Conservative Mind

Real Footage of Obama's Prayer Being Snatched?

2008-07-30T10:35:00.003-05:00

It appears in a video on YouTube that there is actual footage of Barack Obama's prayer at the Western Wall being snatched. It was posted as a link on Drudge today. Here is the video.

However, this video is obviously a fake. Compare it to the real footage that was given to the Associated Press.

The Application of Faith In Politics: What Role Should Religion Play?

2008-05-20T20:11:00.005-05:00

Jordan Richardson

In the realm of political strategy, what you say, and when you say it, can often determine the likelihood of a victorious campaign. What might have been acceptable speech 50 years ago is not necessarily the most prudent form of communication today. The progression of modern politics dictates that one must appeal to base voters and try to expand the support to the middle ground, the “undecided.” In this process, the candidate must evaluate the form of communication that will be used to sway these voters. Therefore, any discussion of faith, for better or worse, is often assessed through the criterion of its positive or negative effect on key voters. What we have seen in recent years is the utilization of faith based votes and political correctness which, for better or worse, will certainly contribute to the process of political campaigning in years to come. In this discussion, attention will be given to the unique roles that religion has played in political figures throughout modern day history, and their response to the resulting trials.

The discussion of faith in politics is not a new phenomenon. For many of the formative years of America’s early history, politicians and government leaders would often beseech the Almighty for providence in their speech and writing. The tone and manner of their treatment towards God was deeply respectful, as the general populace was of some form of the Christian faith. They themselves believed in God, and chose to express this in their speech and writings. Some of the earliest founding documents appealed to a higher power, such as the Declaration of Independence’s appeal to the “Supreme Judge.” However, as time went, on, the willingness to integrate faith into politics was looked upon with more criticism, as America accepted more naturalistic, postmodern views; case in point, the Scopes Trial and William Jennings Bryan.

The Scopes Trial, famous for the indictment of John Scopes, a Dayton, TN high school teacher, for teaching evolution in school was one of monumental importance. The trial was a direct clash between what role religion may cross into government, and what the resulting response should be. William Jennings Bryan, former secretary of state to Woodrow Wilson, and presidential candidate, obliged to help the prosecution, in what he believed to be an attack on Christianity. Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney, and strong atheist, found it necessary to cross-examine Bryan about his faith. Bryan, even after giving a valiant defense of his faith, was portrayed in the newspapers as dumb and ignorant. He, however, took what criticism there was, and held strong in faith. His example of a strong defense of Christianity was not necessarily the same sort of battle that other Christian politicians were willing to follow in years to come.

Certainly the scrutiny that was given to Christians during the Scopes Trial was a warning to others who might be so inclined to speak publicly about their faith. As most citizens who often watch the news or read the papers know, there seems to be hesitancy among modern presidential candidates to discuss their personal convictions. The argument of separation of church and state aside, much of this caution is fostered by the notion that religion is a personal, private set of beliefs that have nothing to do with political philosophy. The idea goes that whether you are Christian, Jew, Hindu or whatever, your private views should not be the criteria for election. After all, Article 6 of the constitution prohibits religious test, and Americans today feel proud to be open-minded and accepting of other views. However, whether we like it or not, religion does play a large part in the election process because it gives us insight into the candidate’s character. For all the noble claims to be impartial about religion, as history loves to correct, this has not been the case throughout our nation’s past.

When John F. Kennedy was running for office, he seemed to have all the good qualities, a good face, good family, and a charming personality. More, he could motivate people. There was a slight hitch with Kennedy’s background as it related to politics: He was Catholic, and the United States had never elected a Catholic as president. There was much alarm from many of the Protestant voters that he would be receiving orders from the pope, and that his religious beliefs would be manifested in his policies. Kennedy was forced to speak about religious convictions in his September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He said, “For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic” (“Kennedy”). Thus, with this speech, he thwarted the attack on his religion.

The manner in which Kennedy chose to speak about his faith was very reserved and trivialized the relevancy of its effect upon his character. He instead chose to look at the “bigger issue” of what he was capable of. Catholicism may have been unpopular at that time, but Kennedy took the path with least resistance, and downplayed its significance. This is an example of how in modern politics, the way that one presents their faith is crucial to the election. As we know, Kennedy was elected, but one must wonder if he ever regretted downplaying the role of his faith. Certainly, political expediency may sometimes excuse unwillingness to display religious views, but at what cost?

A more modern example of two presidential candidates’ unique religious views happened in the 2008 Republican primaries, with Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. Both candidates had, according to modern secularists and evangelicals, radical religious views. Mike Huckabee was a former Baptist minister with strong moral beliefs, and was viewed by secularists as a possible preacher-president. Naturally, they were opposed to the idea of having such a strong Christian influence public policy. Among Washington circles, many questioned the very constitutionality of such a president; would Huckabee’s pastoral work hinder him from respecting the separation of church and state? Huckabee was tremendously popular among much of the Christian voters, but he saw the need to strategically answer the questions about his faith. He found the opportunity to do so in a June, 2007 Republican debate.

The question from the moderator asked if he believed that the earth was created in six, literal days, and obvious question designed to reveal Huckabee’s fundamentalism. Interestingly, Huckabee did not take the bait. It was in a brilliant, tactical move that he responded by saying, “It is interesting that question would even be asked of someone running for President of the United States. I am not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth grade science book — I am asking for the opportunity to be President of the United States” (“Transcript”). He then went on to explain his belief in God, defending the God he served. It was a well-planned answer that not only deflected criticism of his Creationist beliefs, helping expand support among the undecided, but gave him an opportunity to then relate back to his base, the evangelical voters. While Huckabee did not win the nomination, his courage to speak out about his beliefs in other forums was a stark contrast to the usual line about a belief in a higher power.

The other candidate, who sent shockwaves throughout both the secular and evangelical camps, was Mitt Romney. His personal religious beliefs fall under Mormonism, and his family has played a large part in the Mormon Church. He was not the first Mormon to run for president (his father also ran), but his presence in the republican primaries this year brought about the question of religious freedom; does religion affect your vote? While many Americans claim to be tolerant of other views, it seemed there were still tensions about Mormonism. In the late 1960s, the percentage of Americans who said they would not vote for a Jewish or Catholic presidential candidate was in the double digits; by 1999, those numbers had fallen to six and four percent, respectively (roughly the same as the percentage of voters who say they would not vote for a Baptist (Sullivan), yet twenty-four percent of Americans today say they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate (Jones).

Romney, recognizing the need to address his faith, gave a similar speech to Kennedy, where he welcomed questions about his faith. He said, “Well, President Kennedy, some time ago, said he was not a Catholic running for president, he was an American running for president. And I'm happy to be a proud member of my faith” (“Transcript”). Romney was able defend his faith, keeping in accordance with Kennedy, but also went on to talk about how his faith defined his character. This signaled adherence with to his base, but also tried to gain the middle ground. Romney was able to deflect criticism from the secular media, but he had a harder time convincing evangelical Republicans.

A September 2007 Pew Forum survey found that 36 percent of evangelicals were reluctant to vote for Romney simply because of his Mormon faith (Pulliam). Romney lost ground in the evangelical circles of southern states, and was forced to withdraw from the race. In this case, while Romney had many good qualifications, and had deflected the mainstream media’s criticism of his faith, his campaign was hurt when he went up against an evangelical. He did not account for the practice of many Christians to “vote their faith.” He strategically ran a good campaign, but the tactics he used to persuade religious voters did have the effect he wanted.

These two candidates’ campaigns shed light on the attitude of modern American’s willingness to vote for someone who is outside their faith. Huckabee did quite well within his base, but could not appeal to the secular crowd. Romney, while thrilling fiscal conservatives with his strong understanding of economics and taxes, could not quite convince evangelical voters that his Mormon faith was of no concern. It seems that among the three candidates presented, in terms of political expediency, John F. Kennedy was best at explaining his faith, satisfying his base, and expanding his popularity to the undecided. This was not the case with Huckabee or Romney. Kennedy downplayed his religion, and won votes; it was that simple.

However, one might wonder, have we really become more progressive in the last 50 years, in terms of religious tolerance and a willingness to share our faith? Is getting elected to public office by downplaying the effects of religion upon character and the choices we make necessary? Indeed, just as willingly as William Jennings Bryan was able to put his faith on the line, so have many politicians become readily able to dismiss theirs. Is such a system, where personal religion is the deciding factor of a presidential candidate, and relevant enough to deny him the vote, proper for our system of election? Religion is what identifies character, and character is what should determine the qualification of a candidate, not whether he is Baptist or Catholic or Jew.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of his dream where people would be judged on the content of their character and not of the color of their skin. It seems that it would be valuable to apply these principles to our mindset, having a discussion of merit, when evaluating a candidate, assessing their religion and character. Faith has a valuable part in a person, and excluding it from the conversation in order to win votes, may not be the right thing politically, but not morally. Strategy and tactics in politics may demand that we approach the topic religion with the goal of political correctness and expediency, but until we can judge solely on character, we can at least have the discussion.

Works Cited
Jones, Jeffrey M. “Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year Old Presidential Candidates.” Gallup 20 February 2007 1. 5 May 2008 http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx.

Kennedy, John F. “Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.” American Rhetoric. American Rhetoric. 6 May 2008 http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html.

Pulliam, Sarah. “McCain Surges in Polls, But Many Evangelicals Wary.” Christianity Today 2 April 2008 6 May 2008 http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/106-12.0.html.

“Transcript.” CNN. 7 June 2007. CNN. 6 May 2007 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/07/acd.02.html.

More Fun From The Clintons

2008-04-14T14:41:00.003-05:00

Jordan Richardson

Do you remember Hillary Clinton's remarks about being under sniper fire while on a trip to Bosnia? While that was a big issue, it blew over somewhat, that is, until Bill Clinton decided to interfere again.

From Politico: On Thursday, the former president gave a passionate defense of his wife’s claim about “landing under sniper fire” — just as the damaging controversy was dying down .Bill Clinton said the news media treated her like she had “robbed a bank” and claimed she was experiencing end-of-day fatigue, even though she had made the claim in morning speeches.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) acknowledged two weeks ago that she “misspoke” and “made a mistake” in her overly vivid account of the 1996 landing in Tuzla, Bosnia, during a goodwill mission as first lady. Video of a tranquil arrival ceremony refuted the claim, and her comments hurt her struggling campaign by reviving questions about her candor.

On Thursday he revived the issue by claiming the comments were true during a “Solutions for America” campaign event in at Boonville High School in Boonville, Ind. Here are his comments, recorded by networks and reported by CBS News:

"You know, I got tickled the other day. A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me. But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated — and immediately apologized for it — what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995 [sic]. Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up.

"Let me just tell you. The president of Bosnia and General Wesley Clark – who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers, who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way — both defended her, because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flak jackets underneath the seat in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went, they were covered by Apache helicopters. So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony.

"Now I say that because what really has mattered is that, even then, she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11 at night, too.”

This is strange; the woman who is supposed to be up answering the White House crisis phone at 3 AM cannot remember at 11 at night whether she was greeted with flowers or gunfire? Yet the Clintons keep campaigning and providing us with plenty of laughs along the way.

"Mr. Conservative"

2008-02-06T15:35:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

So John McCain is a Conservative, huh? Bah.

I won't attack John McCain directly, (I did in my last post) but rather give an example of true conservatism and let you compare the two.

I recalled from previous studies that one of the more outstanding conservatives in our nation's past has been one whose name is not mentioned much anymore. We all love (for the most part) the tradition of conservatism that Ronald Reagan brought to the presidency, but it is important to realize the pattern that he followed was a path laid before him by a previous presidential candidate. That person was Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was a five-term United States Senator from Arizona and the Republican Party's nominee for President in the 1964 election. He was a Major General in the U.S. Air Force Reserves. He ran at a time when the Republican Party was under the influence of liberalism, fiscally and socially. His forceful attacks on fiscal waste and his support of Joseph McCarthy shocked many of his Republican colleagues.

His style was aggressive, and in the end he didn't win anything worth speaking of, save his home state and five others. However, his influence throughout the country was strengthened when the breed of old conservatism meets new, came on the scene with Reagan. Now, in today's political circles, candidates are always trying to pass themselves off as the true conservative, and it is Ronald Reagan this, Ronald Reagan that.

I would like to take a walk back in history and read the words defending a conservative philosophy, of which I believe is what the country needs now more than ever.

The following is the text of Barry Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president.

I hope as you read the words of a staunch conservative, you will be inspired and realize that when juxtaposing his words with the rhetoric of modern day "conservatives," it will become obvious which model to truly follow.

"To my good friend and great Republican, Dick Nixon, and your charming wife, Pat; my running mate and that wonderful Republican who has served us well
for so long, Bill Miller and his wife, Stephanie; to Thurston Morton who has done such a commendable job in chairmaning this Convention; to Mr. Herbert Hoover, who I hope is watching; and to that great American and his wife, General and Mrs. Eisenhower; to my own wife, my family, and to all of my fellow Republicans here assembled, and Americans across this great Nation.

From this moment, united and determined, we will go forward together, dedicated to the ultimate and undeniable greatness of the whole man. Together we will win.

I accept your nomination with a deep sense of humility. I accept, too, the responsibility that goes with it, and I seek your continued help and your continued guidance. My fellow Republicans, our cause is too great for any man to feel worthy of it. Our task would be too great for any man, did he not have with him the heart and the hands of this great Republican Party, and I promise you tonight that every fiber of my being is consecrated to our cause; that nothing shall be lacking from the struggle that can be brought to it by enthusiasm, by devotion, and plain hard work. In this world no person, no party can guarantee anything, but what we can do and what we shall do is to deserve victory, and victory will be ours.

The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free-not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bully of communism.

Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways-- not because they are old, but because they are true. We must, and we shall, set the tide running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom - freedom made orderly for this nation by our constitutional government; freedom under a government limited by laws of nature and of nature's God; freedom - balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the slavery of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle.

Now, we Americans understand freedom. We have earned it, we have lived for it, and we have died for it. This Nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world. We can be freedom's missionaries in a doubting world. But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our own homes.
During four futile years, the administration which we shall replace has distorted and lost that faith. It has talked and talked and talked and talked the words of freedom. Now, failures cement the wall of shame in Berlin. Failures blot the sands of shame at the Bay of Pigs. Failures mark the slow death of freedom in Laos. Failures infest the jungles of Vietnam. And failures haunt the houses of our once great alliances and undermine the greatest bulwark ever erected by free nations - the NATO community. Failures proclaim lost leadership, obscure purpose, weakening wills, and the risk of inciting our sworn enemies to new aggressions and to new excesses. Because of this administration we are tonight a world divided - we are a Nation becalmed. We have lost the brisk pace of diversity and the genius of individual creativity. We are plodding at a pace set by centralized planning, red tape, rules without responsibility, and regimentation without recourse.

Rather than useful jobs in our country, people have been offered bureaucratic "make work," rather than moral leadership, they have been given bread and circuses, spectacles, and, yes, they have even been given scandals. Tonight there is
violence in our streets, corruption in our highest offices, aimlessness among our youth, anxiety among our elders and there is a virtual despair among the many who look beyond material success for the inner meaning of their lives. Where examples of morality should be set, the opposite is seen. Small men, seeking great wealth or power, have too often and too long turned even the highest levels of public service into mere personal opportunity.

Now, certainly, simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government. We find it in most. Republicans demand it from everyone. They demand it from everyone no matter how exalted or protected his position might be. The growing menace in our country tonight, to personal safety, to life, to limb and property, inhomes, in churches, on the playgrounds, and places of business, particularly in our great cities, is the mounting concern, or should be, of every thoughtful citizen in the United States.

Security from domestic violence, no less than from foreign aggression, is the most elementary and fundamental purpose of any government, and a government that cannot fulfill that purpose is one that cannot long command the loyalty of its citizens. History shows us - demonstrates that nothing - nothing prepares the way for tyranny more than the failure of public officials to keep the streets from bullies and marauders.

Now, we Republicans see all this as more, much more, than the rest: of mere political differences or mere political mistakes. We see this as the result of a fundamentally and absolutely wrong view of man, his nature and his destiny. Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people. And, so help us God, that is exactly what a Republican president will do with the help of a Republican Congress.

It is further the cause of Republicanism to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the illusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression - and this is hogwash.

It is further the cause of Republicanism to remind ourselves, and the world, that only the strong can remain free, that only the strong can keep the peace.

Now, I needn't remind you, or my fellow Americans regardless of party, that Republicans have shouldered this hard responsibility and marched in this cause before. It was Republican leadership under Dwight Eisenhower that kept the peace, and passed along to this administration the mightiest arsenal for defense the world has ever known. And I needn't remind you that it was the strength and the unbelievable will of the Eisenhower years that kept the peace by using our strength, by using it in the Formosa Straits and in Lebanon and by showing it courageously at all times.

It was during those Republican years that the thrust of Communist imperialism was blunted. It was during those years of Republican leadership that this world moved closer, not to war, but closer to peace, than at any other time in the three decades just passed.

And I needn't remind you - but I will - that it's been during Democratic years that our strength to deter war has stood still, and even gone into a planned decline. It has been during Democratic years that we have weakly stumbled into conflict, timidly refusing to draw our own lines against aggression, deceitfully refusing to tell even our people of our full participation, and tragically, letting our finest men die on battlefields (unmarked by purpose, unmarked by pride or the prospect of victory).

Yesterday it was Korea. Tonight it is Vietnam. Make no bones of this. Don't try to sweep this under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the President, who is Commander-in-Chief of our forces, refuses to say - refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory. And his Secretary of Defense continues to mislead and misinform the American
people, and enough of it has gone by.

And I needn't remind you, but I will; it has been during Democratic years that a billion persons were cast into Communist captivity and their fate cynically sealed.

Today in our beloved country we have an administration which seems eager to deal with communism in every coin known - from gold to wheat, from consulates to confidence, and even human freedom itself.

The Republican cause demands that we brand communism as a principal disturber of peace in the world today. Indeed, we should brand it as the only significant disturber of the peace, and we must make clear that until its goals of conquest are absolutely renounced and its rejections with all nations tempered, communism and the governments it now controls are enemies of every man on earth who is or wants to be free.

We here in America can keep the peace only if we remain vigilant and only if we remain strong. Only if we keep our eyes open and keep our guard up can we prevent war. And I want to make this abundantly clear - I don't intend to let peace or freedom be torn from our grasp because of lack of strength or lack of will - and that I promise you Americans.

I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension
tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole world of Europe unified and free, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. This is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot.

It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century. I can also see - and all free men must thrill to - the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny, what a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americans and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge - we pledge that human sympathy - what our neighbors to the South call that attitude of "simpatico" - no less than enlightened self'-interest will be our guide. I can see this Atlantic civilization galvanizing and guiding emergent nations everywhere.

I know this freedom is not the fruit of every soil. I know that our own freedom was achieved through centuries, by unremitting efforts by brave and wise men. I know that the road to freedom is a long and a challenging road. I know also that some men may walk away from it, that some men resist challenge, accepting the false security of governmental paternalism.

And I pledge that the America I envision in the years ahead will extend its hand in health, in teaching and in cultivation, so that all new nations will be at least encouraged to go our way, so that they will not wander down the dark alleys of tyranny or to the dead-end streets of collectivism. My fellow Republicans, we do no man a service by hiding freedom's light under a bushel of mistaken humility.

I seek an America proud of its past, proud of its ways, proud of its dreams, and determined actively to proclaim them. But our example to the world must, like charity, begin at home.

In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room for deliberation of the energy and talent of the individual - otherwise our vision is blind at the outset.

We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunity for the creative and the productive. We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions.

I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.

This Nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we, as individual citizens, can and should do. During Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations - a Nation where all who can will be self-reliant.

We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man, and we see the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.

We see, in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We do not seek to lead anyone's life for him - we seek only to secure his rights and to guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed.

We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of
maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy and enforcing law and order. Thus do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creativity within a stable order, for we Republicans define government's role where needed at many, many levels, preferably through the one
closest to the people involved.

Our towns and our cities, then our counties, then our states, then our regional contacts - and only then, the national government. That, let me remind you, is the ladder of liberty, built by decentralized power. On it also we must have balance between the branches of government at every level.

Balance, diversity, creativity - these are the elements of Republican equation. Republicans agree, Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications, but we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are Republicans.

This is a party, this Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists.

Back in 1858 Abraham Lincoln said this of the Republican party - and I quote him, because he probably could have said it during the last week or so: "It was composed of strained, discordant, and even hostile elements" in 1858. Yet all of these elements agreed on one paramount objective: To arrest the progress of slavery, and place it in the course of ultimate extinction.

Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of preserving and enlarging freedom at home and safeguarding it from the forces of tyranny abroad is great enough to challenge all our resources and to require all our strength. Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those who do not care for our cause, we don't expect to enter our ranks in any case. And let our Republicanism, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

The beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution. Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world. Ours is a very human cause for very humane goals.

This Party, its good people, and its unquestionable devotion to freedom, will not fulfill the purposes of this campaign which we launch here now until our cause has won the day, inspired the world, and shown the way to a tomorrow worthy of all our yesteryears.

I repeat, I accept your nomination with humbleness, with pride, and you and I are going to fight for the goodness of our land.
Thank you."

Whom to Vote For: The Conscience of a Conservative

2008-01-30T13:01:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

Whom to choose for president? As most of you know, I am usually very hard on politicians and make several jabs at their experience and philosophy. I am critical of liberals, and wary of the conservatives who give ground to liberal’s demands. So coming from a skeptical viewpoint, it is hard to find a good candidate, but easy to weed out the undesirables. However, for all my jabs at politicians the one that I did support was Fred Thompson.

I supported Fred as far back as March of 2006. He undoubtedly stood for conservative principles and had a deep understanding of the Constitution. He and Ron Paul were/are by far the most conservative in the race. I appreciated his view that the government cannot fix everything, and therefore sought to introduce plans that enabled the free market to stimulate and improve certain economic and fiscal issues. If you visit Fred's website, he is the only candidate that has a section explaining the philosophy of conservative principles and why Federalism works and why less government is better government. http://fred08.com/Virtual/Federalism.aspx Fred was also endorsed by the National Right to Life, and Human Events.

However, after the South Carolina primary, and because of poor poll numbers, Fred dropped out. What is a conservative to do?

From several in the evangelical circles, I have been told that my only choice is Huckabee. The idea is that because he was a pastor and a governor, pro-life, anti- gay marriage, and has a great personality, he must the best conservative leader to elect as president. However, while I appreciate Huckabee for his strong, certain qualities, I must confess that my support of conservatism prohibits my endorsement of him.

He has a mindset of big government (whether or not he was “forced“to raise taxes)

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabee_fis.php_

He is soft on immigration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNvuHw0ee7I

He calls a bill that does not extend state benefits (education, welfare, etc.) to children of illegal immigrants “un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life“.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html

He is for measures that would allow terrorists in Guantanamo bay to have Habeas corpus rights. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=837

I could go on forever. As a candidate running for the highest office, his policies and beliefs must be examined to ensure that this governor from Arkansas doesn’t turn out like the last one. While Huckabee is a likeable person and strong on some issues, I cannot with a conscience support him.

As for Ron Paul, I do agree with him on most things fiscally and economically, however, I disagree with him to such a large extent concerning national security and foreign policy, that I believe that a vote for him would not just be undesirable, but dangerous. Moreover, even if I could come to reconciliation with his security policies, he has a very slim chance of winning the Republican nomination, much less the national election.

John McCain is no better. He has serious issues when it comes to conservative values. Professing to know virtually nothing about economics, he introduces a bill to grant illegal immigrant amnesty, was against the Bush tax cuts, wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay, and is a believer that global warming exists and that humans caused it. That would not be so bad until you realize that he wants more government regulations to stop the bad Americans from driving big cars or using a regular light bulb. Hardly a conservative mindset. You, see, it is more than abortion and gay marriage that matters.

Indeed, many conservative political insiders have warned against a McCain vote. Rick Santorum, former Senate colleague expressed concern over the many on Right who are supporting McCain. Santorum said in an interview, “The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him [McCain] , 6 years in the United States Senate as leader, one of the leaders of the Senate — the number-3 leader — who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDllYTY5NzA2OTk2YzNhZTIyZGUwYzU5OTc4MzVhZDY=

His recent win in Florida unfortunately means that many conservatives will believe that he has run on conservative principles, but if one looks at his long Senate record, it obvious that he is, at best, a moderate.

Rudy Giuliani had similar problems, but not as serious. He is strong on national security and healthcare; however, his big government stance troubles many conservatives. Support for gun control, abortion and gay marriage are also strikes against him. Moreover, it now appears that he will drop out after his poor showing in Florida, a state that he banked everything on. He didn’t last long enough for me to vote against him.

Where does that leave us?

“What…no! No, you can’t mean Mitt Romney!” Well, actually, yes, that is where I am leading. And, since I have led us there, it is prudent to point out the two most obvious criticisms of this man: He’s flip-flopped on abortion, and he is a Mormon. Fair enough responses, so I will deal with them.

Answering the barbs about Romney's “flip-flopping,” I think it is pretty clear to me that after actually listening and reading his explanation of that position, he is sincere. It is actually quite a plus for him; a candidate who is willing that he was wrong on abortion, and then become a staunch pro-life advocate.

Ann Coulter explains it well: “Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts -- or, for short, "the Soviet Union" -- Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion. Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.”

She has an excellent point. In the state where Romney served, a quick show of hands for the anti-abortion movement would not get you elected dogcatcher.

Coulter goes on: “Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life -- a group I trust more than the editorial board of The New York Times. Romney's Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a ‘flip-flopper.’ After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."

It is important to realize that because of his involvement in life and death issues that came to his desk, Romney concluded that abortion was morally wrong. He vetoed every abortion bill. Romney stated that, "Every decision I have made as Governor in a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life." Some his decisions include:

Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription. (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)

Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/06)

Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To the Massachusetts State Senate and House of Representatives, 5/12/05)

Supported Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, "O'Brien and Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/02

Moreover, he worked with local prolife movements to ensure a safe environment for there to be change. According to Massachusetts Citizens for Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis, "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "An Early Massachusetts Primary," National Review, 1/10/07)

Another obvious question arises, and that is, why not just vote for Huckabee, since he has always been pro-life? Good question, but while you do have a strong candidate with Huckabee on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, you need to realize that it is not the president that ultimately changes policy; it is the elected representatives and (more currently), the supreme court. The president can appoint constructionist judges to likely favor the conservative viewpoint, but his influence is very limited in today's political atmosphere to change these things without a long battle. As mentioned before, Romney is pro-life, and promised to appoint constructionist judges to the bench. Being staunchly pro-life by itself is not enough to elect someone as president.

It is crucial to understand that a public office requires more credentials than being socially conservative. There is a mandate (at least among real conservatives) for strong fiscal and national security policies from a conservative viewpoint. Romney excels in that area. When Romney took office in 2002, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs and spending excessively. Over his term, Romney closed a nearly three billion-dollar budget gap, and the unemployment rate was significantly decreased.

His experience in the business world led him to understand free market principles and why a company will succeed or fail. Romney’s plan for the federal government is to treat it like a business: do not spend what you do not have, and become more efficient and effective without increasing the size of the company. Romney is for limited government and state’s rights, and his understanding of the economy stands in stark contrast to McCain’s self-admitted ignorance.
Those are just a few reasons beyond the social focus, but if you want to read more about his ideas and philosophy, his website has detailed research and facts about his proposals.

As for the caution about electing a Mormon, critical thought is needed here. Article IV of the Constitution warns against imposing religions tests on candidates seeking public office. As voters, we should be careful to treat all people with respect. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream “…for nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” We should apply the principle to a person’s beliefs that, if structured in a way that is in agreement with the laws of the land, and the morality of his life is plainly seen, that we should not discriminate against him or her.

We can trust people of other religions to sell our cars, groceries, give financial advice, even to be our senators and governors, but we cannot trust them to do a good job as president. Maybe one could not vote for a Mormon, but how about a Jew or a Muslim?

I believe that principles and philosophy that the Declaration and the Constitution observed were indeed Judeo-Christian. Furthermore, I believe that as a principle, the law of the land must recognize who gave the morality and reason to create law at all. Why should one follow the law if it is simply man made? If you are a nation of men, rather than, law, man may become above the law.

There comes a time, however, to realize that we live in a fallen world, and a perfect government can never exist. The leader of such a government of ours must be able to do it competently, and have an understanding of why America (and capitalism for that matter) work the way they do.

While it is preferable to have a Christian as a leader, it is vital to step back and understand that this phrase “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States“ does mean that persons should be evaluated by their merits, and who can do the best job. I think the voters should try to understand the philosophy behind this.

As a conservative, I will vote for the most conservative candidate. It is not a pleasant business, but such is the world we live in.

I do not believe that Romney is the best candidate.

I believe that he is the best candidate that is running for president.

Moments of Humor

2008-01-27T19:19:00.000-05:00

Two Debates: Very Different Ideas

2008-01-05T22:38:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

As I watched the debates tonight, I was impressed with the dialogue, and have some interesting observations. I think the winner for the Reps was Fred Thompson. He focused on core issues, and was engaged in heated debate with those around him, all without losing the message of hope. I appreciate his remarks before the debate about his “will” to win the White House, the ever joked about “fire in the belly.” He said that he thinks it might be best if a world leader with the power to launch nuclear weapons doesn’t have too much “fire in his belly.”

Well said.

I cannot pick a clear second place, so I will briefly comment on the rest of the candidates. Ron Paul did very well on the domestic issues, and even had the other Reps with him for a moment, but was slammed on foreign policy and the war on terror. I think he hurt himself with his constant barrage of negativity, though.

Leading the charge was Rudy, doing quite well in this debate; not as many stutters or false starts. He did a good job of using statistics to support his case. I liked how his was quick to respond to charges made against him (the sanctuary city comment by Fred Thompson) and how he effectively shut down Ron Paul for the evening.

Huckabee seemed very defensive tonight, but that was to be expected since he just wrapped up the first place spot in Iowa, a dead target for the runners-up to pick on. He defended his positions well, but made (what I deemed) several irrelevant jabs at Romney; i.e., the comment about Romney's supposed flip-flopping on the surge. He seemed tired, and unprepared, but held his own.

McCain did a fine job of reminding everyone that he does have the most experience, but he also, unfortunately reminded us how very liberal he is on several issues: global warming, GTMO, etc. He had a great moment of humor when he quipped to Romney, that Romney was indeed a candidate of change.

Romney was solid, except when questioned by Fred and Huckabee about Massachusetts's health care program. He kept a positive message throughout, which was a nice change from the gloom and despair from Ron Paul.

As for the Democratic debate, all I can say is that the promise of change from the Democrat candidates is code-speak for, “We really, really want to raise your taxes." The word “change” was thrown around so many times, you would have thought you were watching a commercial for Pampers.

There was such a lack of substance among the lot of them that it made me laugh. Please, Bill Richardson’s quest to, “protect the kids,” was so corny and so out of place, that it furthered the impression of him as a bumbler.

I was morbidly amused by the ganging up on Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama and John Edwards. They made quite a team. Hillary actually lost her composure and raised her voice considerably in a sharp retort. Quite nice, you guys. Just wait till she unleashes her full attack on them. That will be fun.

As debates go, many points were dropped by both parties, and issues were distorted, but I thought it highlighted the key differences between the candidates, and served to give a guideline on which person you should vote for.

And it is only January.

Repeating Trends?

2007-12-10T16:27:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson
A Website Dedicated to Deliver Thought Provoking Articles to a Conservative Readership.
It is interesting to note the trends that continue to play themselves out in our electoral politics. A couple of years ago, when Bush was running for his second term, the Democrats were scrambling to find a candidate who could beat him. Their task was to discover someone who had the credentials to combat Bush’s then successful handling of the war on terror, but one who also captured the hearts of the voters.

One of the first choices, thought likely to win the primary, was the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, Wesley Clark. He, however, lost touch with his voters as the focus shifted to Howard Dean and his radical brand of liberalism.
Dean, unlike the majority of the Democrats at the time, called for troop pullouts and deadlines. He sparked an internet surge that reaped him millions of dollars in campaign contributions, and the support of the far-left wing. It was one ear-paining screech, however, that caused him to quickly lose support, until his eventual withdrawal from the race.

With election quickly closing in, Democrats became desperate to find “the candidate” to beat Bush. They chose John Kerry for this task. It was obvious among the Democrat voters that Kerry was not their first choice, and they had no real reason to vote for him, other than to make sure Bush lost. This apathetic attitude towards Kerry cost him support, not to mention the White House.

Let’s skip forward to September. Fred Thompson, after incredible standings in national polls as a non-candidate, decides to officially announce his bid for president. Often touted as the “true conservative,” he garnered massive support from the conservative media and followers. His first appearance in a debate, however, portrayed him as lackluster, and frankly boring. His numbers stayed steady for a while, and then began their descent to a low 13 percent of the vote.

Now our timeline arrives to this week. Mike Huckabee leads in the Iowa primary and is trailing Rudy Giuliani in the national polls, 19-24. Huckabee has united a lot the Christian voters to favor him over the “suspicious” Mitt Romney and his brand of Mormon faith. Huckabee was in the lower levels of the polls, but amazingly rose to a first-tier status, seemingly overnight.

What is going on?

If patterns tend to repeat themselves, the question is who the GOP’s Dean is: Thompson or Huckabee. Moreover, if comparison of candidates is even a valid assumption, what does it say about the eventual nominee for the GOP? Will it be a Kerry-like figure that is voted for simply because he is touted to be “the candidate” to beat Hillary Clinton? Is that who Rudy Giuliani is, or is there more to the story?

Certainly, there is much that can change over the following months, but given the way that trends have led us, is a Clinton White House what we are to look forward to, as we lack a united party?

It is something to ponder.

The Big Cover Up

2007-10-31T22:54:00.000-05:00

War: Morally Justified?

2007-10-06T21:10:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

Throughout life, man is faced with moral dilemmas. Some dilemmas are graver than others. It is man’s duty as a Christian to carefully examine the motives and reasons for the course of action that he, or his nation, wishes to take. Especially important is the issue of whether war can ever be morally justified, and then, after concluding that it may, how it is executed and monitored throughout. Many support the idea of the abolishment of war, and others deem any violent defense to be contrary to the Scriptures, yet it is imperative to scrutinize the reasons for these views and allow room for the just-war as part of the conversation.

There are two mainstream views concerning war: Pacifism and Just-war doctrine. Not many would claim to hold a position of militarism, though sometimes militaristic views are brought forth in debates concerning terrorism. I think it is fair to say that very few law-abiding citizens wish war, and those who do support its use are generally restrained regarding the extent of excessive force. Categorically, American Christians abhorred war, and spoke against it, but at the same time, acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary as a last resort; i.e., the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence speaks of a situation where action was necessary. It states, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future. As Christians, we must be vigilant to ensure that justice and protection of the innocent prevail, even if it may mean engaging in a war.

There are two authorities on the two different theories. Dr. Earl Zimmerman, associate professor and director of the Conflict Resolution Center at Eastern Mennonite University, and Dr. Jean Bethke Elshtain, Rockefeller Professor of Social Ethics in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. They both recently defended their views on war at a symposium held at Bryan College. Dr. Elshtain supports the right for a people to defend themselves, or innocent parties, when the criterion for such action is warranted. Her views fall under the category of Just-war doctrine. Dr. Zimmerman is of the Mennonite peace church tradition and is a pacifist.
Just-war doctrine establishes that wars should not be waged unless there is clear, conclusive evidence of a threat, or if innocent parties are being harmed. There is a specific term for this reasoning: “Jus ad Bellum,” Latin for "Justice of War". The main idea is that there must be certain criteria met before a nation retaliates or preempts violently toward an aggressor. There are six criteria for this doctrine, and it is important to realize that many of these constraints are biblically founded as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first of this list is just cause, a specific reason to enter into war in the first place. It might be to right a wrong, such as recapturing things that were taken, or for punishing an aggressor. Proverbs 3:30 reminds us of this: “Do not contend with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.” Another criterion falls under this category: right intention. You must have a legitimate reason for going to war, i.e., with the end goal being peace, and not for economic or material gain.

Moreover, the next criterion demands that you must use war as a last resort. You must have expended every option to peacefully solve the grievance, and, only after all options have been exhausted, turn to the category of war. In situations where peace is a foreseeable option, nation states must make sure to utilize the diplomatic and other non-violent means of persuasion. As Dr. Elshtain points out, however, enemies such as Al-Qaeda are not willing to negotiate, and since there is no peaceful solution, war against the jihadists is necessary.

One complicated criterion deals with comparative justice. The mandates of this criterion state that the injustice done to you must significantly outweigh the injustice done to your enemy. In a world where it is easy to see both sides to an issue, it is vital to make the distinction of comparative justice before retaliating violently. Who is to say which deed done was worse than the other? It is imperative for a review of the circumstances before a war occurs.
Additionally, the persons conducting a violent war must have legitimate authority to do so. Romans 13:4 addresses the role of the government as this agent of justice, saying, “For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Vigilante justice, or justice taken in the hands of a group of citizens that do not hold authority, is prohibited.

Another very important criterion is that there must be a reasonable chance of success. It is not responsible to engage in a conflict that kills thousands, yet, accomplishes nothing. The reasoning behind this principle is to put a high value on the lives of the ones fighting in the war and those caught in between. There comes a point when a nation’s case for justice is overruled by the damage that is incurred by the violence. These criterions serve to ensure that wars will not be fought for whimsical, or hotheaded notions. It is crucial that nations closely scrutinize their justifications for war before deciding to declare violent action.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the key elements to the just-war doctrine is the theory of Jus in Bello, or the proper way for combatants to behave. The most widely recognized form of Jus in Bello is the policy of discrimination; meaning the nation at war will not intentionally shoot civilians or non-combatants. There is serious cause for concern when repeated instances of this type of abuse may occur. Secondly, Just war conduct must be guided by the principle of proportionality. This relates with the use of discrimination, and the third issue of minimum force. These principles seek to properly set forth attacks against the enemy in the least violent way of accomplishing the end goal. There is no need to machine-gun down a group of barely armed soldiers, when another tactic may be used to peacefully force them to lay down their arms. In such ways, the issues of discrimination and proportionality provide a task of responsibility for the nation at war.

A further criterion, though not often mentioned, is an important principle; justice in ending a war, or Jus post Bellum. This idea states that there must be a responsible way of ending the war with treaties and official declarations of surrender. There must be a right intention while accepting surrenders, by not seeking revenge, and adhering to the principle of proportionality regarding the terms of surrender. There must be a just punishment for the aggressor, which does not exceed or limit what the boundaries of discrimination allow. There must be a distinction made between military and political leaders, and citizens, and a legitimate authority must accept the terms of peace.

Dr. Elshtain believes that the current war in Iraq is an example of a just war. She asserts that justice and punishment of wrongdoers not only applies to local and national injustices, but also to those who have no voice or means of justice. Her view on the matter differs sharply with Dr. Zimmerman’s, which is that of an absolute non-violent philosophy. Dr. Elshtain makes the point that many Christian leaders have stepped forth to proclaim that there is room for a just war in extreme circumstances. She refers to a letter to the president, in which Richard Land and several other leaders expressed their concern that the president understand the implications of invading Iraq, and providing him with the argument that the war was, indeed, just. Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, Bill Bright, chairman of Campus Crusade for Christ, James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, and Carl D. Herbster, president of the American Association of Christian Schools, signed their support for the war and gave a clear example of how just-war doctrine relates to current events.

Dr. Elshtain’s philosophy is that not only should justice be served, but that it is our duty to perform that justice. Where Dr. Zimmerman interprets the verses in the Bible concerning justice, as what is to come at the end of time, Dr. Elshtain argues that until Christ comes back, pacifism is not a practical or even moral way of being God’s instrument of authority on earth. She referenced a question from C.S. Lewis that concisely dealt with the problem of pacifism: “...if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?” If the issue of morality is problem for the pacifist, then what kind of problems must he have with allowing evil to overcome innocent, defenseless parties?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Zimmerman holds to the belief that as a general policy, Christians should not support or enter into any war of any kind. He also believes that the law against murder includes killing. His main reasoning for this comes from scripture. The main Biblical support for the pacifist doctrine is found in Matthew 5:
[Jesus said:] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

Zimmerman asserts that Jesus never intended Christians to engage in war, and that all means for solutions to violent conflicts should be dealt with peacefully. His stance offers the evidence that peaceful solutions can be found, giving the examples of Mahatmas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Zimmerman’s main concern with just-war doctrine is he feels that in a time of tension and fear, just-war doctrine may be carried so far as to justifying war. Note the difference: Just-war doctrine demands a reasonable cause for entering into any sort of violent conflict, and Zimmerman believes that the action of justifying an act of violence after the fact could be an offshoot of just-war thinking.

To be more specific, he believes that after September 11, 2001, many Americans were anxious to rush to war against any nation that supported the attacks on the World Trade Center, and that their grief muddled their logical reasoning regarding Jus ad Bellum principles. He believes that only after we had to deal with Jus in Bello principles, did we realize that the original reasons for invading Iraq did not hold any value concerning Jus ad Bellum doctrine.
Dr. Zimmerman has a different measure of absolute pacifism than most would. While other pacifists are fine with completely rejecting the idea of war, and not offering alternative solutions to the problem, Zimmerman seeks to provide a practical form pacifism. He observes the world as pre-occupied with war and violence in general.

His solution to the predicament that he declares we are in, a situation that one can hardly deny, is to focus more on the peace talks between nations and parties. The conflicts in Kosovo and Yugoslavia, he believes, were the result of scarce communication between bitter opponents, and that to prevent such actions in the future we should have more peace discussions. His stance of absolute non-violence translates into policies that would force those parties of opposition to come before an assembly to talk over their problems. The United Nations is the institution that he foresees as the best enabler of those discussions. Thus, instead of merely rejecting war, he gives an alternative.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both theories carry numerous arguments and analysis, and serve to deepen the level of discourse on such a grave topic. There is, however, a need to clarify and indentify the specific reasons why, or why not, a Christian should adopt either resolution. The problem first noted is with Dr. Zimmerman’s case. While pacifism sounds wonderful as a concept, it has little expediency in the real world. Jesus’ words of peace are to be followed in personal devotion. A stance of non-violence can be practical in certain situations, but there is point where pacifism will just not work. If I practice turning the other cheek, does that mean that my enemy will do the same? And how many times must he slap me before I quit giving him my face? What if he slaps the face of my family; must I remain quiet and restrain from helping them, violently, if necessary? An absolute stance of non-violence, as Dr. Zimmerman promotes, is only useful when men have been stripped of their evil nature and free will.

Dr. Zimmerman relies primarily on the idea that killing is equated with murder, and that any practice of killing, even in defense, is contrary to the scriptures. He uses the one of the Ten Commandments as a rationale: “Thou shall not murder.” This scripture is usually misinterpreted. The word in the Hebrew language, “Ratsach,” is defined as “an angry reaction to stimulus; or lying in wait, as one waits for prey.” Now, it is obvious that God did not, and does not, prohibit the ending of a life. Many of the sacrifices offered unto Him for the forgiveness sins entailed killing an animal upon an alter. He also commanded the Israelites to destroy the different cities that they passed through, even to the point of killing all living inhabitants.

Clearly, God was not opposed to the ending of lives. Therefore, this word “kill” is best defined, in our English language, as “murder,” the act of killing without authority: a premeditated act of vengeance.

I think it is clear, however, in wartime, nation states do have the authority to take another’s life. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Moreover, Romans 13:4 clearly gives the legitimate authority to the state to enact justice on earth. Governments and states must provide justice and punishment for the wrongdoer, and it would be foolhardy to say that that privilege does not extend to wartime powers.

It is important to note the difference between an act of anger, and the intervention in a situation where the innocent are being harmed. Justice is not something that is constrained by boundary lines. If an aggressor is consistently molesting an innocent party, it is our duty, as an act of love, to bring forth justice when we can. Pacifism applies the principle of turning the other cheek when someone strikes you to the area of domestic and international conflicts. There is a point, however, when we must ask ourselves if we have the right to turn our neighbor’s cheek for them?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While students of the different schools of thought may never reach a consensus on the principle of war in general, it is essential that the principles of pacifism be combined with just-war ideology. A pacifist approach to diplomacy and the pursuit is necessary to accomplish the goals of peace. I believe, however, that war is allowed while using extreme caution to be sure that there is a just reason to go to war. Our fight against Islamic radicals is a situation where pacifism will not work. Until there is a significant violent or religious end to their jihad, we can never survive as pacifists. We can never protect our family or our nation. Their goal is our death, even if they must kill themselves to accomplish that end. How do you negotiate terms peace with an enemy such as that?

I believe that the just-war theory holds enough checks and balances to ensure that a war may be fought on moral terms. The reality of war demands that we seriously consider the long-lasting damages that will occur, and the thousands who will be scarred forever. War is never the answer to all questions, but it is the approximate amount of justice to a select few.
John Stuart Mill succinctly sums up the argument, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

It is a moral duty to protect and defend the innocent, and guard against those who do evil. Extreme measures must sometimes be taken, and it is with grace and plea to God for His mercy that we so boldly accept the authority that God gave us. May we never take for granted the responsibility entrusted to humanity.

Student arrested and Tasered after asking Kerry a question

2007-09-18T08:58:00.000-05:00

A University of Florida student was arrested and Tasered after trying to ask John Kerry, about the 2004 election and other subjects during a campus forum.

John Kerry was about to answer the question and said, "That's alright, let me answer his question," when the police grabbed the student and dragged him off. Students who were near him protested the police and yelled "leave him alone!" but they were shoved back.

The student, after repeatedly asking what he had done wrong, was Tasered, much to the shock of the audience. Kerry asked for everyone to remain calm, but no one was paying attention.

This video shows what happened after he was removed from the room.

Simply shocking.

Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq

2007-09-10T14:52:00.000-05:00

This is something that is relevant to the outcome of the war on terror, because this report is said to "make or break" the support for the victory in Iraq.

General David H. Petraeus
Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq

Mr. Chairmen, Ranking Members, Members of the Committees, thank you for the opportunity to provide my assessment of the security situation in Iraq and to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward.

At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.

As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though the improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks, with the numbers of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006.

One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq. Though Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, we have taken away a number of their sanctuaries and gained the initiative in many areas.

We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.
Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period, although the numbers in each area are still at troubling levels.
Iraqi Security Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the lead in operations in many areas.

Additionally, in what may be the most significant development of the past 8 months, the tribal rejection of Al Qaeda that started in Anbar Province and helped produce such significant change there has now spread to a number of other locations as well.
Based on all this and on the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade
combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve.

Beyond that, while noting that the situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult, and sometimes downright frustrating, I also believe that it is possible to achieve our objectives in Iraq over time, though doing so will be neither quick nor easy.
Having provided that summary, I would like to review the nature of the conflict in Iraq, recall the situation before the surge, describe the current situation, and explain the recommendations I have provided to my chain of command for the way ahead in Iraq.

Vote No!

2007-07-31T23:04:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

The mood right now in the political atmosphere concerning gambling and table games is certainly vigorous. It is a hotspot issue in Kanawha County, West Virginia, where a vote will take place August 11 to decide whether to expand the state’s already present slot machines to include table games. Certain political leaders have come out in support of the measure, and others have littered the highways and billboards promising economic wealth, and the always repeated, and now almost mystical, figure of “1,000 new jobs!” Any questioning of the consequences of the arrival of table games guarantees a quick reminder of the “1,000 new jobs it will bring.” Don’t you want 1,000 new jobs? What is truly interesting is the flexibility of the figure of new jobs alleged to arrive. With every couple of weeks comes an increase in the number. I think it is now up to 3,000.

Of course, in an economy that is struggling, to say the least, this is exactly the sort of bait you would want to use to seduce the counties to vote for a measure that will expand the tax revenues for the local municipalities. Through all the debate, however, scarce attention is given to disadvantages of ushering in table games. Facts are swept under the rug, and a bright smile is painted on what experts know to be a risk to the populace. In order that one might properly introduce the disadvantages of allowing table games, it is necessary to deal in context the certain claims of advantages that table games will supposedly bring.

Let’s address jobs since there already several sentences detailing them. What sort of new jobs will table games bring? According to the Tri-State Racetrack and Gaming Center, half of the jobs will be at the new gambling center. The other half will be “jobs in related service and tourism industries.” I am glad they have a nice even number to work with; these jobs are mostly to expand their own business. Don’t worry, they promise that the addition of table games will usher in economic development, which they say will bring “Dedicated funding for in-home senior care programs, and funds for police and firefighter pensions.”

One might ask who asked them to provide these services: since when do we rely on a gambling casino to provide our needs and baby us like our government? It appears that the gambling industry wants to make themselves irreplaceable and a permanent fixture in the community. It reminds me a weird way of the movie, “Pollyanna,” where Pollyanna’s aunt demanded to pay for the city’s woes and retain her benefactor status. The problem with these parallels is that we should not have to, or want to rely on a high and mighty benefactor to care for our every need. What ever happened to self-reliance and independent work ethic? It is not the place of the government, and certainly not a casino, to provide for our well-being.

Some might excuse this argument, and ask what is wrong if someone wishes to give to the community; if they are going to anyway, why not let them expand their business? Because in the end, it will hurt us more than help us. Here are the facts about the disadvantages:

Ø A 5-year Iowa study found that counties having a casino, racetrack, or riverboat casino had a bankruptcy rate averaging 21% higher than the rest of the state.

Ø A U.S. News & World Report analysis found average national crime rates in casino communities to be 84% higher than communities without casinos.

Ø The percentage of Iowa problem and pathological gamblers rose by over 300% over the six-year period after casinos began operations.

Ø A National Study found that counties having at least 1 gambling establishment averaged 18% more bankruptcies than those counties without gambling.

Ø According to the University of California – San Diego sociologist Dr. David Philips, Las Vegas “displays the highest levels of suicide in the nation, both for residence of Las Vegas and for visitors to that setting. In Atlantic City, NJ Philips found that “abnormally high suicide levels for visitors and residents appeared only after gambling casinos were opened.

Ø In Gulfport, MS suicides increased by 213% (from 24 to 75) in the first 2 years after casino arrived. In neighboring Biloxi, suicide attempts jumped by 1,000% (from 6 to 66) in the first year alone.

Ø A court-ordered temporary shutdown of video lottery machines in the state of SD resulted in a drastic reduction of people seeking treatment for gambling addictions. Before the machines were shut off, addiction treatment centers averaged 11 gamblers treated per month. During the shutdown, the number plummeted to less than 1 per month. Once the machines resumed operations, the average monthly number immediately jumped to 8.

Ø The number of divorces in Harrison County, MS, which is home to 10 casinos, has increased by almost 300% since the introduction of casinos.

Ø The National Impact Study Commission reported: “Children of compulsive gamblers are often prone to suffer abuse, as well as neglect, as a result of parental problem or pathological gambling.”

Ø In Indiana, a review of the state’s gaming commission records revealed that 72 children were found abandoned on casino premises during a 14-month period.

Ø A University of Nebraska Medical Center study concluded that problem gambling is as much a risk factor for domestic violence as alcohol abuse.

Ø UNLV researchers conclude that the state of Wisconsin experiences an average of 5,300 additional crimes a year due to the presence of casinos in the state. They also attributed an additional 17,100 arrests for less serious crimes each year to the existence of casino gambling.

Ø A study of 1,800 Minnesotans in state-run gambling treatment programs found that over ½ had yearly incomes of $20,000 or less. The study also discovered that the amount of debt, as a proportion of income, was highest among the poorest gamblers seeking treatment.

Ø The crime rate in Minnesota counties with casinos accelerated over 200% faster than counties without casinos.

Why would any civic-minded citizen wish to take the risks known to exist because of table games, in return for promises built on false hopes of economic success? It is time that we not regard the almighty dollar as the final factor for our decisions to protect the livelihood of us, and our families.

Table games may bring jobs, but it is certain that they will bring more than that. We will truly be holding a tiger by the tail with a Yes-vote.

The odds are if you play, you lose.

Micro-Managing A War

2007-07-16T21:07:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

This is the state of distorted thinking on the left. Jim Webb authorized General Petraeus to assess the situation in Iraq and then give a report on the effects of the surge in troops by September, but Webb demands that we pull out of Iraq now; this before Petraeus even gives his report. The majority of Democrats are not willing to follow their own advice. One moment they demand an increase in troops, then, when this wish is met, they quickly shift to denounce they very increases in troop levels that they previously supported.

Remember the cry from the liberals that the troops didn't have body armour? The same liberals voted against funding for the body armour they touted was so necessary just months before. They do these actions with the mindset that the political winds may change at any time.

Do any Democrats have a spine other than Lieberman?

The Awakening

2007-06-30T17:45:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

This week we learned we mattered. This week we learned that if we express our voice, and consistently pressure our elected representatives to do the right thing, that they will have to listen, and that for them to not do so will mean political disaster for their future campaigns. We, the American people, woke up to the corruption and carelessness that so predominately exists in the hearts and minds of the people who claimed to represent our states. It was retort to the Bush administration, whose push to enact this legislation perturbed even his staunchest supporters. We finally began to understand why limited government is the key to protecting America, and that those who massively expand the entitlement programs are the ones who will ultimately bring our nation to her knees.

It was a hard battle. For several weeks, the American majority put up with attacks on their character and accusations of racism. Polls suggested that 80 percent or more of Americans opposed the legislation proposed, yet still the Senators voted for cloture on Tuesday, by a margin of 64-35. What’s more, there were reports of Senators who turned of their phones and answering machines in a rebuke to the pesky people that they represented. It seemed as if the Washington politicians were quite out of tune with populace and just could not grasp the meaning of the words, "Illegal aliens". This did not impede the American spirit. We decided we would just have to push harder.

Americans made countless phone calls to their elected representatives demanding that they vote no on the amnesty provisions in the immigration bill, and voting against the cloture vote on Thursday. Many called during the weeks of debating the bill, but the remarkable event was right before the vote for cloture on Thursday. So many calls flooded the Capitol switchboard, that it was shut down. Consequently, most of the Republicans who were on the fence about the legislation were compelled to vote with the conscience of the majority of Americans. The final vote on the cloture proposal was 46-53. It was a stunning blow to forces who cried for open borders and amnesty for lawbreakers.

There were heroes in this battle and we will give credit where credit is due. The Senator from the state of Alabama, Jeff Session led the way to inform the politicians and the public about the dangers of this bill. He showed outstanding commitment to this battle and he deserves a salute for his hard work.

Voting with him against the cloture vote that killed the amnesty bill:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

And, of course, we have the losers in this battle, those who voted for amnesty:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Let this serve as a reminder to all Americans: we have a voice; we are strong when we pull together. It is our voice that can influence the course of our government if we will only take the time to exercise this liberty. May God bless America!

Incomprehensible Immigration Reform

2007-06-08T21:20:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

These past few weeks, our Washington politicians have scrambled to make themselves look like fools as they pushed for a "comprehensive immigration reform" bill. They gleefully promoted it in their home states and touted the wonderful aspects of the bill on television and radio. They shunned their constituents who raised concerns over the border security and feasibility of the execution of the plan, and accused their critics as "insensitive" and "racist." They did everything to hide the flaws in the plan and excused the obvious problems by resorting to the tired phrase, "If you don't have a better idea . . ."

True conservatives realized that this was just an attempt to increase the power of government and promptly pointed out the many inconsistencies in the bill. I'm sure they were expecting to be given a pat on the back for remaining true to their conservative roots, but sadly, however, the moderate and open-border Republicans turned on them in a way that, simply put, is unsettling. President Bush, who we have known for years to be a Globalist, released a shocking statement to his base, saying that the American public does not want to work, and therefore we need the illegal aliens to do their job. It was a sad day for those who voted for President Bush and supported his efforts in the war on terror.

I realize that many people have put their opinion forth concerning this issue, some clarifying the debate with facts other muddling it with race-baiting. While you may have grown tired of the empty rhetoric, allow me to present three reasons not to support the comprehensive immigration reform bill. I'm not going to hash through reasons why we do or do not need the illegal aliens, either for lettuce picking or economic reasons, but will focus on the content of the bill that your representatives plead for you to support.

The first reason not to support the comprehensive immigration reform bill is the unfair way illegal immigrants automatically receive legal status. The day that the bill would be signed, over 12 million illegal immigrants would be considered eligible for a probationary legal status. There are millions of people who would love to be a citizen of this country, and are willing to wait for however long it takes. I have a friend who's family had to wait 15 years for that precious right, yet with this bill, their achievement is starkly cheapened compared to the easy pass the illegal immigrants get. What have the illegals done to merit this favorable treatment? They broke the law; on the other hand, those who came here legally have to wait years before they can be citizens. This is unfair and unethical to the principles of law and justice.

What's worse is the fact that the probationary legal status is granted after a 24-hour background check. Think about that: millions of people applying for legal status and the government has a time frame of 24 hours to make sure they are not criminals. Do you honestly believe the government that handled Katrina so well will be able to process that background check in one day? Rubbish! The law for legal immigrants allows 90 days for a background check. If anything, this provision cuts back on border security.

Another flaw in the plan is human nature: if the illegals can produce fake Social Security cards and ID’s, what will stop them from creating phony documents that say they have passed the security background check? Simply providing amnesty for these millions will not stop the flow of traffic at the border, rather, it will send the message that there are no consequences for breaking our law. And if breaking one law is dismissed, what other laws can be broken without due consequence? This bill is amnesty because the legal status gives all the benefits that a citizen would have. It does not matter what you label them, they will be granted amnesty.

Secondly, this law does not provide any means for assimilation into the country. America was meant to be the great melting pot, all equal but distinct. Yet if this law was passed, distinction would be placed above unification. This bill says that the immigrants will have 12 years to learn how to speak English, while it is required that legal immigrants speak literate English before they receive citizenship, and they must pass a test of their knowledge of American history and economics. If 12 million plus illegal immigrants were magically given legal status, what is the incentive for them to understand the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? At best, these folks will have a good understanding of welfare and social security laws, not liberty and justice. A nation that is divided by culture will face serious problems very soon. France is an excellent example: there was so much unrest between the different factions and classes that the French president is offering to pay the illegal immigrants to leave. For France to do that signals how serious the problem could and can be an concern for the United States.

Thirdly, the bill does not fix the problem, it merely treats the symptoms while ignoring the disease. The reason we even have to discuss this issue is because the border is insecure. Current law states that the government shall build a fence along the border, somewhere in the range of 900 miles, yet this comprehensive immigration reform bill cuts the fence down to about 400 miles of fencing. John McCain is fond of describing this bill as a national security issue, however, it is really a illegal immigrant Bill of Rights. National security depends on a secure border, but the majority of the bill is provisions for the illegal immigrants and scarce support for law enforcement and security.

If the politicians truly wished to have national security bill, they should disband all of the ways for illegals to get amnesty and spend more time giving thought on ways to have more enforcement at the border. After they can show that the border is secure, then they may talk of a way to deal with illegal immigrants. I think it is clear that to deal with the illegals, we must first shut off the flow and then concentrate on a solution for enforcement inside the borders, neither of which this bill provides.

I hope that our politicians who "represent us" will wake up to the fact the doing nothing is a better option than passing a bill like this. It would take such a hit on a Social Security, Medicare, welfare and education, that I am not sure we could survive as a nation. A better plan would be to enforce existing law instead of contriving ways to make what is illegal.

The American people want justice and fairness, something this bill forgets to include.

(For a full list of the loopholes in the bill, read here)

Separation of Church and State: What Did the Founders Have In Mind?

2007-06-07T22:43:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

For most students of constitutional law, the question of separation of church and state has often been discussed and debated. There have been scholarly inquiries into the nuances and intent of the framers ideals concerning this subject. Political action groups have also taken an interest in the discussion, however, they have taken the argument all the way to the prestigious Supreme Court, requesting for a ruling on the divisive issue. The result is a renewed discussion among the citizens of the United States over what their forefathers really intended when they wrote the great document of freedom, the Constitution. The implications now resonate throughout all aspects of constitutional law, demanding an answer to the question that has inevitably surfaced in the legal and social community: What place does God have in our Government?

The question is paramount. It provides a look into the molding and understanding of the greatest legal document ever penned. The answer gives a comprehensive, balanced view of what the Founders believed to be true, that God is the giver of authority, and all power comes through Him. The facts surrounding the early years of America's independence lead to unavoidable conclusion, that God does belong in government and in the halls of justice.
The Framers of the Constitution derived the powers of that document from a higher authority. They believed in the Judeo-Christian God, and accordingly purposed to follow the commands of the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, John Adams explicitly expressed his desire to maintain Christianity as the moral law that supported the Constitution. In a letter, he wrote:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The Founders recognized that God was the Author of Moral Law; He instilled the basic moral code in every human, the conscience. They distinguished that Christianity was the most relevant regulator of the moral law; that is, it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, etc; all of the things found in our current code of law. The Constitution was written with the Ten Commandments as a background. The basis for the idea that government could impose laws on citizens came about as the men of colonies determined that any of the basic laws they could pass would already be found in the Ten Commandments, and times being as they were, in the hearts of the citizens.

Somehow, after many years had passed, however, Americans forgot the great heritage of their country and the implications of altering the meaning and principle of the law. Prayer was outlawed from public schools; the Ten Commandments were removed from school and government property, and the words “Under God” became hate speech. The activist judges and politicians forgot the true history and heritage that America has. Their banner of waging war, the phrase “Separation of Church and State,” was used to implement the policies listed above. The true meaning of that phrase will be discussed here, as well as the tradition of respect for the Christian Religion.

First to define “Church.” Webster’s Dictionary describes “Church” as “A body or organization of religious believers.” This is the populace of Christian believers as well as leaders of the Christian religion. “State” is defined, in the tense that Jefferson meant, as “politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory.” The government, especially federal, is the body that governs society as a whole. In order to understand the issue, it is important to realize the different roles that church and state have.

The primary responsibility of the church was to maintain a relationship with citizenry to promote the advancement of the Christian values and morals. The Church has the responsibility to care for the widowed, the poor, and to provide a shelter for spiritual and moral growth in the community, facilitating the moral guidelines of the Constitution, the Ten Commandments. The government is not to interfere or dictate any policies of the church; this was the reason the pilgrims left England to begin with.

The government has the responsibility to provide a defense for the populace and the Church. They exist to quell the dark forces of human society, the murderers and thieves who prey upon the innocent. While the government must submit to a higher authority than themselves, God, the church is commanded to submit to the government. Romans 13 declares that, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” In this way, the church and government work hand in hand, yet they do not interfere with the other's responsibilities.

James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, wrote that, “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” It was not a stern rebuke to the display or respect of religious activity, but a warning to the legislators and the executive office. If any law passed that clearly granted or denied a denomination or sect of religion as the official state religion, it would be a reversion to the policies that drove the pilgrims away from England and to America itself. It is hardly imaginable to comprehend the level of distortion of this phrase that would lead to court rulings against the Ten Commandments and the like.

The author of the phrase concerning the “wall,” Thomas Jefferson, while often depicted as opposed to the Christian faith, was indeed supportive of the Christian values the other Founders held. He said, “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.” The only qualm Jefferson had with Christianity was with “supernatural” references in the Bible. He believed it to be a moral document and as his history of theism indicates, did not believe in miracles. That hardly constitutes a basis for pronouncing that he was opposed to the Christian faith. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a wall of separation must exist between the two institutions because he understood that when the government interfered with religion, as had the state church of England, calamity would inevitably occur.

Yet, some Americans deemed his words of a wall to be a justification for removing references of religions from the public arena, as did the Supreme Court in 1962. Perhaps we should turn to one of the founding fathers for their suggestion on how to keep a wall between the two establishments. On March 28, 1787, Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote an open letter “To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools:”

"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." He continued in the same letter: “The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty.”

Additionally, some conceived that religious displays in the halls of government are in violation of the ideal separation of Church and State. Judge Roy Moore erected the Ten Commandments in the Rotunda of the Alabama State Supreme Court. His purpose was to recognize the historically important biblical basis for the law. For this, he was lambasted in the media and throughout the liberal judicial community. Alan Keyes has said that, “We have already seen that the actual language of the Constitution does not forbid an establishment of religion. Rather, it forbids Congress to legislate on the subject at all, reserving it entirely to the states.” If any were offended by the public display of the Ten Commandments, however, the statement from John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, would enrage them.

He said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. National prosperity can neither be obtained nor preserved without the favor of Providence.” John Jay, a judge like Moore, believed that all authority comes from God, and to outlaw the acknowledgement of the very authority that gave us our government, would a tremendous mistake.

If America continually denies the existence of God, severe consequences will take place. Acknowledgement of God affects all other decisions concerning freedom and liberty. Who gives the right to well-being and freedom? The state or God? To suppose that we give ourselves this right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness sets dangerous boundaries for all three branches of government. If we have given ourselves these rights, we must also have the authority to remove them. All constitutional concerns must grasp the importance that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. The decline of a nation is when the leaders refuse to realize where their power and authority comes from.

It is fundamentally dangerous to deny the existence of a higher power than yourself. History has proven this repeatedly. Hitler believed the German people were the superior race, and that he, the Fuhrer, was the ultimate leader, the supreme authority. Stalin, Nero, Mussolini, and others have attempted to wrest control of power and establish kingdoms where their reign would be the decisive authority. The binding factor that each dictator possessed was the denial of a supreme God.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?”

Captitalism, With a Capital "C"

2007-04-20T16:36:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

You know why I love capitalism? Because you can take a red paperclip and trade up for a fish pen, and that for something of greater value, and so on and so on. This is what Kyle MacDonald did. After 14 trades later, on July 12, 2006, he traded with the Town of Kipling Saskatchewan for a house located at 503 Main Street. With my luck, I would be happy to get my red paperclip back after the day. Luckily, I can sell anything (minus contraband items) on eBay and have a tidy sum of profit after a while. It is great! It is a system called Capitalism that lets people like me compete in a free market. Moreover, it is not just for buying and selling, I can make movies and upload them to YouTube or write music and publish it on iTunes. As long as you have the ability and the motivation, the opportunity exists for you to become very successful.

From Wiki: Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market.To break it down, we, the citizens of America, have equal access to the market of trade. Furthermore, we can make decisions about what path our company takes, and the amount or variety of items we sell. This system, propagated by Adam Smith in 1700's has served America well and made her the strongest nation in the world. Our system of innovation and incentive to work rewards the laborers and the country as a whole.

This week we all paid income taxes, a dreadful procedure and an insult to the Constitution. Guess what? Liberal Democrats want to roll back the Bush tax cuts and institute a higher rate of taxation. Typical. History and the economy just do not seem to apply to their plans. There is however, an even more outrageous idea currently touted by the clever Libs. The Democrats in Congress have acquired the Lemming mindset; they are intent on creating more taxes for the middle and richer business classes. The Democrats claim that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Therefore, their solution is to have a higher rate of tax for wealthy businesses and corporations, among other things, a windfall tax. A tax on making more than you projected to.

Now, simple logic deduces that if businesses are taxed more, then, to maintain a profit, they will tack on the extra cost to their product, whatever it may be. They will still make gross amounts of money because they have transferred the cost of the taxes on the buyers, who are usually in the middle class. It can be especially bad if the company sells things like, food, or gas. The windfall tax is not just on luxury yachts makers; it applies to every company. The result is that the rich will remain rich while everyone else takes the monetary hit. A truly free economy allows businesses to move freely in the market without the hindrance of the government. It defies every economic law to impose more taxes on corporations and ordinary individuals. If Democrats were sincere about their motivations, they would begin to cut taxes from business sectors. Without the increased overhead cost caused by corporate and windfall taxes, industries could sell their products at a lower price and thereby engage in the classic supply and demand process. Competition is good for an economy and the way to maintain a healthy, robust market, taxes must drop.

It is a simple, logical way to ensure that our economy will last the next 20-50 years. Democrats in Congress, listen up: We do not want any more social programs, give us our money back! Who knows, maybe with the money we save we could all buy a bag of paperclips.

The Traitorous Left

2007-04-07T16:29:00.000-05:00

Jordan Richardson

As Easter draws near we are treated with an unusual circumstance: Snow covered hills and fields as most of the North East is treated to a dash of snow this weekend. It conjures up a retake of that old song, "I'm Dreaming of a White Easter..."

It seems, however, that snow is not the only unusual circumstance we are dealing with. The current crisis we are engaged in is the traitorous visit by Nancy Pelosi to Syria where she met with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. President Bush warned Pelosi not to make the trip, but after all, she IS the first woman Speaker of the House, so naturally she ignored the President's order and went anyway.

Pelosi met briefly with Israel's top leaders and then announced to the press afterwards that she had delivered a message to Syria from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. She also gleefully reported that Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well.

Unfortunately, Pelosi bungled the message in typical liberal fashion: Israel was NOT ready to engage in peace talks of any kind. What's more, she assumed that Syria's "message of reconciliation," was more than their usual propaganda.

While there, Nancy Pelosi also brilliantly showed off how free American women are as she wrapped her head in a scarf as she walked the streets of Damascus. Clearly, Speaker of the House Pelosi had no business meeting with Syria, and is obviously not capable of relaying a simple message.

But aside from all of Pelosi's gaffes and shortcomings, a darker conclusion is left to be made. The US had cut off all diplomatic ties with Syria in an attempt to pressure them to crack down on the Al-Qaeda groups in their country, and also on Bin Laden who is believed to be hiding there, or Pakistan. Pelosi, without any authority broke this standoff and ruined more than two years of pressure by the US. She undermined the President's strategy and in the process made the situation worse than before.

Syria may now assume that if the Speaker of the House was willing to come to their country, in an airplane with the seal of the US, and joyfully talk with them, then they will have no worries if they don't crack down on terror. Heck, the dictator of Syria is openly supports the trafficking of arms and weapons through his country to be used by Hamas or other terror organizations, why would he think that he should quit his actions?

Meanwhile back at home, Pelosi passed her bill that gives a pullout date in Iraq to our enemies, and bribed her fellow Democrats to vote for it by including billions of dollars for peanut storage and the protection of crickets. This Madame Speaker has fluently demonstrated that she cares nothing about our mission, and everything about her personal appearance and the continuance of power in congress by the liberal Democrats.

She is a disgrace.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
The traitor is the plague.”