The Right House

Obama In The Classroom

2009-09-02T21:23:00.000-07:00

On September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a national address at 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time, via live streaming internet video, to the children of America.

Promotional materials at a school site represent that:

".. the President will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning."

A link to the website provided a copy of the classroom activities materials. This included questions the teachers are to discuss with the students before Mr. Obama begins his speech. Personally, I did not find that the questions the teachers are directed to ask their students to consider and discuss, are questions directed toward the goal of challenging "... students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning." In my opinion, the materials are not student oriented. Indeed, the questions appear to be focused on elevating the importance of Mr. Obama and other "elected officials" such as "the congress".

Questions emphasized the "importance" of the students listening and doing what the President "and other elected officials say" are "important". I thought the parents were the primary voice the children should hear and obey. I thought elected officials were suppose to listen to the voice of the people, not vice versa. But after hearing many of our elected officials comments about those participating in Townhalls and other forums, I recognize that those voicing opinions contrary to Mr. Obama’s agenda, are in fact extremists and un-American.

If you are a parent and you too have concerns about Mr. Obama’s forced intrusion into the life of your child, may I encourage you to act. Keep your student(s) out of school on September 8. Or, if you cannot keep your students out of school then you may demand that your students not be required to participate in this program. It is suppose to be voluntary.

At a minimum, if you object, may I encourage you to voice your objections to the school superintendent, and voice your objections to Mr. Obama and your elected officials. Let your voice be heard - for what you have to say is important.

Human Life - Commodity or Sacred?

2009-06-17T22:47:00.000-07:00

In a recent article entitled “Test Poses Challenge for OB-GYNs”, Dr. Adam Wolfberg noted that “... there is indirect evidence that the (CVS procedure) is more likely to cause a miscarriage when it is performed by a less-experienced doctor. ... several reports from individual hospitals demonstrate that the miscarriage rate declined over time as the hospital's staff became more experienced.” He noted that the CVS procedure requires the individual performing it to “... place a needle into a pea-sized target three inches below the skin using a grainy ultrasound image as a guide.” He further wrote that “estimates of the risk of miscarriage vary, but the rate is thought to be around 1%. That is higher than the miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis, a similar procedure. But amniocentesis can't be performed until well into the second trimester, while CVS can be performed by the third month of pregnancy -- an important factor for many women.”

To gain experience in performing the CVS procedure, Dr. Wolfberg noted that “mechanical structures, pregnant pigs, computer simulators, and a grocery aisle worth of fruits, vegetables and cuts of meat have all been punctured by doctors honing their skills.”

The troubling part of the article was when he noted that: “In some cities, women who are about to undergo an elective abortion are asked whether, after receiving anesthesia, they are willing to allow a doctor in training to perform a CVS just before the abortion. Elsewhere, trainees are allowed to perform the CVS if ultrasound findings place the pregnancy at particularly high risk for a chromosomal abnormality such as Down syndrome.” But then, why not? After all, isn’t human life a disposable commodity? Why shouldn’t the child selected to die by abortion, or the “inferior” child who might have Down syndrome, be treated like a lab rat suitable for experimentation?

As President Obama noted when he treated human life as a disposable commodity in the area of embryonic stem cell research, “We certainly do not want to make a false choice between sound science and moral values”. As he also commented, “don’t we have a duty to care for others to ease human suffering?” Unless of course you are the down syndrome child, or the soon to be murdered child through abortion, or perhaps the elderly person whose quality of life is no longer financially justifiable, or perhaps you were Jewish in Nazi Germany.

When our nation was formed, the founders in part noted in the Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words in part express a world view where human life is sacred. It is special. It should be protected and nurtured, even if it is inconvenient, or may have down syndrome, or is disabled and requires extraordinary care.

For me, I do not want someone holding President Obama’s worldview to be my health care provider. World views do matter.

Dr. George Tiller

2009-05-31T23:29:00.000-07:00

In his article entitled “Let Nothing that Breathes Remain Alive” - On the Problem of Divinely Commanded Genocide, Randall Rauser quotes David Neff and writes: “the effects of violence and abuse on children are some of the most persuasive evidence that any language short of the vocabulary of evil is bankrupt”. Mr. Rauser goes on to observe that “If evil is to have any meaning, then we will apply it naturally and without qualification to the intentional killing of healthy children, as in the 1994 Rwandan genocide when Hutus slaughtered approximately four hundred thousand Tutsi and moderate Hutu children."

Dr. George Tiller was recently killed while at his church. Dr. Tiller was an abortionist who is reported as having been videotaped talking about babies slipping out of the womb alive during abortions and calling that “sloppy medicine.” Dr. Tiller had admitted to having aborted babies a day before the mother’s due date. It is reported that Dr. Tillers murder “... has drawn condemnation and outrage from the president (Obama) and stirred strong emotions across the nation.”

I do not know what Dr. Tiller or President Obama or those opposing the pro-life world view would answer if asked if they share Mr. Rauser’s opinion that “If evil is to have any meaning, then (it should be applied) naturally and without qualification to the intentional killing of healthy children.” If they share this view, then why would they be “outraged” over the death of a man who has spent his career killing children?

World Views Do Matter - President Obama and Abortion

2009-05-18T23:54:00.000-07:00

During his recent commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, President Obama called for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words”. He asked if “... it is possible for us to join hands in common effort?” He was talking about the abortion issue.

I wonder what President Obama would say if the issue involved black slavery and it was someone close to him that was being subjected to slavery and to physical abuse. Would he call for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words”?

I wonder what President Obama would say if the issue involved someone close to him, such as one of his daughters, being trafficked and held in forced servitude, often in the sex trade. Would he call for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words”?

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that approximately 1,200,000 unborn children are killed each year through abortion. The National Right to Life web site estimates that nearly 50,000,000 abortions have occurred since the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. Contrast this against the estimate that came out of the Nuremberg Tribunal that approximately 6,000,000 jews were killed in the holocaust. The holocaust pales in comparison to the slaughter resulting from abortion. Would President Obama call for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” regarding the holocaust?

President Obama’s world view is clear. He supports the slaughter of unborn children. This is the path he is following.

I share the sentiment expressed by La Shawn Barber in her recent blog post where in part she wrote:

“Sorry, Barack. When it comes to abortion, there is no “common effort,” “good will,” or “vigorous debate” for me. Unlike you, a supporter of child killing, whether it means tearing the baby from the womb via vacuum suction or partially delivering the baby then sucking out its brain, I think it’s heinous, deplorable, and reprehensible. No amount of double-talk or can’t-we-all-just-get-along rhetoric will ever change the horrible facts of snuffing out innocent life.”

Nearly 3,300 unborn children are killed each day through abortion. Nearly 50,000,000 lives lost to date, in part the result of the cold hearts, the closed minds, and the empty rhetoric of those such as President Obama.

World Views Do Matter - Stem Cell Research

2009-05-09T12:13:00.000-07:00

On June 22, 2007, former President George W. Bush, signed Executive Order 13435, titled “Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways”. In part, this Executive Order was intended “... to provide leadership with respect to research on pluripotent stem cells derived by ethically responsible techniques so that the potential of pluripotent stem cells can be explored without violating human dignity or demeaning human life.” During his presidency, George W. Bush became the first president to provide federal funds for stem cell research.

Executive Order 13435 instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “... conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but are derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus.”

The order set parameters designed “... to establish moral and ethical boundaries to allow the Nation to move forward vigorously with medical research, while also maintaining the highest ethical standards and respecting human life and human dignity.” It recognized a moral argument that “... the destruction of nascent life for research violates the principle that no life should be used as a mere means for achieving the medical benefit of another.”

It further treated with humanity and dignity, human embryos and fetuses, recognizing them “... as living members of the human species” and not “... raw materials to be exploited or commodities to be bought and sold.”

This Executive Order also identified limits on the role of the government noting a “... moral obligation of the government to exercise responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds, both supporting important medical research and respecting ethical and moral boundaries.”

This Executive Order reflected a world view where human life is respected and precious. The result, dignity and respect for humanity.

On March 9, 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order and stated that he was lifting “... the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research.” This was a disturbing misrepresentation by President Obama. No ban then existed. In fact, there never has been any ban from using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.

In addition to his misrepresentation about the alleged ban, President Obama contended that “... in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced ... a false choice between sound science and moral values.” He characterized himself as “... as a person of faith” with a duty to care for others to “... ease human suffering”. Toward that objective, he repealed Executive Order 13435. He stated that he was making “... scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

When considering the “science”, the established research shows stunning results. There are two types of stem cells being used in research, embryonic and adult. Embryonic research generally requires the destruction of human life. Adult stem cell research does not. Adult stem cell research has resulted in multiple treatments currently in use, saving and prolonging lives. The results have been stunning. On the other hand, no new therapies exist from embryonic stem cell research. The failures from embryonic stem cell research are almost as stunning as the unsupported promises of this type of research. President Obama is promoting the research that scientifically to date, has resulted in failure. Perhaps President Obama is ignorant of the scientific results.

The scientific results and the moral arguments both support adult stem cell research and oppose embryonic stem cell research. Interestingly, this supports a world view where life is treated with respect and dignity, which is also the world view rejected by President Obama. His choice is to proceed in contradiction of the current scientific evidence and embrace a world view that rejects the dignity and sanctity of life.

A May 4, 2009 blog post by La Shawn Barber entitled “Abort-able”, in part contains some spectacular images of a young child in the “safety” of his mother’s womb. In reality, as Ms. Barber clearly points out, this child could be killed at any of the stages shown, including having its skull drilled pre delivery so the child’s brain can be extracted. This step is required to avoid a charge of murder. It is not good to “murder” but of course “aborting” is good and acceptable and should be protected. Drilling the child’s head outside of the womb is murder but drilling its head while in the process of birthing, isn’t? The absurdity of this position is almost as astounding and disturbing as the inhumanity of those embracing this world view, the world view embraced by President Obama.

When President Obama rescinded President Bush’s Executive Order, he further proclaimed: “... let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

From the world view embraced by President Obama, we need to provide “resources”, namely human life, for experimental purposes. From his world view, human life is a disposable commodity that is nothing more then the product of chance and is therefore no greater then the world it inhabits. Therefore, it is acceptable to “let scientists do their jobs” and experiment away by exploiting and destroying human life and by doing so, add to the loss of humanity and human dignity. As President Obama further illustrates in his comments and actions, from a world view where intentional misrepresentation is an acceptable means to an end, it is acceptable to distort reality to advance a political agenda.

From the Righthouse to the Outpost

2009-02-17T18:46:00.001-08:00

Regular readers of this blog no doubt have noticed that posting has ceased at this site. That is because I have begun writing at the Evangelical Outpost. The Outpost is a top 10 Christian blog started by Joe Carter, formerly of the Family Research Council. At the site you will find a number of thought provoking essays on a variety of topics. I am honored by the opportunity to write for the Outpost and hope that you will join me there.

Thanks for stopping by and reading the Righthouse!

G.K. Chesterton on "Change You Can Believe In"

2008-07-01T00:18:00.000-07:00

"It is true that a man (a silly man) might make change itself his object or ideal. But as an ideal, change itself becomes unchangeable. If the change-worshipper wishes to estimate his own progress, he must be sternly loyal to the ideal of change; he must not begin to flirt gaily with the ideal of monotony. Progress itself cannot progress. It is worth remark, in passing, that when Tennyson, in a wild and rather weak manner, welcomed the idea of infinite alteration in society, he instinctively took a metaphor which suggests an imprisoned tedium. He wrote-

Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change.

He thought of change itself as an unchangeable groove; and so it is. Change is about the narrowest and hardest groove that a man can get into.

The main point here, however, is that this idea of a fundamental alteration in the standard is one of the things that make thought about the past or future simply impossible."

- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Washington Post Unwilling to Entertain Serious Argument from Douglas Feith

2008-04-29T16:42:00.000-07:00

By Rob Stevenson, a Junior at Biola University

Anyone examining the beginnings of Operation Iraqi Freedom needs to read "War and Decision" by Douglas Feith. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the assessment, the level of scholarship in his 540 page memoir of his service as the 3^rd ranking civilian in the Pentagon is surpassed only by his 140 page appendix of notes.

For such a thoroughly researched document by a person of such seniority and access, media coverage of "War and Decision" has been conspicuous by its absence. Radio and new media have covered the book, but thus far newspapers and other mainstream media have not.

In the interest of full disclosure, I love the Washington Post and rarely miss an article by their Pentagon Reporter, Tom Ricks. Today however, I was disappointed. In a conversation this morning, Mr. Feith informed me that the Post does not intend to review this groundbreaking work. Not now. Not ever.

To their credit, there are lots of books and one can't review all of them. After all, "War and Decision" is only ranked #4 in Amazon.com's "International Relations" category, #2 in the "Freedom and Security" category and #1 in "Terrorism." I guess being the first and thus far only well document inside view of the planning and execution of a major military conflict just isn't what it used to be.

The Post ran a front page story on March 9^th, based on a leaked copy of the manuscript. Although it correctly identified the author and the title, the article mischaracterized the book and missed key points, specifically Mr. Feith's exposition of the "Post-war Plan." Apparently I am not the only reader who objected to this coverage, since the article triggered a letter to the editor by the executive editor of the book's publisher, Harper Collins.

I enjoy reading the Post and I enjoy reading Tom Ricks, but friends must hold one another accountable.

The Bottom Line:
The Washington Post, and institutions like it, have a narrative: 'The invasion of Iraq was a fiasco and the occupation an inescapable quagmire.'

Any rebuttle to this statement, no matter how well argued or researched, is simply not considered.

The Mainstream Press is not interested in the sort of historiographical work done by Mr. Feith. This would require knowledge and insight, not mere opinion.

Is Marx Assumption Correct That Economic Forces Base All Facets of Life?*

2008-03-13T23:04:00.000-07:00

It seems as though we are more than just creatures of commodity. Marx admits that his theory is entirely rooted in the premise of class struggle, a notion that there is always an oppressing class and an oppressed class. These classes are identified primarily by material possessions and control of material production. They are formed by the economic forces that motivate one's desire of possessions and one's ability to produce those possessions. As embodied creatures, we need certain amounts of material goods in order to survive. We need food, water, occasionally shelter from the material elements. We also need interpersonal interaction with other humans which is a material necessity of a kind. However, beyond these material necessities, I am not convinced that material goods can bear the burden of Marx's theory. In order for Marx to be correct, a super-majority of human persons must locate their identify in the quantity and quality of their possessions to such a high degree that it literally defines the epochs of human history.

There is room, especially within the capitalist and materialist elements of society, to find sympathy for Marx's thinking. After all, class envy plays a powerful role in modern politics and one does not have to look very hard to find the individual who identifies himself/herself by the value of his/her car, the size of his/her house, or the fashionable nature of his/her attire. However, equally prominent in our society are individuals who are contented with their commodities, people who aspire to live a comfortable, middle-class life driving a nice (but not luxurious) car, living in a nice house, and raising a family. The fact that we readily relate and identify the idea of a "middle class" is damning to Marx's theory; what would he do with these men and women who are not poor, not rich, but live a life in the middle, suspended between his extreme and ever warring poles, that seem to be just right. Even more damning to Marx's theory is two millennia of Christendom. Many modern Christians who hold loosely on to material possessions could not hold a candle to their brothers and sisters of earlier eras who seemed to care little for the material world. For an extreme example of this, one needs only to look at Christian martyrs whose only struggle was not only against the rich, but also against the poor insomuch as each of these needs to the love and saving knowledge of Christ.

Marx rightly recognizes a tension in life, but he misidentifies it as a tension of class struggle. In reality, is a tension of good versus evil. It is true that the devil can work through material commodities; we are damned when we buy in to Satan's deceptive perversion of desires for material commodities. However, I often wonder who loves material possessions more: the rich or the poor? In the end, I am not convinced that each is not tempted equally in his or her own way by a desire for the material. However, Satan also tempts us with non-material elements, such as hatred, which seems to lead to just as much if not more of the conflict which we see in the world around us. Ever hated someone for the ideas which they espouse? Ever hate them for their ethnicity? For their religion? Examples of struggles based on non-material things are in the news constantly especially in the middle east.

Marx's project is to educate us to believe in a material world filled with struggles over the merely material. If he were correct, he would succeed in locating the "problem of sin" (though we cannot call it that) and the hope of man in a solution which rights the wrongs of the material distribution. However, such a world does not make sense for many reasons not the least of which includes everything from the poetry of Emerson to the struggles of St. Francis. True, the problem of sin is located in poverty, in the absence or the abuse of material commodities, but the problem of sin is also located in racism which, in and of itself, has nothing to do with material commodities. I am therefore compelled to believe that Marx's material box does not hold all of the contents relating to human struggle throughout time.

(*Note: This essay was written as a response to a question posed at the end of a session in the Torrey Honors Institute which focused on a reading of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels)

In Blogs There's Trust

2008-02-29T16:24:00.000-08:00

It no longer makes sense to hold a low view of internet publication. Here is one more reason why this is the case:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch, and nearly half are turning to the Internet to get their news, according to a new survey. (story)

For a multitude of reasons, people are turning to the internet as their primary pipeline of information. As the main stream media journalists continue to lose the trust of Americans, it should not come as a surprise that people are increasingly turning to the internet as their primary source of information. The headlines come to you on your schedule, from a source whom you trust, in the midst of a conversational environment taking place in a community that you know.

Iraq "Re-Liberation"

2008-02-26T00:43:00.000-08:00

With all of our hoping for change, you think that we would appreciate the change that we are seeing in the long, tiring Iraq war.

This time last year, the Iraq war was the failed actor on the world stage, however, now things have changed for the better and it seems as though the Iraqi citizens are happy for an encore. Reporting from Iraq, Richard Lowry of National Review argues that we are winning the physical and the ideological wars. In an election year where liberals voice disparagement for the US presence in Iraq, even going so far as to argue that our presence is the primary source of turmoil in the Near East, it seems as though Iraqis are of a different opinion:

At the village level, the War on Terror is less a grand ideological struggle than an elemental fight to replace men with guns who want to prey on the local population (al-Qaeda) with men with guns who want to help it (us). No romanticism about human nature is required to see that most people will prefer the latter.

For all of the American liberal's concern about imperialism and the imposition of our culture on foreign nations, it should not be surprising to a reasonable observer that Iraqi's would much prefer the ills brought on by Brittany than those brought on by Bin Laden. Perhaps one of the most poignant observations for Americans voting on a war that is being defined more by slogans than by working solutions is:

Iraq is a mind-bogglingly complex country that defies generalizations, except this one: Where U.S. troops have a substantial presence, there is more security, more grassroots political activity, and more economic progress. Hence the success of the surge, and the imperative not to draw down from it too quickly.

Our excellently trained soldiers and highly advanced military equipment have been very useful to bringing about this success. However, more important to the success than those benefits of being a world superpower is something much more basic and fundamentally human; we have gained the trust and support of local citizens:

There are about 30,000 CLCs [concerned local citizens] in Baghdad, and they have been key to securing the city. The CLCs have “thickened” U.S. forces on the ground and helped the U.S. get to roughly the force-to-population ratio recommended in the counterinsurgency manual. They provide crucial intelligence — in one town, they even went out in the morning and put out orange traffic cones to warn where the IEDs had been placed.

Despite one's opinion on the initial decision to invade Iraq, our moral obligation to the Iraqi's should remain at the forefront of our minds this election season. More than oil, Iraqi (and largely Arab) trust in America is the most valuable commodity in which we are investing our blood and treasure. If we do not see the war through to victory, our loss will be great; almost as great as the loss which would be felt by the Iraqi's:

Before he lets his American visitors leave, Hassen Nssaif Jasim insists — fixing us with a glare and twice asking if he can rely on us — that we take home a message: “We are very serious, and we are going to go all the way to the end of the path. We don’t want you to leave.”

It seems that Iraqis hope for change as well; let us not bring about change that will extinguish their hope.

*Note: This essay was originally posted at the Near East Update blog, a blog specializing on issues in the Middle East.

Barack Obama: The Nature of the Change We Can Believe In

2008-02-18T22:05:00.000-08:00

This essay was taken from a conversation I am having with fellow students of the Torrey Honors Institute. Each of these students is very well informed and raised excellent points in defense of positions that I see increasingly becoming popular. Motivating this discourse is my concern that Sen. Obama's platform represents a dangerous trend away from the role of the individual (to do good, to make independent decisions, etc.) toward a group think mentality where meaning and a strong sense of identity (both personal and communal) is located in government and participation therein.

The debate:

As he's said time and again in speeches, and as it says on his website, government doesn't do that. Government doesn't fix things. People help each other, and that brings us all together and gives us a shot at having a better life both as individuals and as a nation. Now feel free to pick that apart, but when Obama says, and his website proclaims 'we are the change we need' and 'I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours', it's hard to then say his message is (1) I'm the savior America needs or (2) government is the savior people need. - LM

And when those who generally self-identify as libertarians in this thread (read: State-o-phobic) respect, defend, and would consider voting for Barack I think this demonstrates even more what a strawman this is. – PDVE

My Response:

I think that the straw man charge is interesting and actually serves to illustrate my concern about Obama’s campaign. Restated, here is what I am arguing the First Principle of the Obama campaign to be: Government plays a salvific role in the life of its people.

Lindsay, I do not disagree with you that people are to play an active role in the bringing about of change. Sen. Obama’s sweeping orations of change and hope for a better tomorrow mean nothing if people are not actively involved in the political process. If the people do not believe in themselves that they are necessary to bring about change, Sen. Obama fails. However, this is where my charge comes into play. To be most clear, let me defend my First Principle stance from two perspectives.

First, the rhetoric employed by the Obama campaign of “broken souls” and their appeals to the lost and the hurting is consistent with a disturbing trend in politics. This is square one. In his book Way of the Modern World, Craig Gay insightfully says, “In attempting to alleviate the social problems associated with cyclical economic downturns, the modern welfare state maneuvers itself into a ‘legitimation crisis.’ As it expands into areas traditionally reserved for private discretion and action, the state draws attention to itself and to the possibilities of ostensibly rational planning and control.” This seems to be Sen. Obama’s move. They start with legitimate crisis and move the government in to intervene, to use legislation and government control in the private sphere to make (or at least, softly direct) traditionally private decisions. I believe that this is especially true in the area morality, but I will say more on that below. This, by the way, seems to be a critique of some libertarians.

Second, following from my first concern, I challenge you to find a place where people ultimately are responsible for themselves, where they participate in a positive way that is not somehow through government or where their good decisions are not somehow to be influenced by government policy. T.S. Elliot said it best when he spoke of men who spent their time “dreaming of systems so perfect, that no one will need to be good.” While I will grant that Sen. Obama’s platform does not create this perfect system and he does seem to give way for outside systems to inform the political system, it seems as though his campaign is laying the philosophical framework for the building of a perfect system; a system where government laws and regulations, born out of a need to better society and heal what ails it and to defend the poorest among it from harsh reality, will pursued as the means of making people good, healthy, and whole. If this is not earthly salvation of a kind, I do not know what is.

One possible strong rebuttal to my argument is Sen. Obama’s position on religion/faith/morality as they relate to the public sphere. I have read his Call To Renewal keynote address. The speech is well written and it resonates with so much of what I believe. Yet, despite that he seems to sing a chorus that is most pleasing to my ear, I wonder if he is not something of a Siren.

On the one hand, Sen. Obama addresses senseless acts of violence, as in the case of a ‘gang-banger’ who shoots into the crowd, and notes that there is a hole in the heart of the gang-banger that government alone cannot fix. My read is that Sen. Obama leaves room for religion to come in and fill that hole, to help that boy make sense of the void that drives him to such violence. The Senator’s use of the world “alone” in that argument is interesting – I do not believe that Christians nor conservatives should believe that government can fill that whole at all. However, this concern would not stand strongly on its own in my opinion; it seems to me to only have merit in light of the concern I am about to raise.

For Sen. Obama, religion’s role in politics seems to be driven by the needs of a pluralistic society. To say this differently: religion works best when its morality is consistent with socializing and normalizing individuals within the state, leading them to good behavior and motivating the state to act on behalf of those whose life standards are not on par with the expected standards of the state. Religion, then, seems to act as a kind of citizen of the state. Notice how Sen. Obama on the one hand does not believe that his moral judgments can be forced on the state in the issue of abortion yet, on the other hand, on issues of poverty and the environment, religion’s role in motivating action to write these wrongs is imperative. Why is that?

Sen. Obama believes that, in our pluralistic society, we should put on hold moral issues that do not seem to overlap with the values of secular people or people of differing faiths. Whether or not the values are right is not the issue, if they seem to be indefensible in certain secular paradigms, then the needs of the state to be fair and pluralistic win out and the values are tabled. Sen. Obama’s ultimate position on abortion is unclear to me (I could not find much about it on his website), but it seems as though he may be personally against it, but politically for it for it. If I am right, then such a position is illustrative of the subservient role that religion seems to play in matters of the state. In this case, the senator would be a siren especially in instances where there perceived good of the pluralistic society comes in direct opposition to the good of my religion. Laws about homosexuality and hate speech laws in Europe serve as an example. Sen. Obama’s sweet tune to the religious would certainly seem Siren like in this case.

An opposing position to the one I just outlined would be a position that argues that religion is not a citizen of the state, rather religion makes its own claims independent of what may be politically popular in the state. This position recognizes that morality and religion are indispensable to the laws of the state, that even in their most “secular” form, laws are full of moral prescriptions and presuppositions. Religion, then, plays an active role in the shaping of personal morality and the morality of a nation, religion sets the tone and the direction. The people are morally good independent of the state and the state only acts in morally good ways as a consequence of the moral convictions of its people. The man who is perfectly consistent, therefore, is the one who recognizes that his personal morality, informed by his religious convictions, should be inseparable from his political morality. Ronald Reagan gave a great speech on this topic which is worth reading.

On a final note, Andrew suggested that I was giving to literal a read to the idea of a religious experience. However, it is worth recognizing how Sen. Obama acknowledges his use of religious rhetoric to color his call to people’s participation in government to legislate moral good. PDVE already noted how religious and political rhetoric is more closely tied in “black” politics. Sen. Obama argues this point himself when he notes that if we “scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand their personal morality and social justice.” If Barack Obama’s platform is that change needs to be brought to Washington, that good laws and people participating in government is needed to legislate away corruption and suffering, and if this goal is to be shared by more than just secular people, then one should not be surprised when the senator employs religious rhetoric in effort to facilitate an experience that convicts and motivates people to action. That this experience should be likened to a religious experience, given the specifically religious nature of the appeal, is not surprising. It is more than merely inspirational or rhetorical. It is calculated to resonate in the hearts of the religious and to locate their religious convictions to do good in their participation in government.

The Obama platform is one where government plays a salvific role. The movement of government involvement into traditionally private areas for reasons that seem morally good is very subtle; so subtle that some charged me with straw-manning the senator’s platform. However, I hope that you are able to more clearly see it than before and that you may understand more fully how I come to argue that the First Principle of the Obama campaign is one where government plays a salvific role in the life of its people.

Reflections on Super Tuesday: Rush, Hugh, and You.

2008-02-05T23:56:00.000-08:00

Mike Huckabee had an amazing night - good for him. I will admit that I under estimated his ability to stay in this race. I think his strong showing surprised many people. Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has what I think is an interesting take on the event. Joe is an smart guy and he has made a lot of good arguments this election season, but I have not been compelled by his anti-pundit narrative and I have a different read than he does on tonight's events.

Huckabee ran an identity politics campaign. It worked. As a student at Biola studying amongst Huckabee's bread and butter from around the nation, I heard much of the same about Huckabee: "Isn't he a Baptist pastor?", "Isn't he pro-life?", "Isn't he an evangelical?" I also heard a lot of: "Isn't Romney a Mormon?", "Don't the Mormons see a Romney presidency as a fulfillment of prophecy?", "I could never vote for a Mormon, no person who believes in Mormonism is rational." I believe that, on the whole, Romney was able to overcome the Mormon issue, but amongst the evangelical Christian demographic I am not convinced that this happened. As an evangelical, I understand much of the attraction to an evangelical candidate. To be quite candid, we are tired of being the lifeblood that must be appeased, we are tired of our faith being seen as through a looking glass rather than being embodied in the form of virtuous, visionary leaders. We are looking for an excellent leader who will lead Christianly. Gov. Huckabee took on this mantel and many of my brothers and sisters excitedly fell in line.

So how do I explain McCain? Two factors worked simultaneously to bring about his nomination.

First, the anointed candidate of the conservatives in this election, Mitt Romney, failed to connect with voters. He was unable to inspire belief in them. He was unable to light the wick of a Republican party that was soaked by a failure of a Republican congress and eight years of negative media portrayal of their President. He also seemed to anger important individuals, such as his fellow candidates and influential voices like Joe Carter (among others). I am not sure the details of how he accomplished this last feat, but I am sure the stories will come out in the weeks and months to follow. I believe that this motivated Mike Huckabee to stay in the race longer than he otherwise might. I can understand that some people may not have been convinced by Mitt's "conversion" story, but they surely could not have been more convinced by John McCain's non-conservative story. I believe that animosity toward the person of Mitt Romney more than many other factors lead to his demise.

Second, John McCain inspired primarily the only people who seem to be voting in this election (the left) and a small amount of conservatives who only know him to be good on the war but are otherwise unfamiliar with his politics. Nobody can argue that John McCain is inspirational. Democrats are outvoting Republicans 4:1 in many states. I believe that the low turnout is due to a lack of conservative participation in this election. I believe that it can be argued that John McCain is not the candidate of the conservative wing of this party - that is, the conservative wing of this party that pays attention to politics. We are not Al Gore environmentalists, we do not favor wide open boarders, we are tired of government over-regulation and under-performance, and we wanted more in the area of judges than we got. John McCain stands directly against conservatives on each of these things. Despite that, John McCain managed to turn his poison record into an apple. He managed to 40% his way into a nomination brought about by a fraction of the potential Republican voting block.

For the next several weeks, the left wing media and even certain people on the right will get to stick their thumbs in the eyes of right wing pundits, especially people like Rush and Hugh. It is hard to be a principled pundit in the world of politics, but Rush and Hugh are big boys and they can take it. Their critics have every right to poke and prod at the seeming corpses of Rush and Hugh, but the wise will take note that important, conservative thinkers such as James Dobson (among others) are right where these men said they would be. The passionate, Reagan conservatives are unhappy to the point of anger at the McCain nomination. However, make no mistake. John McCain's victory is not the defeat of the conservative media, it is a sign of the weary and defeated nature of a conservative voting block that is tired of the MSM rhetoric, tired of unfulfilled promises, tired of candidates who fail to live up to expectations, and tired of politics and voting.

Hugh and Rush were not ignored by the conservative wing of the Republican party, rather the Republican party has been ignored by its conservative wing in the form of low voter turnout.

I am not convinced that we will get that fire in our belly (right now, many of us will be glad just to get rid of the heartburn). However, I do believe that there is a way to re-inspire the conservative base that has, thus far, sit out of the election. I believe that we should be optimistic. The war is going very well and, short of a Democrat caused defeat in Iraq (such a thing would be an Obamanation), the United States may be able to look back on these years as instrumental to a foreign strategy which worked to bring peace to a very troubled region.

America is a nation of dreams, of high aspirations, and of great love for those around us. Our love for our neighbors should inspire us to stand strong in defense of those who desire peace, to stand strong against the Jihadist threat that seeks to bring war upon the world. As conservatives, we most strongly bring to the table the principles, right thinking, and heart felt desire to do that which is good and to do it well. We must follow this desire, we must be motivated by doing what is right, and we must vote for John McCain. John McCain gets the war right. To this end, he is a man who will stand strongly in defense of America, the last, best hope and defense of the virtues and fundamental principles necessary for peace and prosperity in the world.

The Maverick or the Establishment Sleaze Politician?

2008-01-31T10:09:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn on John McCain:

For a so-called "maverick", he's very comfortable with the application of Big Government power, and the assumption of Big Government virtue. Undoubtedly there are "greedy people on Wall Street". Why should he and his chums be the ones who decide whether they need to be "punished"? If greed is to be punishable, why doesn't he start with a pilot program applied to, say, the United States Senate and report back to us in five years how that's going?

There is no doubt that McCain's campaign is playing the political game very well, and for that, they deserve credit. At a time when American's rate congress at an all time low and complain about the "establishment" or "slick" politician, John McCain has managed to run a campaign which typifies sleaze bag politics at its best while simultaneously promoting McCain's anti-Conservative (call it "Maverick" or "non-partisan") congressional leadership experience.

McCain's genius is that he turned poison into an apple.

John Hinderaker says more:

Businessmen, in my experience, are generally more idealistic than politicians. Businessmen really do make deals with a handshake. No one would dream of doing that with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons. Turning a businessman loose in the political world is basically a mismatch. That's the sense I get of McCain's reaction to having Romney as his last serious rival. He can't believe his good fortune; Romney is an amateur. McCain can poke him in the eye, knee him in the groin, and the rule-following businessman has no idea how to respond.

Looking at last night's debate, the best case in point is McCain's attack on Romney's alleged call for a "timetable" for withdrawal. It never happened. Everyone knows that it never happened. Everyone knows McCain is a liar and McCain grins as he says it because he knows that he is being purposefully dishonest. It is a rhetorical trap. Romney should have called McCain a liar and moved on. Instead, knowing that his integrity was coming into question, Romney spent a good amount of time speaking clearly about the record. Perversely, in the world of politics, this equates to an admission of guilt. In political debate, false is true, time on defense is admission of guilt.

I suggest reading Steyn's article as well Hinderaker's (they do not necessarily arrive at the same conclusions).

A Conversation on Social Justice and Soft Socialism

2008-01-18T12:23:00.000-08:00

Friend says: I was invited to a dinner tonight to enlighten us on poverty.

Dustin Steeve says: you should go

Friend says: The event included a dinner, in which some would be selected randomly to have a "rich" man's dinner (3 courses, served, etc.) and other selected to have a "poor" man's dinner, where you ate on the floor, etc

Friend says: no, it started half an hour ago and I have better things to do with my time

DS says: it's class envy

Friend says: well, maybe for some, but all the people I'm talking about are way the heck upper class, maybe middle

DS says: sure, but when people go to that dinner, it's much preferable to eat on the floor than to eat a three course meal at the table

Friend says: probably because they would feel embarrassed to be singled as the rich man... but I doubt they envy the poor in actuality

DS says: you almost get the message. The message is this: If you are a rich kid at a rich kid's table, boy, how big of an ass do you feel? If you are a rich kid at a poor kids floor, man, how much do you hate the rich kids and find the floor eating to suck?

Friend says: no, I get the point of the people who put it on... I just don't think the rich envy the poor at all

DS says: It plays on natural human emotions of sympathy and fairness, but it perverts them because the motivating factor created is envy. The poor kids are supposed to envy the rich kids and the rich kids are supposed to feel guilty about eating at a table.

Friend says: I agree... So why did you say I should go?

DS says: it operates on the false assumption that, in the world, all things are equal. People have equal opportunity, people have equal ability, people have equal vision, etc. The only thing that divides us is the greed of the wealthy. However, when you look around the world, there is all sorts of inequality - most of which is caused by corrupt human nature (tyrannical corrupt governments, sinful lifestyle leading to lethargy, etc)

DS says: I think you should go because I think it is good for people like you and I to see the true and false distinctions created by the highly motivated, well intentioned social justice kids among us.

Friend says: yeah... you might be right. I'd rather just spend my time donating to JFA or something like that

DS says: perhaps

DS says: I heard it said that Torrey kids are prone to a soft sort of socialism

Friend says: Hmm... I see the tendency, but I always just thought it was a byproduct of our generation's exposure to media, so a problem of our generation in general, not specifically Torrey kids

DS says: I think that this is because Torrey kids have mature sense of responsibility, well honed feeling of compassion, and a desire to serve and help those in need

DS says: We are also lovers of great speeches and big ideas. These are most often embodied in our politicians. We are modern children and the notion that democratic government can save us is very attractive.

Friend says: Democracy doesn't imply governmental support of that kind?

DS says: not necessarily, though when the world changers, when the world leaders are primarily politicians and the democratic state is seen as the "realized moral life of the people" (Gay: Way of the Modern Word), then it follows that we would do our 'good' through the state.

Friend says: you did not just cite your sources on Skype, did you?

Friend says: sorry, I got distracted from your point by your impeccable footnoting (the British would love you). But I see the point and agree

DS says: sure, because I am going to turn our conversation into a blog post

Friend says: ah.. using me again, are you? =)

DS says: would you do me one favor?

Friend says: what's that?

DS says: would you say: "Yes Socrates, that makes perfect sense."

Friend says: oh my gosh! No, Alcibiades, I will not!

DS says: Haha, awesome.

Report Card Heading Into Nevada and South Carolina

2008-01-16T14:34:00.000-08:00

The Republican race is not as close as the main stream media is making it out to be. Here's a report card, courtesy of Hugh Hewitt:

Race At A Glance

Total Primary Votes:	Romney	McCain	Huckabee	Giuliani	Thompson
Iowa	29,494	15,559	40,841	4,097	15,904
New Hampshire	75,202	88,447	26,760	20,387	2,884
Michigan	337,847	257,251	139,699	24,706	32,135

Total	442,543	361,257	207,300	49,190	50,923
Total Delegates:	52	15	22	1	6

Meanwhile, John McCain has come out against drilling in ANWAR. I guess that this means a McCain presidency would doom us to another "war for oil" (we do still need oil after all). The way I see it, it really is much preferable to build our junk in somebody else's Grand Canyon as opposed to building it in our own arid wasteland.

ABC/Facebook Debate - Give Me Romney/Thompson 08'

2008-01-06T00:38:00.000-08:00

Saturday's debate separated the intelligent, well thought out candidates from their snarky, maverick counterparts.

Mitt Romney is the most electable, most sensible, and presidential candidate the Republicans have in the race. It is precisely for these reasons that he was targeted by Governor Mike Huckabee and sometimes Republican Senator John McCain. Despite being the target of a McCain/Huckabee lead character drive-by, Mitt Romney got the most important topic of the debate right: foreign policy/the war. Romney spoke knowledgably about the situation in the Middle East. He quoted many experts in his defense of his foreign policy plans. He also spoke as one with experience about important issues such as health care and the economy.

Fred Thompson brought solid, precise, thought to tonight’s debate. One of the most striking moments was when he responded to a loaded, hysteria and (dare I say it) populistesqe question about the profits of the big oil companies. “Don’t you care that big oil companies are making so much money!” came the hysterical demand. “No.” His answer was perfect, like gravity bringing back to earth the economic realities of oil companies whose profits some years are as extraordinary as their losses other years. Does Thompson have “energy”? No, but the presidency is a race most effectively run by wise tortoises not by eager, young, sprinting hares. Both Romney and Thompson inspire my trust and give me confidence that they could wisely, and effectively, govern this nation.

The New Hampshire primaries will be interesting as this debate brought out some of the worst qualities in the other two leading candidates besides Gov. Romney. This debate showcased Sen. McCain's snide, unattractive and very unpresidential side. It also cast a sharp light on Gov. Huckabee's populist side (the pharmaceutical company comment) and his inability to speak knowledgably or honestly (as demonstrated when he was pressed about his charge against the President) about foreign policy. When the voters decide between sometimes Republican Senator John McCain, the "everyman" and reverend Governor Mike Huckabee, and the wise and dignified Mitt Romney, I hope they look much more carefully at the serious problems facing the former two candidates than did their vote casting Iowan counterparts.

Romney was positive, mature, and presidential against the barrage of petty, poll driving punch lines. He has clearly thought out his positions and demonstrates a desire and an ability to be our next president. Thompson’s answers gravity brought out of control personal attacks and hysteria driven, pie in the sky questions back down to earth. The two would make an excellent team pushing for the kind of Burkean change that recognizes where we have been, the realities we are facing, and where we should go. After tonight, I’m very convinced that the Republicans should offer as a winning bid the solid team of Romney/Thompson to soundly defeat the Obama/Edwards winds of change.

Mike Huckabee Wrong on Iran, Foreign Policy

2007-12-17T14:24:00.000-08:00

Governor Mike Huckabee recently penned an essay for the well respected Foreign Affairs journal in which he informed America that he is out of touch with reality and not serious in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Many more thoughtful experts than myself have diagnosed the Huck hit piece against the Republican base and President Bush, but here are a few of the money quotes from the governor's stunning assault against reality:

The United States, as the world's only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.

Peter Wehner offers a tremendous critique of these first two paragraphs, and I will not add to his eloquently stated position except to say that I am utterly ashamed of the Governor for saying this. Frankly, this rhetoric sounds no different than the anti-American, "blame America" accusations I hear on university campuses around the nation. While I expect ignorant, absurd accusations about America's foreign policy from uninformed, self-righteous college students, I honestly expected more from a presidential candidate running for the nomination in the Republican party.

Back to Gov. Huckabee:

A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people. Given how Americans have thrived on diversity -- religious, ethnic, racial -- it takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what Islamic terrorists are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it. If they are willing to kill their own children by letting them detonate suicide bombs, then they will also be willing to kill our children for their misguided cause. The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism.

The fact that Gov. Huckabee locates ignorance about the terrorist threat on President Bush is stunning and suggests that the governor is living in an alternate reality. The President has explained numerous times the nature and seriousness of the extremist Islam threat facing America and the West. The president has outlined this threat in his most important speech, the State of the Union, since 2004. Here are texts from the President's 2004 and 2006 speeches. Here is excerpts from a speech the President gave as early as 2005 outlining the very threats that Gov. Huckabee is just now wanting people to become aware.

Furthermore, any American reading National Review, Foreign Affairs, Commentary Magazine, or reading books by Mark Steyn or Robert Kagan (a foreigner and a moderate/liberal), or listening to talk radio like Hugh Hewitt or Rush Limbaugh or doing any number of things to assure that they were even marginally well informed would be well aware of the dangers outlined by Governor Huckabee in the leading paragraphs of his article. The gist: if Americans are unaware of the threats raised by the governor concerning our enemy it is because they have made no effort to become informed. This is not the fault of President Bush. Perhaps some blame could be placed on an intellectually biased (and dishonest) main stream media, but certainly none of it can be placed on the president.

We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States' strategic interests as the world's most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest. If we do not do the right thing to improve life in the Muslim world, the terrorists will step in and do the wrong thing.

Or, in other words, do exactly what the "bunker" President has been doing since 2005. So what has been the result?

Seeing Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar, Diyala, and parts of Baghdad reject al Qaeda and join our forces, often at tremendous risk to themselves, has been a truly extraordinary shift. Those who once embraced al Qaeda members as liberators now see them for what these radicals are: brutal oppressors who want to take Iraq back to the seventh century.

Buried in the Governor's silly foreign policy are some meaty, great ideas; of course those are the ideas that the "bunker" President has already implemented.

The main difference between these two enemies is that al Qaeda is a movement that must be destroyed, whereas Iran is a nation that just has to be contained.

"Just has to be contained"? Really? How does one do this? Call on our buddies in France and Russia:

Since the United States does no business directly with Iran, these sanctions will have an impact only if other countries honor them. United Nations sanctions will have to remain weak if China and Russia are to support them, but I have greater hope for tougher ones from the European Union, Iran's biggest trading partner. With Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France, we now have a much more willing ally.
I am less hopeful that Russia will be helpful... The push and pull will continue, bringing good days and bad in our relations with Russia. Overall, things will be better than during the Cold War because, much as we do not want another 9/11, Putin does not want another terrorist attack like the 2004 school siege in Beslan. But I see him for what he is: a staunch nationalist in a country that has no democratic tradition. He will do everything he can to reassert Russia's power -- militarily, economically, diplomatically.

Sure France and Germany opposed our going into Iraq because they had profitable business interests that they did not want to lose, but I have no doubt they will be willing to sacrifice these for the "greater good" if we could all just get along and work together diplomatically... Sure Russia hates us, but again, we could be buddies right, maybe I could appeal to his desire to avoid a terrorist attack on his anti-American country.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that the U.S. has surrendered. Why have we surrendered? Because of our recent NIE report which declared that Iran was not building nuclear weapons and because our president has been handicapped by anti-Bush forces in the media and intelligence communities. So while Iran flaunts the fact that the United States seems powerless to stop their rise to regional and world power via their nuclear ambitions, Governor Huckabee recommends we fold under the pressure and beg the rest of the world to fight the greatest threat to world peace currently facing us.

Many Iranians are well disposed toward us. On 9/11, there was dancing in the streets in parts of the Muslim world but candlelit vigils and mourning in Tehran. When we invaded Afghanistan, Iran helped us, especially in our dealings with the Northern Alliance. Hoping for better bilateral relations, Tehran wanted to join us against al Qaeda. The CIA and the State Department supported this partnership, but some in the White House and the Pentagon did not. After President Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil," everything went downhill fast.

Translation: President Bush is responsible for turning Iran against us. It gets better:

Whereas our failure to tackle Iran seems to be leading inexorably to our attacking it, our failure to tackle al Qaeda in Pakistan seems to be leading inexorably to its attacking us again.
When we let bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, a region along the Afghan-Pakistani border, in December 2001, we played Brer Fox to his Brer Rabbit. We threw him into the perfect briar patch, under the direct protection of tribal leaders who do not consider their land part of Pakistan and under the indirect protection of the Pakistani government, which believes that it is.

We let bin Laden escape?! We threw him into the perfect briar patch?! I am not even the most well informed American in the electorate, but this statement is no less insulting to my intelligence. Wait, where have I heard this all this stuff about Osama and Iran before... oh yeah, that's right. I figured the governor was hoping for at least a Vice-President seat in this election, but I had guessed the wrong ticket. Clinton / Huckabee 08'?

Iraq may be the hot war, but Pakistan is where the cold, calculating planning is going on. If al Qaeda strikes us tomorrow, the attack will be postmarked "Pakistan." And the American people, not understanding why a supposed U.S. ally refused to help and our government put up with it, will justifiably be outraged that bin Laden and his top people got away. In fact, we almost did suffer that next attack: the plot to blow up ten airliners over the Atlantic that the British government foiled in 2006 was hatched in Pakistan, as was an attack against U.S. targets in Germany that was planned to coincide with the sixth anniversary of 9/11.
Rather than wait for the next strike, I prefer to cut to the chase by going after al Qaeda's safe havens in Pakistan.

For the record, Pakistan is an ally and it is bad policy to invade an ally. Pakistan is a nuclear power, and it is bad policy to invade a country with nuclear weapons. Pakistan is an unstable nation on the brink of civil war and it is bad policy to invade unstable countries who are allies with nuclear weapons. A situation of this kind demands a cautious and thoughtful approach that I do not see Governor Huckabee proposing.

When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker.

Naive. Simplistic. Absurd. All of this combined with his populist economic views and his use of Christianity as a wedge leaves me with just one thing left to say to the Governor from Arkansas: You have just lost my vote preacher man.

Bib.
America's Priorities in the War on Terror - Michael Huckabee, Foreign Affairs
The Problem with Pastor Mike - Peter Wehner, National Review Online

"Faith In America"

2007-12-07T12:27:00.000-08:00

If you have not heard the speech itself, you have undoubtedly heard the buzz surrounding it. It's a short, 21 minute speech, so go ahead and grab yourself a meal, sit down, and listen to the whole thing; it is well worth your time to do so.

Some brief thoughts:

Romney was very presidential throughout. He speaks well, carries himself well, and presents himself in a dignified manner.

Romney has a reasonable, solid position on religion and liberty. For many in politics, this topic is a third rail - touch it and die. Romney has demonstrated to me that he can navigate the choppy seas of politics and religion (from both the left and the right) and still come out with his head above the water.

Romney understands the threats facing this nation. Both rampant forces of secularization and (more prominently) radical forces of Islam threaten to undermine this American edifice of government which protects the fundamental rights of America's citizenry. Romney clearly outlined and placed appropriate emphasis on these ideological forces which are currently captivating the attention of the people of this age.

Romney understands the media. This is perhaps my biggest critique of the Bush Administration, it failed to communicate effectively through our modern media. By waiting until right before the first primary ballots were to be cast and by using the media created buzz about his religion to his benefit, Gov. Romney demonstrated that he knows how to navigate the harsh world of 24-hour news cycles and a sensationalist media which is lustfully looking for the next 'big story'.

The pundits throughout the media have weighed in with their opinions. Those links are below.

Mitt Romney on Faith In America - Richard John Neuhaus, First Things
Divinely Uninspired - David Kusnet, The New Republic
Mormon In America - Peggy Noonan, Opinion Journal
Romney's Achievement - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard
James Dobson on Mitt's Speech - Focus on the Family via Hugh Hewitt.

Religion, Politics, and the Separation of Church and State

2007-11-20T19:06:00.000-08:00

Saturday, November 11th 2007 - a debate sponsored by The Economist. New York City, New York. The resolution:
“Religion and politics should always be kept separate.”
The audience is five to one in favor of the resolution. Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State leads the side in favor of the resolution. The crowd is unfavorable toward the assumed argument of the conservative Catholic, First Things editor Richard John Neuhaus.

Richard John Neuhaus:

I speak in favor of the separation of church and state, and therefore against the resolution that religion and politics should always be kept separate. Permit me to explain.

Brilliant.

To enforce the exclusion of religion from politics, or from public life more generally, violates the First Amendment guarantee of the “free exercise of religion.” The free exercise of religion is the reason for the separation of church and state—a principle that aims not at protecting the state from religion but at protecting religion from the state. 1

Probably one of the best arguments that I have heard made for the proper relationship between church and state as well as the role of religion in political discourse. You should read the rest on the First Things website; it is short, well argued, and demonstrates precision thinking on an often debated topic in American politics.

Bib.
1. Debating the Separation of Religion and Politics - Richard John Neuhaus, First Things

Huckabee, Norris Political Ad

2007-11-19T20:26:00.000-08:00

This ad gives the Obama 1984 ad a run for its money... and wins.

This video was clearly designed to get a lot of 'play' in the new media, especially the blogosphere. It will be interesting to see how much traffic and national media attention the Huckabee campaign will get as a result of this new media targeted buzz tactic.

Bib.
Mike Huckabee for President - Official Website

How To Beat Hillary Clinton In 08'?

2007-11-19T14:53:00.000-08:00

This no doubt is the question driving the minds of every Republican political strategist in the nation. Senator Clinton is a natural politician: calculating, charismatic, and careful in her positioning. Furthermore, she has more 'name ID', more name recognition, than any other candidate in either party save maybe Giuliani. There are pro's and con's to such political smoothness and fame and it will be the job of the Republican candidate to not allow Sen. Clinton to maximize the pro's by exaggerating her strengths while burying her weaknesses.

Karl Rove, who just recently agreed to write a series of columns for Newsweek during the 08' campaign, just wrote a column on a smart political strategy for beating Hillary Clinton. The trick to beating the nation's most polished politician? Be honest:

Say in authentic terms what you believe. The GOP nominee must highlight his core convictions to help people understand who he is and to set up a natural contrast with Clinton, both on style and substance. Don't be afraid to say something controversial. The American people want their president to be authentic. And against a Democrat who calculates almost everything, including her accent and laugh, being seen as someone who says what he believes in a direct way will help.1

Striking how the solution to the Clinton question casts a poignant light on the Clinton problem and - dare I say it - the problem of politics in general.

Bib.
1. How To Beat Hillary (Next) November - Karl Rove, Newsweek

Global Warming Fallacies

2007-11-13T10:50:00.000-08:00

Global warming is a hot topic amongst pundits and politicians these days. California Senator Barbra Boxer was just recently seen on the floor of the Senate drawing a direct correlation between global temperature increases and the multiple fires that have engulfed the southern half of her state multiple times over the past few years. This fascinating correlation has the appearance of great logical weight, unless you know anything about logic.

Given the Chairwoman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works' well researched correlation, I began to wonder what other useful correlations might lend themselves to support the pro-global warming argument.

Marc Sheppard at the American Thinker has offered several, one of which struck close to home and seems to most powerfully persuade me to buy in to the pro-global warming argument. Here, Sheppard quotes Bobby Henderson's letter to a Kansas School Board:

"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."

Clearly, the increase of Ninjas has caused a direct decrease in the population of Pirates over the past 200 years. Each time the Ninjas vanquish the Pirates in battle, all of the ships and booty belonging to said Pirates are burned thereby throwing high quantities of CO2 into the air. The voluminous amount of CO2 expelled by the burning ships and booty is doubled when the pirate ships are fresh from port and contain copious amounts of rum on board.*

All humor aside, there is a lot of muddled and just plain irresponsible thinking surrounding the global warming conversation that needs to be brought to light. Check out Marc Sheppard's thoughtful piece on that point here.

*It should be noted that I am a Ninja on Facebook and biased as to their success in battle. I do not in any way feel obligated to curb my success as a result of global temperature increases which may or may not be directly related to the fact that Ninjas perform better in battle than do Pirates.

This Is Why Conservatives Need Rush Limbaugh

2007-10-19T10:37:00.000-07:00

The Democrats, with the help of the main stream media, are masters of political theater. Since political theater, sadly, seems to inform many voters' opinion on what is occurring in Washington, Conservatives need somebody who performs better on the world stage than bumbling bozos like Senator Harry Reid. That somebody is Rush Limbaugh and he is very good at what he does.

Along these lines, the 'Limbaugh/Phony Soldiers' story has me sickened and saddened. Has this really become the level at which political discourse is had? Certainly this is the case in the media. However, if anyone was to admire our current political discourse for the theater that it really is, then this particular scene was penned by Shakespeare himself.

God's Piece of the Pie

2007-10-11T19:39:00.000-07:00

(HT: Collide Magazine)