called lobbying reform. While there my be some actually lobbying reform in the legislation, it will impose vast restrictions and reporting requirements on grassroots organizations. It amounts to an attack on the First Amendment rights of free speech and the right to petition the government.

No one should be surprised that Congress would be willing to assault the First Amendment this way. McCain-Feingold was a direct attack on free speech, yet Congress passed it and President Bush signed it. Unlike McCain Feingold which needed to be pumped up to generate interest among the electorate, the lobbying scandals and apparent corruption in Congress make this almost a slam dunk. The problem, as pointed out at Opinion Journal.com, is that this approach is backward.

As for the bad, most of the rest of these “reforms” are about controlling the lobbyists, not the Members, which gets it exactly backward. Putting restrictions on the right of citizens to petition government is a strange way of handling ethically challenged politicians. If a Member can be bought with a free lunch or skybox ticket from a lobbyist, he shouldn’t be in Congress anyway. And even as they’re forgoing lunch, the Members will still be telling corporate lobbyists they’d better ante up that PAC money, or else.

This is precisely the rational behind McCain-Feingold. John McCain was caught up in the Keating Five scandal which involved corruption of members of Congress so his approach was to restrict the public rather than those who were actually corrupt, including himself. Now we see it again. It has been said that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Nowhere is that truism better illustrated than in the present case.

There is, however, a more insidious side to this whole issue. It seems that the current legislation predominately affects only conservative organizations. Unions and corporations are exempt! From Rev. Lou Shelton of the Traditional Values Coalition,

The legislation being proposed by Speaker Pelosi and Public Citizen will seriously undermine free speech and place incredible time and financial burdens on small grassroots organizations, noted Rev. Sheldon. “It would require these groups to detail the organization’s expenditures in contacting the grassroots, the issues focused on, and the Members of Congress and other federal officials who are targeted for lobbying.

“This legislation is obviously a thinly veiled effort to hamstring only conservative groups. Why? Because it cleverly exempts trade unions and corporations from communicating with their members,” said Rev. Sheldon (emphasis in the original).

As Opinion Journal pointed out Democrats, for the most part, as doing what they campaigned on. Since they won the elections, we should expect them to do what they said they would do. But Opinion Journal also had this to say.

The country spoke loud and clear on behalf of Democrats last November, but we doubt this means it voted for everything on the party’s partisan wish list. Attempting to shove these measures through the House without allowing votes on amendments or alternatives isn’t the way a confident majority behaves. We guess this is why the Founders created the Senate.

Folks, there’s a lot more where this is coming from. Over the next several days I’ll be writing about various aspects of this 100 hour plan, much of it harmful to our economy and to our Constitution. Pelosi said she would “drain the Republican swamp’ in the first 100 hours but it looks like she wants to replace it with a sewer.

From what we’ve already seem we cannot expect Bush to whip out his veto pen with any sort of regularity. In fact, he will actively support much of the Democrat agenda! If you care about this country you need to make sure you are educated on the issues and you need to make you voice heard with your member of Congress, particularly if your member is a Democrat. They have the majority and that gives them the right to govern. But it does not give them the right to destroy it in the process. Only we can stop it!