Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.

Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.

In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?

On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.

In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.

Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.

I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.

There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.

As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”

————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format.  To listen to it click here.

Technorati : Fred Thompson

We’ve been down this road before and all the evidence says the government isn’t serious about controlling the border or doing anything about illegals already here except to give them a pass. Of course, that just creates more incentive for more illegals to cross the boarder the government has shown no interest in securing. So why on earth should we trust them when they tell us that “under the bill” this and that will happen.

Chertoff, et. al. know this full well. Lindsey Graham knows this. All of them know this. We’ve said it ad nauseum! They simply choose to ignore what we say and go on calling us bigots and talking about what the bill will do. The fact is, current law calls for a fence that isn’t getting built. Current law calls for border enforcement. There is no need for another law to do these things. Yet Bush, Chertoff and the rest have no interest in enforcing current law. So WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THEM to enforce a new law? There is simply no reason to trust them.

A common definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. The Bush administration and its lackeys in Congress apparently assume the electorate is insane. We should trust them to do the same thing they always done and expect them to actually enforce the law this time! I don’t think so.

I like the idea I heard on the Laura Ingraham show today. Lets just start calling them former, as in former Senator Lindsey Graham and former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. I’ve already started working to unseat Lindsey Graham and there is a groundswell against him in South Carolina.

So if you are tempted to buy this line the “under the bill” they will secure the border and there will be a fence and there are triggers, don’t you believe it. They have to earn our trust. If your friend lies to you, you might give them another chance. But if they lie to you repeatedly, it takes a long, sustained effort of earning trust before you will be willing to trust them again. The same is true of our government. Let’s all assume the state motto of Oklahoma: Show Me! The only way they can show me is to start enforcing the law now and sustain that effort for an extended period of time. Then and only then, come back and maybe we’ll talk. But until they do that, there is absolutely no reason to trust them.

 

  Technorati : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Del.icio.us : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Ice Rocket : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Flickr : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Zooomr : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics
Buzznet : Amnesty, Border Security, Illegal Aliens, Immigration Reform, Lying Politicians, Politics

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.

The first problem was with arriving volunteers. We were supposed to be there for training at 1:00 PM. The problem was the parking at the fairgrounds didn’t open until 2:00. So leaders at the fairgrounds directed us to park across the street in a lot across the railroad tracks. We parked and walked across a very busy 4 lane highway to board the bus to the coliseum which was several miles away. Once we got to the training we were told that we could not leave our cars where they were and if they weren’t moved by 3:00 they would be locked in. So we had to board the buses, head back to the fairgrounds, cross the busy highway again, move our cars, then board the buses and go back to the coliseum. All this took more than an hour and many of us, me included, had no training or job assignments at all. I ended up taking station at a door and helping with incoming ticket taking. This was a lot of hassle that volunteers really didn’t need after driving, in some cases, hundreds of miles to do this.

Another very big problem made worse by the remote parking was some of the venue’s policies. They did not allow food, drinks or backpacks into the coliseum. Now many venues don’t allow food or drinks. But the web site for the rally indicated that you did not have to bring food because there would be food available. It left the impression that you could bring food and drinks. As a result, many people had to throw away lots of food because taking it back to their car simply wasn’t practical.

The backpack issue was far worse. I understand why the coliseum has this policy but considering what they allow in, it is simply stupid. You could bring in any kind of bag including briefcases, suitcases, you name it. The only type of bag prohibited was backpacks. Can anyone tell me how a backpack is more dangerous than a suitcase? Lots of people were forced to board buses and return to the parking lot with their backpacks. This cost them at minimum an hour and could have easily been avoided.

Numerous volunteers also brought backpacks because they were going to be there a long time. No one said anything about them coming in for the training and in many cases volunteers were fine. But in one case a volunteer who worked outside found himself unable to re-enter when it was time for the event to begin because of his backpack that he’d had all day.

What made it worse was the apparent lack of consistency in enforcement. One woman had a backpack style purse. It was clearly a purse but the fact that it had shoulder straps meant they were not going to let her in and she had to return to the parking lot with it. Yet another couple had what was clearly a backpack that they were using as a diaper bag. Officials decided to call it a diaper bag and let them in with it.

The coliseum seriously needs to revisit this policy. It makes no sense and is nothing more than rules overriding common sense. Rather than take responsibility for decisions, they prefer to set silly rules and hope it keeps everyone safe.

Here are my suggestions for the organizers. Get with the venue well ahead and make sure you know what their policies are and how they will be enforced. Once that is done, make sure those policies are spelled out in all event related materials including fliers, web site, etc. Give those who attend the opportunity to have as smooth an event as possible.

Make sure you have everything lined up for volunteers. While no one was seriously angry over having to go move cars, there was a general feeling that maybe organizers didn’t really know what they were doing.

Look at this event as a learning opportunity. Examine what went well and what did not and make appropriate adjustments. You pulled off an amazingly successful event but it could have been better still. If you take my advice it will be much better next time.

Thanks again for the opportunity to be a part of this rally. I enjoyed it and would do it again in a heartbeat.

Check back later today for debate observations and analysis.

Yesterday had so much to talk about that it’s difficult to sort it all out. Between the FairTax Rally and the GOP debate, I could write far more than most of you probably want to read. I’ve decided to break it all up into three posts. This post will deal with the FairTax Rally and its high points. The second post will deal with some of my criticisms of the FairTax rally and how they could make it better. Finally, I will write a post about the debate last night. I hope you will stick with me throughout.

As a volunteer at the FairTax rally I had to be there at 1:00 for training. That made for a long day but it was well worth it. There were about a dozen volunteers from Charleston that convoyed up together yesterday morning. We met at the rest area near mile marker 203 on I-26 and went up from there.

There were numerous speakers, some surprises. Of course Neal Boortz spoke several times along with Sean Hannity. Herman Cain was scheduled to speak but he was ill and could not make it. Predictably Boortz and Hannity were inspiring and really whipped up the crowd. If you haven’t heard Sean Hannity speak in person you’ve missed out. They guy is just good.

Neal Boortz told the audience about the new book he and John Lender are working on, The FairTax, Answering the Critics. He pointed out the the vast majority of criticism of the FairTax is actually criticism of things is doesn’t do or doesn’t involve. Boortz told the audience that the critics first lie about what the FairTax is then attack their false picture of the FairTax.

The goal of the rally was 10,000 people. I haven’t heard any official numbers but if they didn’t make it, they didn’t miss by much. There was a great crowd and everyone was excited. The general tenor was one of optimism and there was a concerted effort to convince supporters that the FairTax could become a reality this year! I don’t share that same optimism though I did come away convinced that it is at least possible. Prior to this rally I didn’t really think the FairTax was achievable at all.

The strangest part of the rally was when John Stossel spoke. I think most of the crowd was confused because Stossel didn’t really support the FairTax. Rather, he spoke about a flat tax. At one point someone in the crowd yelled out “FairTax” and there were a few hoots of supports. All in all the crowd just seemed confused. I found myself wondering if Stossel knew what rally he was at. As for the organizers, why didn’t they ensure that speakers would actually speak in support of the FairTax? Stossel didn’t, however, dampen the spirits of the crowd.

Unannounced speakers included Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee. Both spoke passionately about the FairTax and indicated they would work to implement it. Of the two, only Huckabee mentioned it in the debate and he went on at length when he did mention it.

The absolute highlight of the rally was the march. Everyone had a sign provided by rally organizers and we filed out of the coliseum en mass to march around the Koger Center. The looks on the faces of people outside was priceless. There was small groups of supporters of various candidates, none larger than a couple dozen people. Then here comes this massive crowd of close to 10,000 people all wearing white FairTax t-shirts and carrying FairTax signs, chanting in unison and marching all around the Koger Center. It was really an amazing sight. I’ll have some photos posted later in case your local news didn’t carry it. They certainly should have, there were TV cameras on use the whole time and at any given point in the march, it took at least 20 minutes for the whole crowd to pass.

Here are a couple of short videos of the march. The quality isn’t very good because I shot it with my cell phone but you can at least get an idea of what it was like.

I very much enjoyed the rally and I would encourage anyone who has the opportunity to attend one. Clearly support is building but that can only continue if more and more people join the movement.

Stay tuned later today for observations and analysis of the GOP debate.

Ironically, a bill in the Virginia legislature, HB1572, never made it out of subcommittee. Virginia’s concealed carry laws exempt state college campuses from the right to carry a concealed weapon. HB1572 would have eliminated that exemption. Had HB1572 been passed into law, students and faculty who had concealed carry permits would have been able to carry a firearm on campus and very likely this crazed gunman would have been stopped long before he killed 32 students and faculty.

Gun control advocates operate under the assumption that gun control can somehow remove guns from the hands of criminals. The facts, however, contradict that assumption. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. We don’t have enough information at this juncture to know whether the gunman at Virginia Tech had a legal gun but the statistics say he probably did not.

The NRA‘s magazine, The American Rifleman, has a column every month dedicated to recounting how legal gun owners stop crime. Case after case is listed where someone legally carrying a gun stops a crime and often kills a violent criminal before that criminal can harm innocent people. The statistics say that people who legally obtain and license hand guns either never use them against another person or use them in the prevention of a crime. It virtually never happens that a person with a legal gun uses that gun in the commission of a crime.

Conversely, criminals are not deterred by gun laws. The old saw is true that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. A gun in the hands the right person yesterday could have easily stopped this gunman before so many innocent students and faculty were killed or injured.

The calls for more gun control will continue for some time. The Democrat Party will attempt to use this horrible tragedy to advance their political agenda and increase their power. This event will be shamelessly politicized to an enormous degree.

If you want to see the true results of gun control, watch this YouTube video of congressional testimony.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This woman watched her parents be killed by another deranged gunman with an illegally obtained weapon while she was helpless to do anything about it because her right to carry a weapon had been abridged. She said she’d rather be in jail on a gun charge with her parents alive than free with her parents dead. I fully agree. An armed citizenry is the best defense against this kind of senseless violence. Don’t let this horrible tragedy goad you into the knee jerk reaction of more gun control. That is not a solution. It only makes us less safe.

We are taught that the police are there to protect us but in truth, the police cannot protect us and if pressed, they will admit as much. The police are in the business of solving crimes that have already been committed, not crime prevention. If we are to be safe in our schools, our neighborhoods and our homes, we must have the ability to protect ourselves. That is far more difficult if we are disarmed.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As you can see, Giuliani’s idea of strict constructionist doesn’t exactly match up with most conservatives. In his view, as with so many others on the court today, stare decisis trumps the Constitution! So bad law and bad jurisprudence should stand simply because it has been around a while?

If that view had prevailed in times past, separate but equal would still be the law of the land. The Dred Scott case would still be precedent! In my view, while stare decisis is important, it is not and should not be the final word.

Giuliani also stands by his positions on partial birth abortion and federal funding of abortions. He supports both. Oh he gives the standard, “I don’t like and want to see less of it” speech but the bottom line is, Giuliani supports all abortion at any time during pregnancy for any reason or no reason at all.

One is hard pressed to see how Giuliani can possibly get the Republican nomination with such views. Social conservatives are not likely to vote for him when they know his positions. While Giuliani has enjoyed an early lead, most voters haven’t really known where he stands on many issues. As more interviews like the one above are seen and read about by conservatives, Giuliani’s numbers will fall precipitously as conservatives realize that he is a social liberal. He does not stand a chance.

In a move I cannot fathom, Dobson called U.S. News and World Report senior editor Dan Gilgoff, apparently to discuss Thompson’s possible candidacy. Dobson said that, while Thompson is a conservative with good credentials, he’s not a Christian.

“Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson said of Thompson. “[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression,” Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo said that Thompson is indeed a Christian and that he was baptized into the Church of Christ. According to the U.S. News article:

In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson’s claim. He said that, while Dobson didn’t believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless “has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian-someone who talks openly about his faith.”

“We use that word-Christian-to refer to people who are evangelical Christians,” Schneeberger added. “Dr. Dobson wasn’t expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to ‘read the tea leaves’ about such a possibility.”

After accusing Thompson of not being a Christian, Dobson went on to all but endorse Newt Gingrich, calling him the “brightest guy out there.”

Now I’ve been a fan of Gingrich for years. I think he’s incredibly intelligent and few people understand the challenges we face as a nation like he does. I would not have a problem with a Gingrich presidency. But Gingrich has some pretty heavy baggage for the average evangelical to get past. In my opinion Gingrich would find it very difficult to get elected. Likely he couldn’t even get nominated.

Thompson, on the other hand, has nothing like the baggage Gingrich has. And, as Dobson admitted, he has excellent conservative credentials. He would serve the country well while supporting a pro family agenda.

One of the problems evangelicals have faced is the need to support a perfect candidate. Anything less is simply unacceptable. The result of that kind of thinking has been the steady loss of freedoms in this country. It has taken years to get where we are as a nation and it isn’t going to be fixed overnight. An all or nothing approach will guarantee that it never gets fixed.

James Dobson needs to take a long hard look at his political involvement. Most of the blogs I’ve seen commenting on this have been left leaning blogs and they haven’t been kind to Dobson. Mine is clearly not a left leaning blog and I am a strong evangelical. I have real problems with Dobson right now and I’m sure there will be others on the right who also have a problem with him.

Conservatives, whether evangelical Christian or not, want to see this country restored to a Constitutional republic. Fred Thompson looks like a man who can move us in that direction. If James Dobson doesn’t think Thompson is outspoken enough about his faith, that’s really too bad. Some people think Dobson is too outspoken. Sometimes I wonder if Dobson really does want a theocracy in America.

Dr. Dobson, perhaps you should stick to family issues. Perhaps it’s time to get out of politics altogether.

In his blog Wallis claims that God Hates Inequality. Referring to the Senate vote to increase the minimum wage, Wallis says, “this is a good vote.” He goes on to make quite a claim. “It’s a political fact now that faith communities across the board, very widely, are in favor of increasing the minimum wage. Why is that? What’s the theological foundation behind that? We don’t just do politics; we do politics because of our faith.”

Interesting. The last part of that statement sounds very much like my own claim. I’ve often said that my political views flow directly from my religious beliefs. I’m not in a position to determine whether Wallis’ claim is as justified as I believe mine is. What I will claim is that Wallis has no problem taking scripture out of context and twisting it to fit his view of social justice. In support of his view on the minimum wage Wallis quotes from Isaiah:

What does the Bible have to say about the minimum wage?

The prophet Isaiah said: “my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain…” (65:22-23).

Does this passage support Wallis’ position? The broader passage is Isaiah 65: 17-25. The subject of the passage is the new heaven and new earth that God will one day create. Here is the full text of that passage.

17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create;for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. 19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress. 20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. 21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 23 They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them. 24 Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. 25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,”says the LORD.
ESV

Clearly this passage has nothing at all to do with minimum wage or economics in this world. Or should Congress pass legislation requiring lions and lambs to lie down together and requiring lions to eat hay?

Wallis’ next attempt to justify his views on biblical grounds comes from the book of James.

James, who was the sibling of Jesus, and probably knew what his brother thought about things pretty well, said: “Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord.”

The passage is James 5:4. Here the brother of Jesus is addressing the church, not the Roman government. James is chastising Christians for not paying their laborers what they agreed to pay. One might make a case from this passage that Christian employers should pay more than minimum wage but that’s about it. Certainly this has nothing to do with the law. Indeed, Jesus himself had something to say about wages. In Mathew 20 Jesus said:

Matt 20:1-15

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’
ESV

Clearly this parable does not support Wallis’ view of inequity. Jesus presents a picture of one employer paying different people the same wage for different amounts of work. The question is not whether it seems fair, the question is did each person agree to do certain work for certain wages? The answer is yes and, apparently, Jesus did not see inequity in it. This flies in the face of Wallis’ view and his use of scripture.

I oppose ANY minimum wage and I do so, at least in part, on my religious convictions. Because I know something about economics I understand that any increase in the minimum wage will inevitably result in higher unemployment precisely among those who can least afford it. That’s just simple economics and it has played out over and over. But more than that, I object to Wallis and others who are willing to do violence to the facts to persuade others to their position.

Time after time we hear claims about people trying to support families on the minimum wage. This simply isn’t the case. The overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers are entry level employees who are supporting no one. They have no work skills and so have little value in the market place. They are “paying their dues” by accepting low wages for the personal benefit of learning a work ethic. They are learning how to work and hold a job and be a good employee.

Yes, there are some few people who are trying to make a living at minimum wage. Usually they are they because of their own choices. But even those people do not remain at minimum wage if they are motivated to be good employees and work hard. Anyone who is stuck in a minimum wage job for any length of time has no one but himself to blame. The Apostle Paul had a few things to say about work.

Eph 4:28
8 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
ESV

1 Thess 4:10-12
But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, 11 and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, 12 so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.
ESV

2 Thess 3:10-12
10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work , let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work , but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
ESV

Paul said the man who would not work should not eat. I submit that the employee who will not give a days work to his employer for a days wages is a thief! And Wallis wants to increase the minimum wage and justifies that position with scripture. He may be entirely sincere but he is sincerely wrong.

So while Huckabee favors President Bush’s capital gains tax cuts, he also wonders if his faith “confuses Republicans who are only concerned about how we preserve wealth.” He is for a flat tax while also advocating increased funding for arts education, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and an enlarged government role in preventive health care.

This, it seems, is the logical extension of “compassionate conservatism,” the bane of true conservatives. President Bush has surely had evangelicals on board with him when it comes to his pro-life stance and tax cuts. But every conservative I know laments the fact that Bush and the Republican Congress presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ with dubious items like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.

As a Christian I am all for carrying out Christ’s desire for us to care for the poor. Where I differ is in the approach. First, I think Jesus directed His intentions at individual Christians and churches, not governments. One look at how (in)efficiently governments handle social programs is all one needs to understand why.

The government itself warns individuals to check out charities before contributing to them to ensure that most of the money collected actually goes to the purpose for which the charity exists. When more than 50% or money raised goes to overhead, it is generally a bad idea to contribute to that charity. Well if the government could approach 50% efficiency I’d be astounded. Charity should be the work of legitimate charities who are equipped to do the job, not the government.

While America is the most giving nation on earth, Americans are hampered in their ability to give because of confiscatory taxes. Churches and other charities have less to devote to helping the poor because their members have less to give. Add to that the compelling notion that we don’t need to give to charities because the government will take care of the poor and you have a problem. Huckabee’s stint as governor is a case in point. In oder to pay for his compassionate conservatism, he had to increase taxes. He went from being “one the best governors in America to one of the worst.”

President Bush, Mike Huckabee and others like them are not conservatives. They don’t seem to understand what a conservative is. And, in my view, they have misinterpreted the scriptural mandate to feed the poor. I agree with Huckabee that when we prevent a baby from being aborted we need to be concerned about the life that child will have. I part company with him on how that should be approached. Using the government as the vehicle for assistance relieves the Christian of the responsibility for providing assistance. And unlike most charities, government assistance too often comes without accountability which amounts to no help at all because it often encourages the behaviors that caused the need in the first place.

Generally speaking conservatives, whether Christian or not, have a desire to help those who genuinely need help. But Conservatives understand that help should be provided in the most efficient way possible. At the least that allows for more people to be helped and if it’s done properly, those who really need help will not continue to need help in perpetuity.

Matt 25:34-41says:

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 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.’
ESV

What we have to understand is that this is a call to individual Christians. It is not a call to enact government programs. It is a call for individuals to voluntarily give of their treasure to help others. It is not a call to take anyone’s treasure against his will in order to help others. Charity is only charity when it comes voluntarily from the heart. And “help” provided by a faceless institution will never be the equal of help provided by loving individuals providing that help because they love their neighbor.

My first question is, what does co-equal mean? The Constitution grants specific duties and authority to each branch of government. While there is some overlap, generally each branch has different responsibilities and powers than the other branches. Congress, for example, has the power to create and pass legislation. The President and the judiciary do not. The President, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces while the Congress and the judiciary are not. In what sense then can the three branches of government be said to be co-equal?

I submit that the very term “co-equal” is meaningless and that those using it do so not out of any realistic claims to authority but to put forth a propaganda campaign to a populace largely uneducated with regard to constitutional powers and the structure of government. They simply make a claim and expect Americans to accept it. The fact is, no branch is equal to another branch. All branches of government are equally important but they are not equal any more than an apple equals an orange.

Congress does indeed have one large power that could be used to effectively end the war in Iraq. That power is the ability to cut off funding. Our founding fathers gave them that power and it is completely legitimate. Using it, however, is a politically risky proposition. While Congress can cut of funding for the war, that does not obligate the President to bring the troops home. The President could, for example, continue the campaign in Iraq without funding and place the responsibility for the outcome on the Congress. At this juncture it is doubtful that Congress will take such a drastic step.

What other constitutional power does Congress have with regard to the war? None. Congress can pass non-binding resolutions every day for the duration of the session and their actions will not require anything of the President. He can go on his way doing what he is doing. True, they can make him pay a political price but they have no authority to force him to do anything militarily.

Claims that Congress has the authority to limit troops in this or that theater are false. True, Congress can pass any legislation it wants, including legislation mandating that the President limit troop strengths. The President, however, would be under no obligation to pay any attention to such legislation because the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority for passing it.

The caveat here is the judiciary. Regardless of Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court has shown a penchant for upholding legislation that is in flagrant opposition to the Constitution. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is but one example. So in any action the Congress may take, the Supreme Court becomes a wild card.

In the event that Congress passes legislation restricting troop strengths, the President would have several options. He could ignore such legislation and do what he thinks best with the troops in which case Congress would almost certainly sue the President in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the President could sue Congress immediately. Either course leads to the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule against the President in such a situation, I submit that the President would have the Constitutional authority to ignore such a ruling. Indeed, the judiciary depends entirely on the executive for enforcement of its decisions. If the courts make a decision that clearly violates the Constitution I submit that the President not only has the ability to go against it, he has the duty to do so.

Lest anyone think I am engaging in partisan hyperbole let me say that my view on this does not depend on who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. While I would likely disagree with much of what a Democrat President stood for, his Constitutional authority does not depend on his positions on issues or his party affiliation. By definition, constitutional authority derives from the Constitution. Therefore, any President is duty bound to take his oath of office seriously and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. That includes the courts when they blatantly disregard the Constitution in favor of their own ideology.

The bottom line is this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such it falls to him how and when to use them. Congress can bluster all it wants but they cannot change that balance of power.

In truth I’ve become somewhat disillusioned. I see our once great country heading inexorably down the tubes and there seems to be nothing I can do about it. I’ve always believed that superior ideas will, in the end, win out over inferior ideas. I’m not entirely certain I still believe that. It appears that most of America either doesn’t have a clue what’s going on around them or just doesn’t care.

This has been pretty much how I’ve felt lately, like there is little hope for America. That’s what has caused me to become more introspective lately and less inclined to write about politics.

This morning our pastor preached a sermon entitled The Decisive Nature of Hope. You can listen to it here. In it he pointed out the absolute hopelessness of this world. If we are placing our hope here, we are lost. Politics is not going to solve our problems. More money or a better job aren’t going to make us happy. The right man or woman isn’t the answer. As long as we are focused on this world we are going to be hopeless.

Pastor Brown defined Christian hope as the continual looking forward to the eternal world, that which is best to come. He went on to say that for the most part, our culture has abandoned any hope in the eternal world. He said that even Christians rarely think about the eternal. But without the hope of heaven we are left with despair.

Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes that everything was vanity (meaningless). Solomon was lamenting the meaninglessness of working and toiling for the things of this earth. Certainly few if any ever achieved the level of success that Solomon achieved. Yet he considered all his work, all his success to be meaningless.

My tendency has been to place my hope in reason and sound arguments. I think many Christians have this tendency. We lean that way regarding politics and evangelism. When it comes to telling others about the gospel we think that if we just have all our arguments polished, others will be convinced by them. We don’t leave room for God to work, we take on the full responsibility ourselves. Of course, when pressed we will all admit that only God can save someone but from a practical perspective we still place our faith in our own ability to convince.

The same is true of politics. For years I’ve believed that if the right political ideas could prevail, this country could head back in the right direction. The only question was, how do we frame our arguments such that others buy into them and support the right policies, candidates, etc. That approach ignores the sovereignty of God. It assumes, at least implicitly, that God is just an observer and it’s up to us to change the world. The reality is, God is in control, not us.

I don’t want anyone to think I support abdicating all things political to God and the rest of the world. I am not. Evangelical Christians took that approach decades ago and much of the progress of humanism has resulted. I still think that, as Christians and citizens we have a responsibility to be engaged in our society and that includes having an influence on the political process. But along with that must come our dependence on and hope in God. We have to trust that, even when we don’t understand, God is in control and He knows what he is doing.

I will still work to elect good candidates. I will still work to support the right policies. But at the heart of that work and support will be prayer. Like many, I’ve neglected to pray for our elected officials. I’ve neglected to pray about my own involvement. I’ve taken on the responsibility for myself and left God out of the equation. That, ultimately leads to disillusionment and despair. Whether or not the candidates and policies I support prevail, God is still in control and His plans WILL be fulfilled.

I’m not jumping on the bandwagon of claiming that this or that catastrophe or bad outcome is God’s judgment but I will say that God has used events in the past to judge and punish nations, both those that called themselves His people and those that did not. What we as Christians can do is what Jeremiah told the Israelites to do when exiled in Babylon.

Jer 29:4-7
4 “Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. 7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.
ESV

Jeremiah pointed out that the Israelites now lived in Babylon and their prosperity and future was inextricably tied to it. They need to do what they could to improve that future and that meant praying for Babylon and its leaders.

We must engage in our society on all levels, including political, as Christians. But we must, first and foremost, trust in God and pray to him for our country and our leaders and, ultimately, trust that He is in control. There lies our hope.

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.

The First Amendment, as it relates to religion, says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” There is nothing in that text that elevates the first section over the second. The establishment clause merely prohibits the Congress from establishing a state religion, something the founders had great reason to fear considering the Church of England was the reason many had emigrated to America in the first place. Moreover, the free exercise clause would appear, at least to the average person, to prevent Congress from doing anything that might prevent religion in the public square. Alas, secularists have succeeded in getting the courts to see it otherwise.

We now live in a country that prohibits, in most cases, the display of Christian religious symbols of any kind on public property on the basis that doing so amounts to “an establishment of religion.” We live in a country where the mere fact that a person holds religious beliefs, if those beliefs are Christian, is grounds to disqualify him from holding public office in the eyes of many. We are told that politics and religion have nothing to do with each other the two should be kept entirely separate. And we are told that the founders, people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson never intended it to be any other way.

The obvious question is, does the historic record support such claims or are they simply spurious claims designed to sidestep the truth in favor of a society preferred by the elites? Fortunately these are questions that have answers that can be found by simply looking at the historical record. And it seems to me that Thanksgiving is, perhaps, the most appropriate time for doing so.

On October 14, 1789, George Washington signed the Thanksgiving Proclamation. Here is the text of that document.

General Thanksgiving
________________________________________
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
________________________________________
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

(Note: The above resolution is the orginal text, complete with old English spellings and letters. It is somewhat difficult to read but it is readable.)

The very first statement in this proclamation says, “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour.” Whatever other founders may have thought, Washington clearly believed that it was the duty of every person to believe in and worship God and that it was the work of God that was responsible for the American success. He also claimed that his proclamation was at the unanimous request of both Houses of Congress. So the holiday we celebrate tomorrow is the result of a proclamation of one of our founding fathers, George Washington.

One of the strongest arguments the secularists use is the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli. This treaty says, “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.” This treaty, ratified during the administration of George Washington would appear to rule out the notion that the United States was founded on Christian principles. As with most writings of the past, however, one must have some idea of the context in order to grasp the meaning. In this case, the context was a treaty with a country used to dealing with governments that were absolute theocracies. The Muslim world, then as now, was replete with theocratic Islamic governments. According to Jenn Sierra:

This statement is found only in the Arabic first version of the treaty of Tripoli, and probably was not found in the English translation…it was not included in the either the Arabic or English versions of the treaty written a few years later.The best answer I have read thus far to this argument is a lengthy and excellently-researched article by James Patrick Holding, called Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of Flub? He concludes by saying, “The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power — which is something no one argues for America…

So it would seem that what initially appeared to be one of their strongest argments turns out to be no argument at all unless taken completely out of its historical context. Of course, secularists seem to have little objection to doing just that to make any evidence say more than it actually says or other than it actually says.

Even Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the most secular of all the founders, turns out to be less that the outstanding witness the secularists would have us believe. Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Baptist, the origin of the commonly used “separation of church and state” mantra in use today, is taking out of context and demonstrably twisted to mean something other than what it meant. Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptists that what they and others feared would not happen, that is, there would be no official state religion to worry about suffering persecution under.

Christopher Levenick & Michael Novak, writing in National Review in response to an article in The Nation by Brook Allen entitled Our Godless Constitution, point out some interesting facts about Jefferson:

She claims that “in modern-day parlance” Thomas Jefferson was “a secular humanist” – indeed, “not a Christian at all.” It’s a strange claim, especially since, not three sentences before, she quotes Jefferson’s letter to Charles Thomson, in which Jefferson adamantly insists, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus” (emphasis Jefferson’s). Presumably Jefferson was privy to the content of his own beliefs, but Allen seems to think she knows better.

(snip)

Thomas Jefferson shared this sentiment entirely, as when he famously wondered whether “the liberties of a nation [can] be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but by his wrath?”

Indeed, many of our founding fathers expressed the view that our form of government could only survive in a society that was moral and had religion as the basis of that morality. Levenick & Novak have more to say on that subject:

John Adams likewise held the opinion that republican government required religious practice, as when he wrote as president: “We have no government armed with power of contending with human passions unbridled by morality or religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Such thinking runs throughout the whole of American political life, from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Reagan, and up to the present day. It is a tradition from which President Bush has not deviated.

Other common arguments of the secularists include:

1. The claim that the Constitution never mentions God – False, God is mentioned in the enactment clause of Article VII.
2. The Declaration of Independence rarely mentions God – Allen claimed only two mentions but there are four. Excluding the list of grievances against King George III, God is mentioned in virtually every paragraph!
3. Little mention in the Federalist Papers – If you exclude all mentions that do not use the word God, it is indeed few. However, the framers rarely refereed to God as God. More typically they used language like Divine Providence and such references are numerous in the Federalist.
4. Claims that Madison was critical of Christianity when he was really critical of state religion.
5. Claims that Washington rarely refereed to God in his writings when in fact he did so often.

The list goes on in every case, the secularists either misstate the facts, ignore the facts or twist the facts. It is inescapable that, for the most part, the founders were religious people who believed that God had specially blessed this country and that, indeed, without that blessing this country could not have been created. Many, and perhaps most, believed that Christianity was essential to the future survival of America and stated so often.

We do indeed have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving day but we also have much to be concerned about. It has been said that America is now a post Christian nation and I tend to agree with that statement. If that is true, there is little reason to expect that God will continue to bless this country as He has in the past. I am not in the boat with those who are quick to call every bad event God’s judgment. I believe, however, that without God’s blessing, the American experiment is not likely to continue its great success.

Below is a copy of the original Thanksgiving Proclamation that ran in the Massachusetts Centinel on October 14, 1789.

“The country is sending a signal to both parties: We want you guys to
work together to solve problems. You’ve got Republicans running from
the far right much more toward the center. You’ve got a new breed of
Democrats this year in Jim Webb in Virginia and Bob Casey in
Pennsylvania, moving toward the center. So we may be working our way
toward the end of a deeply polarized country politically at the
national level.”

– Former anchor Tom Brokaw on NBC Nightly News November 6, election eve.

“Will Republicans move further to the right? Not if they got the
message of the election. Republicans lost because they abandoned the center.”

– CNN’s Bill Schneider on The Situation Room, Nov. 8.

Democrats would have us believe that conservatism is responsible for Republican losses. Their view is, of course, the precise opposite of what actually happened and what elected Republicans need to take away from the election. It is precisely the fact that, for the most part, House and Senate Republicans abandoned conservative principles for most of the last several years that they got their butts handed to them.

Geraldo Rivera, always good for a laugh, had this to say:

The Democratic wave that washed over American politics last night
washed away Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and swamped many Republicans
who tried to use the issue of illegal immigration to scare people
into voting for them. I am delighted to say that they got their butts kicked.

Yes, Geraldo is the guy to listen too. Yeah right! The fact is, House Republicans moved to the right too late to matter. Yes, they saved us temporarily from comprehensive immigration reform. Had they stuck with conservative principles throughout their terms, immigration would be a solved issue now, not the next object of demagoguery.

Republicans win when they run on conservative principles. Republicans maintain their seats when they govern from conservative principles. This tripe that the country has moved to the middle is seriously deluded! How can anyone reach such a conclusion based on three consecutive split elections? In fact, the only reason this election was split was that House Republicans spent the last few years trying to out spend Democrats!

If Republicans want to retake the House and Senate in ’08 as well as retain the White House, they had better listen to their conservative constituents. They had better learn that conservatism is alive and kicking and they can’t win without it.

’08 is a long way off. I don’t know about you but I’m not prepared to spend two years in campaign mode. While the ’08 elections are important, there is little any of us can do today to impact them. But there are many other issues to be looked at and dealt with in the mean time.

For one thing, with dems in control of the Senate we know right off that judicial appointments will be far more difficult for President Bush. It is likely that there will be one more vacancy on the Supreme Court in the next two years and I expect the President to avoid judicial activists and appoint someone who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than superimpose his/her own ideology on it. That will, of course, mean a battle. It will be difficult to even get such a nominee through the Senate Judiciary Committee. We need to be prepared for that fight because it is likely to be coming. Even for normal appointments to the federal bench there will be much difficulty.

Comprehensive immigration reform now seems much more likely. Conservatives oppose reforms so far offered and those are just the kinds of reforms that will be offered again. Amnesty, by what ever name, will sail through both Houses of Congress and the President is likely to sign such legislation. Unless we are prepared with strong grassroots efforts to stop it, it will be a slam dunk.

Future Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated the raising the minimum wage will be a top priority. Few issues have been subject to such demagoguery than the minimum wage. And few issues are so poorly understood by the electorate. We know that any significant increase in the minimum wage will have two effects. First, it will increase unemployment for those at the bottom of the wage scale. Second, it will further slow the economy when it has already been slowed too much by aggressive fed interest rate policy. If Democrats are not checked, we will likely be headed into a new recession. That might be good for Republican prospects in ’08 but it isn’t good for the American people and only strong grassroots efforts can stop it.

The biggest and by far most important issue is the war with Islamic fascism. To date, Democrats have appeared not to take it seriously, preferring to handle terrorist events through law enforcement. If dems truly believe what they’ve preached, they will work diligently to get us out of this war and hunkered down back home. If that should happen, we will see many more 9/11 style attacks on the US. Again, this may be good for Republican prospects in ’08 but it is decidedly bad for American and we have to do whatever we can to prevent such an eventuality.

It is incumbent on all of us to communicate with our members of Congress and let them know that we will not sit back and allow them to make America vulnerable. Most conservatives I know have a pretty good understanding of the enemy we face. It is an enemy that only understands strength and weakness. It is an enemy that will interpret any move by the US to withdraw as a sign that our will is failing us and that will embolden them. Indeed, they are already taking credit for the Republican defeat and for Rumsfeld’s resignation. In the coming days look for the Islamic fascists to move aggressively to increase and consolidate the power this election has given them.

We face dark and dangerous days ahead. We must face them with resolve and determination. I believe that all of civilization is threatened and we must face that threat head on and unified. To this point we have been anything but unified. I desperately hope that it will not take a few more 9/11 style attacks to convince the electorate that we cannot win unless we are united.

We will face these and other issues over the next two years. All of us must work to educate ourselves. No one is going to come to us and teach us what the truth is on any of these issues. The one thing you can count on politicians to do is demagogue the issues. Even the best of them is driven by elections and they are motivated to do and say what they think is necessary to be reelected. If we want to know the truth we have to do the work to discover it. We have to research the issues. We have to educate ourselves so we understand what is at stake and so we can, in turn, work to educate others. I’ve always believed that truth ultimately prevails over lies and deceit but that can only be true when people know the truth.

Now a new ad in opposition to Amendment 2 has hit the airwaves. The ad features such names as Patricia Heaton, Jim Caviezel and Kurt Warner laying out the problems with the amendment. And the ad has found its way to YouTube so the world can watch it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Certainly everyone, including the Bush administration, prefers diplomatic solutions over military solutions. But rational people understand that sometimes, diplomacy isn’t enough. Diplomacy failed utterly with Nazi Germany. Was that because Great Britain and others didn’t have effective diplomats? Was it because their approach to a diplomatic solution was the wrong approach and another might have worked? Or was it simply that Hitler was not going to be deterred by diplomacy? Was it that Hitler was willing to milk the diplomatic process to gain more time to achieve his goals.

Generally speaking Republicans subscribe to the second set possibilities. Democrats, it appears, subscribe to the first. They seem to believe that there is no situation that cannot be solved diplomatically. The only question is, what is the correct diplomatic approach? Based on this belief, every situation that results in military conflict is a failure of diplomacy in the sense that whoever directed the diplomatic effort chose the wrong diplomatic course. The implication is that another approach would have been successful.

Interestingly, when a Democrat is in the White House, Democrats in general are much less willing to apply the standard they espouse when a Republican is in the White House. What does that imply? Well, it implies one of two things, neither of which is flattering to Democrats.

The first possible implication is that Democrats don’t really believe what they say they believe. It implies that they agree with us that, in the end, some situations do not have a diplomatic solution and require military solutions. But they are willing to pretend to a belief in order to politically harm a sitting president.

The second possible implication is that Democrats do believe what they say they believe but they are unwilling to apply it to a president from their own party because it would be politically damaging to do so.

Either way, the implication is that, for Democrats, politics trumps belief. Political advantage is more important than principle. Another word for that is demagogue. Indeed, either way you slice it, you come up with Democrats being demagogues.

Yes, there are times when diplomacy fails. Every administration wants to exhaust the diplomatic options before moving on to more hostile, militaristic options. Every administration understands that, while diplomacy must always be pursued, sometimes it will fail. Failure, however, does not automatically mean that the approach was wrong. Sometimes it simply means diplomacy was never going to work. It has to be tried but it will not always work. That means diplomatic failure does not necessarily say anything about the attempt or the administration making the attempt.

Democrats, however, see in diplomatic failure, an opportunity to score political points. Since the greatest good, in their view, is for them to regain power, it is always acceptable to demagogue an issue for political gain. The end justifies the means, in other words.

We now face a dangerous situation with North Korea. One commenter on another site said he didn’t see how Bush could possibly be helped by the North Korean nuclear test. He said, “All it shows is that yet another piece of their national security approach has been a dismal failure.” In his view, Bush is responsible for Kim Jong Il’s actions. It never occurs to him that Clinton’s approach was no better and, arguably, may have been worse.

It must ultimately be accepted that diplomacy has little chance of working with any leader who cannot be trusted to honor the agreements he makes. Kim Jong Il made specific agreements with the Clinton administration. He did not keep them. Is that Bush’s fault? It is not and .iIt is irrational to expect a liar to keep his word.

The situation Bush now faces remains, for the moment, a diplomatic one because we don’t have a lot of military options just now. But eventually we will have to make military options. North Korea is not going to change and if they are allowed to continue in the direction they are headed, it will embolden other megalomaniacal leaders to pursue similar policies.

In the end the real diplomatic failure will be the failure to recognize when diplomacy is at an end. It has been said that war is merely diplomacy by other means. True diplomatic failure is the unwillingness to accept that diplomacy has ceased to be fruitfuland it is time to move on to “other means.”

Thomas says that congressional Republicans “seem to have run out of ideas.” He goes on to say,

They now ask for votes on two levels, neither of which is appealing. The first is that the Democrats would do a worse job than Republicans, which is like choosing which of two ugly sisters to take on a date. The second is they crave power for its own sake. Republicans have failed to give voters sufficient reason to vote for them, except for one that trumps all the rest – they can better defend the country.

That’s not a generally rosy picture but it is accurate. Like the perpetual argument of the Democrats, Republicans have been reduced to saying “we aren’t as bad as they are.” But even in that unenviable position, the Republicans still hold a superior argument to Democrats because they actually have ideas and plans for dealing with terrorists. The Democrats have nothing but opposition. As Thomas said,

Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands.

<snip>

For all of their promises to do a better job of fighting this war, Democrats have no plan, other than retreat. That is the plan the terrorists have for us. Retreat is not in their playbook. The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home in time for Ramadan. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats next month will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder.

That pretty well sums up the Democrat position. The question is, is the American electorate paying enough attention to know that? The Democrats, particular in the MSM and the blogosphere, have worked overtime to obscure those facts because they know they are hurt by them. The challenge for Republicans and conservatives is to get that message out. I’m doing my part.

Pundits on both sides of the aisle are split on their predictions for election day. One can easily find both conservative and liberal pundits who think either party will emerge victorious. The bottom line seems to be that this race is a toss up. For myself, I’ve vacillated both ways and remain undecided. My optimistic side would like to remain optimistic but the Foley page scandal has largely squashed my optimism. The actions of North Korea, however, have bumped Foley, at least for now, off the front page. That moves the debate back to national security where Republicans remain largely on top, much to the chagrin of Democrats. If the debate can be kept where it is today and away from the scandal, Republicans still have a fighting chance to prevail. If it goes back to the scandal, I hold out less hope.

Still, many on both sides have expressed the opinion that Democrats have already overplayed their hand with the Foley scandal and believe that there may be a voter backlash. I don’t know if that is wishful thinking on the part of Republicans or sound analysis. I like it but I know voters can be fickle. I don’t worry that conservatives will suddenly vote for Democrats. They may, contrary to Koch’s opinion, stay home.

Noteworthy is the fact that, while North Korea has soared to the top of the headlines, Foley has not disappeared. Watching network and cable newscasts one still finds mention of Foley and the fallout of the scandal in most every Show. This could actually play well for the Democrats if the predictions of overplaying their hand are accurate. Keeping Foley visible without constant Democrat harping could be just what the dems need. Time will tell.