“This election is as significant as 1877.”–Mike Gravel
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/qEzKjjdwC9g" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Polling Report
In a surprising (only for the media) new updated polling from Fox News, (this poll is based only on registered voters, so there is no possibility of scam) Congressman Ron Paul is up to 3% tied with Mike Huckabee. He is in 6th place assuming Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson enter the race. As for Sam Brownback, his poor performance at the Ames Straw poll ( in light of the enormous amount of effort and money he spent) continues to have negative results. He is tied with Tom Tancredo with 1%. Sam, I think it’s time.
Bombing Holy Sites?
Tom Tancredo stood by his remarks on Sunday’s debate. The week before, while speaking to a group of Iowans he said:
If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.
In response, Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”
I confess Tancredo’s positions on Immigration and government limitation is appealing to paleo-conservatives like myself. Nevertheless, the audacity of Tancredo1 is absurd. Tancredo could well be a reasonable choice in the Republican ticket if his positions were not so radical. It appears that his low numbers both on the internet and nationally has led him and his staff to think of creative ways to call the attention of the country. In debates, he has been known to taking every opportunity to go a step further than his opponents. Instead of the typical neo-con calculated candidates, Tancredo utters the obscene. Indeed, second-tier candidates (and Tancredo is truly a second-tier) are free to utter their thoughts however absurd they may seem and– trust me–they are absurd.
Footnotes
- In one of the debates he said that in the interrogation room we needed a Jack Bauer [↩ back]
Thoughts from the past…
Bill Maher the Libertarian
Bill Maher brought on the show the honorable Ron Paul. Bill has considered himself a libertarian for years. But the truth is Maher is no more a libertarian than George Bush is a conservative. This is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed. Libertarianism, particularly the Christian libertarianism honors the Constitution and limits the abuses of Tyrannical government.
The Overweening Government…
The arrogance of this government should serve as a powerful reminder to future governments. You do not win by repeating mistakes. Mistakes are meant to teach lessons, not to embolden a leader to continue in his endeavors.
Sometimes boldness can be a great asset in crucial positions, but boldness has led many men to sacrifice other lives. Here in this latter case, boldness is replaced with an unreasonable stubbornness. These precious lives deserve to live, to rear children, and to be productive citizens, not to be killed for unjust reasons.
Throughout history, noble causes have been defended by a minority. That is, they began small and grew to an overwhelming number. This is because the majority became persuaded by the cause of the minority. In the case of this administration, their support began large, a majoritarian elite replete with gifted PR spokesman, but now it has dwindled to a few loud and angry talkshow hosts and once respected politicians who have invested so much of their last few years in this one cause that it is a part of who they are. They just cannot let go; they are too arrogant to admit their mistakes (Chuck Hagel excluded from this list and an increasing number). Little do they know that their stubborn pride will trouble their consciences for as long as they live.
N.T. Wright, Evil, and War on Terror
Since the writing of my paper in December of 2004 , I have been a strong critic of the War in Iraq. There are myriads of examples that could be listed as to why this war has failed, is failing, and will continue to fail. Nevertheless, it is not my intention to re-hash my usual remonstrance.
I want to bring to your attention a fascinating lecture given by Bishop N.T. Wright in Durham Cathedral some weeks ago. It is entitled: ” Where is God in the War on Terror.” He deals with the problems and possible solutions. Bishop Wright was against the war from its start; I was not. Bishop Wright opposes the war for different reasons than I do (this is clear since he is British and I am not; the Brits always have different reasons for everything).
There are at least two quotes that I thought were helpful in the lecture:
Our politicians and media have resolutely refused to acknowledge that there is a religious dimension to all human life…
Remarkably, only recently have we heard of any religous dimension to this war. The Media has felt comfortable in these last years because they believed that “religion” played no role in the overarching dimension of life. Islam, they thought, is only restricted to certain customs and in some cases a radical fringe that will commit suicide in the name of a Middle-eastern god. Now, at last, they have come to the end of their foolish thinking. “Religion” affects all of life. Islam expresses a worldview that touches on every dimension of their every day. Liberals are only now coming to face this fact. It was Van Til who stressed vehemently that “neutrality” is a myth. The longer the media believes that religion is limited to a mosque, they will not have the answer to solve our crisis. It is unfortunate that even Christians are unaware of their own worldview. How is it possible to apply “true religion” when that religion is so unknown?
Bishop Wright says of America:
They act as if they’d assumed that the world’s problems were basically solved, that all we needed was a bit more free trade and parliamentary-style democracy, and then any remaining pockets of evil would wither away. So the reaction to 9/11 was astonishingly immature: ‘Goodness, there seems to be some serious evil out there after all! What on earth shall we do? I know – let’s go and drop some bombs on it, that’ll sort it out!’ Well, the American people have finally said, this very week, what lots of us were saying back in 2002: that was not and is not the way to deal with things. Evil is more radical and powerful than that; and, what’s more, the line between good and evil doesn’t lie between ‘us’ and ‘them’, but runs as a jagged line through each human being and each human society. We – and I include the churches on both sides of the Atlantic – have often colluded with a spurious and inadequate analysis of what’s wrong in the world and what can be done about it. That’s the first strand in our problem.
The problem of evil is even more apparent today than 9-11. 9-11 was a singular event, Islam is ubiquitous. The problem of evil (theodicy) makes modern America look foolish with their infantile attempts to democratize a nation where democracy is non-sensical.
Invading Iraq was unethical on the grounds that led to the invasion; but invading Iraq without knowing the root of the problem is to strike the heart of ignorance. I certainly do not have the answers to modern technological, bio-chemical, geo-political struggles of our world, but I do know that “evil” is a theological term and therefore begs for a theological answer.
We do not solve “evil” by appointing a military to fix it; we begin to solve “evil” (which is a process only fully solved in the Lord’s Second Advent) by knowing evil. Our answers to the world’s problems ought to be considered on a larger contextual scale. And my contention once again will be that only Christianity offers that context.
The Death of a conservative agnostic
Milton Friedman died a few days ago. He was 94 years old. His death probably did not make much news. Constitutional Libertarians like myself find Friedman’s writing on education partly compelling (in my opinion he failed to see the immoral and unconstitutional nature of public education) and his overall economic theories were devastating to the old Socialists and neo-Socialists running this country. Like him I repudiate the Big Government Republicrats and Demoblicans. Friedman believed that when absolute authority rested on the government our basic liberties would be stolen.
He defended the freek market economy like no one else. His ability to communicate was phenomenal. He took the complicated and made it simple. Nevertheless, Friedman was a self-proclaimed agnostic as his correspondence with John Lofton demonstrates. This has been the demise of most Libertarians in the past 50 years or more. They are in the words of Bob Enyart “immoral conservatives.” They desire a limited government and a free market economy, while at the same time favoring the legalization of prostitution, legalizing same-sex marriage, murdering the unborn child and all other sorts of promiscuous acts that clearly defy God’s eternal laws. Only a consistent Christian worldview can answer societal’s major ills. Friedman answered the procedural questions correctly (How much power?), but on the most fundamental “Who is Jesus?” question, he failed eternally.
Gary North Speaks…
“Baghdad Bob” was one of the names given to the Iraqi Minister of Information back in March, 2003, during the invasion of Iraq. His real name is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf. “Baghdad Bob” is a lot easier to remember.
He became a fixture of American television because of his optimistic assessments of the war. Continue …Article
What of the Republicans?
Election results are slowly coming in for the senate race, but it is evident that the fight will be over Joe Lieberman (Independent) and who will be able to seduce him first. Democrats are in power again after twelve years leaving Bush puzzled. First things first, Donald Rumsfeld is out of the picture. Who is next? Even the tough-minded president realizes that if he did not want to clean the house before, now he has no choice. After years of mindlessly supporting an Un-Constitutional war, Rumsfeld is gone and so goes the greatest supporter of the Iraq War after George Bush. This is the probably the positive side of this election: Bush will no longer have the same authority he had before. He will be a bit milder in his comments about the future of Iraq and be open to talks with nations prior to preemptive strikes.
There is, however, another positive side to this election for Bush, and out of all people it was Bush’s cheerleader and worshiper Rush Limbaugh who made that point (in general I have agreed with Limbaugh’s criticism of the president’s program). It has to do with immigration. Remember that issue? Bush’s proposal is to give illegal workers the right to stay in the US (guest worker’s program) as long as they identify themselves and go through a certain process; in other words AMNESTY pure and simple. Here is a better definition: Giving law-breakers what they wanted without enforcing what they broke. The Republicans in Congress were almost unanimously opposed to Bush’s plan while the Senate, the liberal Senate, favored every part of it. Now, the Congress led by a majority Democratic group in the Senate is in perfect harmony to address and pass Bush’s amnesty program. Here is Rush’s transcript
The president was passionate about one thing in this press conference. He came alive when he was asked a question about: What does this mean for your immigration policy? “Yes, I think we have a better chance of getting immigration reform now with a Democrat-controlled Congress.” I told you this before the election. I told you, “The reason we don’t have amnesty and a guest worker program is because of the Republicans in the House.” Now with Democrats running the place you’re going to get it and the president’s excited about it. We’re going to get a guest worker program. We’re going to get amnesty. It’s going to be called “immigration reform,” and you’re going to get a minimum wage increase. The president’s going to talk to these people about entitlements — and when you sit down with Democrats to talk about entitlements, you’re not talking about getting rid of them. You’re talking about “reforming” them, maybe, or perhaps even new ones.
Precisely. Bush wins and conservatives lose and they will lose much more. Neil Boortz and Chuck Baldwin were right when they said that the Republicans deserved to lose (though they had different reasons why it would happen). The Republicans have sold their souls to power and political immorality, but the truth is they have lost their souls mane decades ago. Only now the masses are realizing it.