Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

**  Leo Hohmann's substack article -"New migrant wave heading to U.S. includes many Chinese, South Americans, Middle Easterners"   concludes:  " These globalists are stoking World War III on the one hand, while preparing to lose it on the other.  If we lived in a real country, that would be a crime.  It’s called treason."  I found his arguments persuasive.

 

**   Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's sister, Kerry Kennedy, is ferociously furious  that her brother is supporting Donald J. Trump for President -  6 minute YouTube video.  

 

**  On developing a moral imagination  -- I learned (from the NY C.S. Lewis Society, May-June Bulletin) that Russell Kirk, a noted conservative author of a previous generation, recommended that his four daughters "always read four specific works to sustain the moral imagination:"   Hans Christian Anderson's tale 'Little Fur Tree,'  Tolkien's short story Leaf by Niggle,  C.S. Lewis'  Pilgrim's Regress, and George MacDonald's fairy tale, The Golden Key." 

 

Shorts:

**   Javier Milei on the evils of socialism - 2 minute video on X

**   What Gaza could have been without Hamas - 40 second video

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON OFFERS BEST MID-TERM ELECTION ANALYSIS TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE

This probing conversation offers a breadth and depth of perspective well worth one's time to listen to 

"VERDICT WITH TED CRUZ" - ERIC METAXAS INTERVIEWS SEN. TED CRUZ & MICHAEL KNOWLES

I found this interview vastly entertaining.  It's a great introduction to the Cruz/Knowles podcast.  It lasts only 17 minutes.    

"Verdict with Ted Cruz" on YouTube

WHAT ARE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS LOOKING FOR IN THE NEXT PRESIDENT?

Joel Rosenberg, Penny Nance, and Ralph Reed give their answer.  I think it formidable and well-thought out.  It serves excellently as a checklist.  

JOSEPH BOTTUM - "THE SPIRITUAL SHAPE OF POLITICAL IDEAS"

Profound and suggestive reading.    (HT: Jay Nordlinger)  The title and subtitle should whet one's appetite.

  "The Spiritual Shape of Political Ideas: How it is that we once again find ourselves rooting out sin, shunning heretics, and heralding the end times."

SEN. TED CRUZ SPEAKS AT THE VALUES VOTERS SUMMIT

The 2,200-plus who attended the 8^th annual Values Voter Summit took a presidential straw pol which Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) won with 42 percent of the votes.  Dr. Ben Carson finished second with 13 percent, with only one vote separating him from former Sen. Rick Santorum. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) came in fourth, with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) right behind at six and five percent respectively.  (Click here for a complete list of straw poll results.)  Senator Cruz's speech to the Values Voter Summit follows:  (Note how deftly he handled his opponents' interruptions). 

 

WOMEN MADE THE DIFFERENCE IN OBAMA'S WIN

Carrie Lukas observes:  (my bolding)

Yet here is something that’s pretty clear, even as the dust settles. Men would have elected Gov. Romney President by a wide margin. Women, who cast about 53 percent of the votes, gave President Obama about a ten-point margin and another four years in the White House.

This should be a wakeup call for everyone on the Right. I count myself among those who assumed — clearly wrongly in hindsight — that the “War on Women” rhetoric wouldn’t work. From my perspective, the Democrats’ campaign for women was flatly insulting, treating women as sex objects (appealing to them to vote with their “lady parts”) and helpless wards of the state (Julia). The charge that Republicans want to restricted access to contraception — that is, beyond returning to the pre-ObamaCare status quo when religious organizations were not forced to pay for others’ contraception — is so far-fetched that it’s almost hard to know how to counter, since just engaging in the discussion grants the question a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve.

Survey research leading up to the election consistently suggested that jobs and economy — not the so-called “women’s issues” — were top of mind for female voters (just as they were for male voters). This suggests that, in spite of the Administration’s record of massive deficits, intractable unemployment, and rising cost-of-living, women believe that their prospects were worse under the more market-centered, limited-government approach advanced by Romney-Ryan. In other words, women remain unconvinced that Liberty Is No War on Women.

This election confirms that conservatives must, simply must, expand the coalition of those supporting our principles to include more women. This will require a lot of ground work to show women how the ideals of limited government and free markets do not threaten women’s basic security, but in fact can be the foundation of a healthier, more secure, safety net and greater prosperity and opportunities for women, as well as men.  A more robust, sustained effort to start that conversation with new groups of women needs to start today. 

                              - Carrie Lukas is the managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum and co-author of Liberty Is No War on Women

MICHAEL SHERMER & DINESH D'SOUZA DEBATE - "IS CHRISTIANITY GOOD FOR AMERICAN POLITICS"

October, 2012

 

JOHN VENNARI - "WHAT OBAMA LEARNED FROM ALINSKY"

I'm grateful to a friend for passing along Vennari's important article.  (HT: bs)  I haven't read Saul D. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," but see the need to do so.  If Alinsky advocated a radical relativism and amorality in furthering political goals as stated below, we have all the more reason to fear the current occupant of the White House since he is regarded as Alinsky's disciple.  Vennari writes:

Obama was a student of the ruthless tactics of Saul Alinsky, the left-wing agitator whose landmark Rules for Radicals was dedicated to the devil.[9] Mike Kruglik, Obama’s Chicago instructor in Alinsky methods, said Obama was the best student of Alinsky tactics he ever had.[10]

David Alinsky, Saul Alinsky’s son, applauded Obama’s successful implementation of Alinsky methods. Immediately after Obama’s acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, David Alinsky wrote a letter to the Boston Globe in full praise of Obama as one who learned well his father’s methods.[11]

Even Obama zealot Chris Matthews, in a December 2010 broadcast of “Hardball”, referred to Obama as “the guy who comes from Saul Alinsky”.[12]

As is stated in his Rules for Radicals, Alinsky’s foundational principles are:

1) There is no such thing as dogma, all truth is relative: “For the organizer, everything is relative and changing,” said Alinsky. The organizer “does not have any fixed truth.” This places the organizer in a superior position, Alinsky insisted, because he is “free from the shackles of dogma.”[13]

2) There is no such thing as a fixed rule of ethics. For Alinksy, the end justifies the means, and all ethics are elastic according to the situation you are in or the strategy you need to employ. Alinsky taught, “Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times.”[14] If you need to lie, you lie. If you need to make promises you know you won’t keep, you do it anyway.

3) Corruption in the leader is a kind of virtue: “To say that a corrupt means corrupts the ends is to believe in the Immaculate Conception of ends and principle”, Alinksy blasphemously asserted. “The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process. He who fears corruption, fears life.” Alinsky castigates the leader who places his personal conscience and personal salvation above the needs of the people, claiming that such a leader “does not care enough for the people to be corrupted for them”.[15]

This is the school in which Barack Obama was formed: no dogma; no objective truth; no fixed standards of ethics; the end justifies the means; and corruption in the leader is raised to the level of virtue.

How can anyone believe anything Obama says? There is no fixed standard of ethics preventing him from lying to achieve whatever aims he deems fit.

As a student of Alinksy (as is Hillary Clinton), [16] Obama will think nothing of stamping out those who stand in the way of his Party’s agenda. In his 1946 Reveille for Radicals: Alinsky wrote that if the radicals become stronger than the opposition, they must “crush the opposition”.[17]

Congressman Chris Smith and Tulsa’s Bishop Slattery appear aware of Obama’s aim to “crush the opposition”. As noted, Smith warned that Obama’s pro-abortion directives are designed so that “religious hospitals will be squeezed out.” Bishop Slattery observed the new mandate may end up “closing down every Catholic school, hospital and the other public ministries of the Church, which is perhaps their underlying intention.”

It is futile appealing the Constitution to Obama, since he publicly expresses support for its effective revision.

In a 2001 radio interview, Obama argued that the Warren Court, which started a long line of activist decisions in a number of areas, did not go far enough:

1) it failed to bring about “redistributive change” and a “redistribution of wealth”;

2) it failed to, in Obama’s words, “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution”[18]

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama had this to say:

“Ultimately, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution – that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of the ever-changing world.”[19]

Obama belongs to the clique of doctrinal liberals whose basic tenet is, “the only law of the land should be what we say it is at the moment,” which is a formula for State Absolutism. . . .

Read the whole thing.  These facts should raise the fear factor of every freedom-loving America.

ONE FOR THE BOOKS: HISTORIAN SHOUTS DOWN CONGRESSMAN AT HEARING (Brinkley vs. Young)

 

From Yahoo News (HT: Drudge):

Televised congressional hearings often serve as a platform for members of Congress to berate, bloviate and showboat for the cameras, but at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing Tuesday, historian Douglas Brinkley wouldn't stand for it.

The topic at hand was drilling in the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The trouble began when Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young misstated Brinkley's name after referring to the hearing as "an exercise in futility." In a certain breach of protocol, Brinkley cut him off.

Young didn't like that one bit.

"You just be quiet," Young demanded.

"You don't own me," Brinkley shot back. "I pay your salary!"

 Washington Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, the chairman of the committee, tried to break it up, but then Brinkley interrupted him.

"I work for the private sector," Brinkley said.

When the chairman returned the floor to Young, the rumble began anew.

"We're the ones who ask the questions, and you're the one who answers the questions," Young said. "Boy I'm really pissed right now."

Obviously, it's a must-watch; you can see the exchange in the video above.

Me:  My, my.  As one person suggested,  it's worth watching the reaction of the girl sitting behind the Congressman.  As far as policy goes, I don't agree with Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University and author of  “The Quiet World” about efforts to protect the Alaskan wilderness.  He advocates making ANWR a national monument to protect it from oil and gas drilling.  But Brinkley is absolutely right.  As a taxpayer, he does pay the Congressman's salary!  Luke Miller, a spokesman for Representative Young, said the fiery exchange was “nothing more than a publicity stunt by Mr. Brinkley in order to sell books.” If so, it may prove an effective strategy.   At the least, I don't think the Congressman's supercilious attitude will play well with the viewing public.

TIM PAWLENTY - A GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DESERVING SERIOUS ATTENTION

I respect Stanley Kurtz's opinion about most anything, including his thoughts about Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota.  Kurtz writes: [my bolding]

[...]  Instead of pining away for Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, or Scott Walker to enter the race, why not wake up and recognize that Tim Pawlenty has already got everything the GOP is looking for — with two successful gubernatorial terms worth of experience to boot. What’s not to like?

Tim Pawlenty has already beaten the Democrats in a government shut-down battle. He’s defeated public-employee unions in a high-stakes strike. He was regularly rated as one of the most fiscally conservative governors in the nation. And he managed to do it all in a blue state. Pawlenty is Scott Walker with experience. It’s just that nobody knows it because Pawlenty’s clashes with his state’s public unions and big Democratic spenders happened some time ago. If anything, Pawlenty ought to be getting extra credit for having faced down public-employee unions and profligate Democratic legislators before it was cool. Are we really so dense — so utterly dependent on the latest news cycle — that we are going to let a major opportunity like Pawlenty slip away out of the misplaced worry that he’s got “no name recognition?”

That is a solvable problem. Just watch: “Hey, Tim Pawlenty was a great conservative two-term governor of Minnesota! He’s tough on defense, conservative on social issues, and well liked by people from both sides of the aisle. He’s faced down Democrats time and again and won. He’s got the biography of a lunch-bucket Democrat and the outlook of a fiscally conservative Republican. And he can win! Yes, Tim Pawlenty can beat Barack Obama in a head-to-head battle for the presidency of the United States. Wake up, Republicans! The answer to your prayers is already running. And if all the pundits would just stop fantasizing for a minute about everyone who’s not running, maybe they’d pay more attention to who actually is.”

SHORT 12 QUESTION "NEWS IQ POP QUIZ"

It's short and easy.  Click here.   Jonah Goldberg wrote:

This is a pretty depressing news quiz by Pew. What’s depressing is how easy it is. For the record, I got 12 out of 12, though I think a person who describes themselves as well-informed on current events could be forgiven for missing maybe 2 or 3, maybe even 4. But 4% of those who took the quiz got 0 right. And it looks like 30% of respondents got 3 or fewer right.

Me:  I got 10 of 12.  Try it.  It takes less than 5 minutes.

POLITICS AS AN EXERCISE OF THEOLOGY?

Yes!  Wintery Knight has an important post complete with videos of Wayne Grudem (author of Politics -- According to the Bible) and others weighing in.  Check it out here.  WK adds:

You can find out more about Grudem’s new book here – it’s a 50+ page excerpt from the book! I’ve got my copy! And you can listen to podcasts from his Sunday School class here.

"EXTREMISTS" - A FRIEND'S "LETTER TO THE EDITOR"

Here's the letter: 

A friend of mine sent me this slogan: "Fight organized crime. Re-elect no one." Wow. Too true to be funny.

Thank God for certain extremists. Those who started the USA were so extreme that they declared themselves a separate nation. So extreme they thought their Tax Masters robbed them of the rights their Creator had given them. So extreme they appealed to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of their intentions. So extreme they relied on the protection of divine Providence to throw off an absolute Despotism.

We need that kind now.

If you think we need more counterfeit 'moderates', please check your head and heart. Take just the one wicked trick of buying votes and power by enslaving us and our children's children's children to unpayable debts.

Me:  I think the letter counters the "extremist" charge brilliantly.

Here it is: 

A friend of mine sent me this slogan: "Fight organized crime. Re-elect no one." Wow. Too true to be funny.

Thank God for certain extremists. Those who started the USA were so extreme that they declared themselves a separate nation. So extreme they thought their Tax Masters robbed them of the rights their Creator had given them. So extreme they appealed to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of their intentions. So extreme they relied on the protection of divine Providence to throw off an absolute Despotism.

We need that kind now.

If you think we need more counterfeit 'moderates', please check your head and heart. Take just the one wicked trick of buying votes and power by enslaving us and our children's children's children to unpayable debts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"THE BEST SERMON ON RELIGION AND POLITICS"

Well, that was the title Justin Taylor gave a recent blog post describing a sermon delivered by Pastor Mark Dever on September 19th at Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.  Dever's text was Mark 12:13-17 -  "Jesus Paid Taxes."   It's length was 70 minutes.  How many pastors today deliver 70 minute sermons, and in particular, one that could be described as "a biblical theology of Christians and the state, at once full of unction, intellectually challenging, and affecting the heart"?  Remarkable indeed. 

For those without 70 minutes to spare, Collin Hansen has provided an overvew.  David Crowe, a visitor that day, blogged "Capital Hill Baptist Church - Reflections From a Visit." I thought it noteworthy that 750 people jammed the church, and pre-teens were found - not doodling - but taking notes on the sermon!

What strikes me is the great value of the internet!  Not many clergy are capable of delivering such meaty messages, but because of the internet, a message such as this can be heard by anyone anywhere in the world.  What resources are at our disposal!  Are we making use of these resources?  I need to take much better advantage of them myself.  An iTunes podcast of Dever's sermon is available here.  

Some time ago I posted a video of Pastor Mark Dever offering a video tour of his library.  Click here.  You'll find it fascinating.

Speaking of Christianity and politics, the other day I happened to be at Barnes & Noble and there I thumbed through a copy of Wayne Grudem's just-published Politics - According to the Bible.  I found it quite intriguing.  I hope to browse more on a future visit.  Another recent publication that has caught my eye (which I haven't had a chance to browse yet), is  City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner with a foreward by Tim Keller.  Justin Taylor has posted blurbs and some principles from the book, plus Tim Keller's foreward.   In addition to the book's foreward, the preface in PDF format can be found here.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/09/24/want-to-raise-a-boy-who-reads/

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL - AN EYE-OPENING ANALYSIS

John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, explains Christine O'Donnell's rise to fame and notoriety in an eye-opening, insightful article, "Christine O'Donnell, Made and Broken by TV."   I found it illuminating, convincing and dispiriting.  I think you need to read what Podhoretz has to say.    (HT: The Corner)

Update: On the other hand, Karl Rove points out that O'Donnell is right on the issues, and has done well (so far) in putting personal issues behind her.

 

HOW TEA PARTY ORGANIZES WITHOUT LEADERS

Jonathan Rauch has written a fascinating account.   Tea party activists utilize a truly radical decentralized approach to political organizing.  Rauch's article carries a short video explanation as well.  Excerpt:

From Washington's who's-in-charge-here perspective, the tea party model seems, to use Wildman's word, bizarre. Perplexed journalists keep looking for the movement's leaders, which is like asking to meet the boss of the Internet. Baffled politicians and lobbyists can't find anyone to negotiate with. "We can be hard to work with, because we're confusing," Meckler acknowledges. "We're constantly fighting against the traditional societal pressure to become a top-down organization." So why would anyone want to form this kind of group, or network, or hive, or starfish, or lava flow, or whatever it is?

WHAT'S TO BE DONE ABOUT AN UNRESPONSIVE CONGRESS?

Someone sent me the following.  It embodies an eminently reasonable proposal to me.  Let's do it!

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 8 years maximum, one of the possible options below.
A. Two four year Senate terms
B. Four Two year House terms
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), thengo homeand back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

4.. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

5.. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3% and no more than social security.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

WHY MONOPOLIES ARE BAD, AND WHY SCHOOL CHOICE MAKES SENSE

Ed Morrissey writes   

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity released another of its Econ 101 video series today, this time with Isabel Santa of Cato discussing the problems of monopolies — especially in regard to school choice. The government-imposed school monopoly squelches innovation and provides an inefficient model for education, Santo argues, much as monopolies in other areas make inefficient use of capital. [more . . .]

TODAY WOULD BE RONALD REAGAN'S 99TH BIRTHDAY

Paul Kengor, who has written much about Reagan, has a great anecdote to share.  Tucked into his post is this sentence:

Reagan was just plain likable. Of all the subjects I’ve studied, few were as universally liked. . . Central to that likability was Reagan’s humility. The word “I” didn’t dominate his conversation, unless he was poking fun at himself.  He was no narcissist.  Ronald Reagan was not full of pride; he was thoroughly unpossessed of self-love.

DR. ZERO ON THE "NEAR HORIZON" (HEALTH CARE) AND LONG RANGE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AND NECESSARY REBELLIONS

I don't know how to title Dr. Zero's valuable reflection on what kind of reaction there might be if Democrats ram through an unwanted health care bill, but I think his work stimulating and well worth reading.

[...] Big Government wants this health-care plan much more than the American people, who have organized with remarkable vigor against it. If the Democrats short-circuit representative government and reasoned deliberation, to force the greatest expansion of government power in American history down our throats with a parliamentary trick, it would be a triumph of power and aggression for a State that has come to see its people as obstacles to be overcome, rather than constituents to be served. . .

. . . If they muscle health-care reform through, they face an electoral bloodbath in 2010 from a population justly furious at the notion of industries nationalized through half-written bills, hustled through Congress at breakneck speed.

If the population isn’t furious about that, then we have reached the end of this chapter in American history – a chapter that began with a sprawling agrarian nation mastering the power of industry to defeat world-conquering monsters, and rebuild the broken nations of its grandparents. I do not believe that chapter will end with a tired, timid people agreeing they cannot be trusted to take care of their own bodies, but I speak from faith, not prophecy.

"STIMULUS" EARMARKS FOR NANCY PELOSI'S DISTRICT - SAN FRANCISCO

Update 7/30/09 - Michelle Malkin  lists National Endowment of the Arts "smut-ulus" projects, some of which are included in the original post below.

(Original Post) - You won't believe this.  It gives a new meaning to Naked Politics.  Drawing on Mark Kelly's research, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reports:

Mark Kelly of the Heritage Foundation did some digging on where the House Speaker funneled her District's dollars, and the list of projects is enough to send taxpayers through the roof. Let me put it this way: Nancy Pelosi is trying to stimulate a lot more than San Francisco's economy. While the average American is worried about losing his shirt, Congress is funding actors who aren't wearing any!

According to Kelly, $50,000 was sent to an initiative called CounterPulse in San Francisco that just sponsored a "Perverts [Sleep Around]" event on July 25, urging people to "Join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun!" Another $50,000 went directly to an entertainment group called Frameline that concentrates on promoting the "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community" in the arts.

Over at "San Francisco Cinematheque," organizers raked in $25,000 to promote documentaries like "Thundercrack," of which a reviewer writes, "Witness if you dare, the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla." A company called Jess Curtis/Gravity, Inc. will receive $25,000, presumably to help boost their Symmetry Project, which features nude couples in compromising positions.

Other programs are too crude and embarrassing to even mention. But shouldn't that say something to the third most powerful leader in America? If these projects are too obscene to talk about, what business does the U.S. government have funding them? This isn't just waste--it's reckless, indecent garbage sponsored by Congress and paid for by you. If these are the priorities of America's new leadership, then we should definitely get a second opinion on their vision for an issue as significant as health care. For more on Pelosi's "waste" line, visit Mark's blog at markkelly.posterous.com.

Additional Resources
Mark Kelly: Stimulus spending links for Speaker Pelosi's district. 

GOV. SANFORD HAD THE RIGHT POLICIES

Lisa Schriffen laments the likely political demise of S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford.  She writes:  

Which will be a pity. Because he had all of the right ideas. And these days, I would take a flawed Christian, with a failed marriage, who believes in liberty, markets, and low taxes, over what we have, no matter how good a family man President Obama might be, any day.    [more . . .]

Me:  I agree with her regarding Sanford's policies, though I am greatly disturbed by Sanford's flight from his State responsibilities, not to mention his unfaithfulness to his wife.  On the other hand I think Obama may well prove to be the "negative" judgment of God on this nation.  Your thoughts?  (I edited this a bit)

FORMER CONGRESSMAN JACK KEMP REMEMBERED (7/13/35 - 5/2/09)

Click here for a video of the entire memorial service honoring former Congressman Jack Kemp held at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.

Kemp served Western New York for nine terms in the United States House of Representatives and subsequently served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the George H. W. Bush administration. Mr. Charles W. Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and former special counsel to President Nixon, delivered the Eulogy, and the Rev. Dr. Robert Norris, senior pastor at Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, Maryland, preached at the service.

Click here for Chuck Colson's eulogy for Jack Kemp.  (22 minutes; well worth watching!!)

Michael Gerson - The Most Influential Republican Who Never Became President  (Me: You need to read this column to get to know Kemp, the man of ideas.)

Peggy Noonan, “He Had the Power of the Happy Man,” Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2009. (Excellent column!)

Sean Duffy, in The Denver Post, wrote "Why Jack Kemp Matters."

William Bennett remembers Jack Kemp here.

Colson writes about his friend here.

Q & A WITH JOE THE PLUMBER

He's a regular guy, a sincere Christian who wishes he were a better Christian, and a guy who tells it like it is.  Read the interview.

REP. BARNEY FRANK - HOW TO LIE WITH A LACK OF CONSCIENCE AND A SURFEIT OF SANCTIMONY

This blog post is required viewing.  See what Barney Frank said (video) in 2005, and what he says now (video). 

Ed Morrissey:   Clueless?  A liar?  In this case, Frank qualifies as both.

THE POLITICAL ILLUSION

Government policies are important, but Charles Colson reminds us of a larger truth:

Putting it simply, the political illusion is the notion that human nature can be perfected by government; that a new Jerusalem, so to speak, can be built using the tools of politics; that politics is all that matters.

The enormous destruction wrought by the utopian “isms” of the 20th century—socialism, communism, fascism, and Nazism—should have disabused us of the political illusion. But today people are turning once again to government to solve all our problems.

Colson goes on to say:

But government simply cannot meet all of humanity’s needs, nor should it try to. The biblical mandate for government is clear: to preserve order, restrain evil, and to do justice. Civil authority, as Paul said in Romans, is “God’s servant, an agent of

BANKRUPTCY OR GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL - WHICH IS PREFERABLE?

Richard Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago and NYU, argues that the responses of both Bush and Obama to the economic crisis reveal an astonishing ignorance of bankruptcy law.  Peter Robinson quotes Epstein, "When we attempt to bail out failing enterprises,

we take them away from bankruptcy judges, who are experts, and give them to a collection of congressional individuals who are charitably called clowns.  When you bring commercial decisions to Congress they become politicized, and politicized decisions become destructive decisions."  [my bolding]

 Click here for Robinson's interview with Epstein.

OBAMA ON DEFICITS - "THEN" AND "NOW"

Byron York writes in the DC Examiner:

Barack Obama used to get very upset about federal budget deficits. Denouncing an "orgy of spending and enormous deficits," he turned to John McCain during their presidential debates last fall and said, "We have had, over the last eight years, the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history…Now we have a half-trillion deficit annually…and Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets."

That was then.  Now, President Obama is asking lawmakers to vote for a budget with a deficit three times the size of the one that so disturbed candidate Obama just a few months ago.  And Obama foresees, for years to come, deficits that dwarf those he felt so passionately about way, way back in 2008.  (more...)   [bolding mine]

Me:  I am thinking I need to create a new "category"for this blog.  Should I label it "Obama's Lies,"  "Shifty Obama," "Golden Tongue Lies,"  "Can't Believe Politicians," "Another Justification for Cynicism," or "To Hell with Liars" (which would be Biblical - cf. Revelation 21:8, 27 and Rev. 22:15)?   Any other suggestions?

POLITICIANS NEED A SPEECH CODE WHEN CONFRONTED BY TAXPAYERS: THE CASE OF CHARLIE RANGEL AND CHICAGO ALDERMAN RICARDO MUNOZ

Warning, the following YouTube "interviews" contain profanity and gutter language.  Viewer discretion advised.  The first is Charlie Rangel addressing" a citizen who questioned Rangel's tax cheating ethics.  The second is Chicago 22nd Ward alderman Ricardo Munoz throwing a constituent out of his office.

The era of YouTube video is upon us!  Politicians better beware -- or better yet, clean up their act!

CARVILLE, BEGALA, EMANUEL PLOTTED "OPERATION LIMBAUGH" BEGINNING LAST FALL...

The Democrat political/media chess game against Limbaugh continues.  Will Limbaugh prove to be the albatross the Democrats want to hang on the Republican party?  That's their  strategy as this article shows.  Will Limbaugh overcome the Democrat connivance against him (and the Republicans) and come out on top?  Stay tuned...    (HT: Drudge)

Update:  Victor Davis Hanson expatiates on Rush's appeal and his "certain sort of genius."  Definitely worth reading.

Update #2 -  Rush responds:  Challenges Obama to a debate.  Transcript here.  4 minute, 43 second audio here.

MICHAEL BURLEIGH - A WRITER WITH WHOM I NEED TO BECOME MORE FAMILIAR

John J. Miller announces:

On Between the Covers today, we have a podcast interview with Michael Burleigh, author of Blood & Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism. We discuss why he regards terrorists as "morally insane," whether terrorism is ever justified, how the European view of terrorism differs from the American view, and his involvement with the excellent new British magazine Standpoint (which he describes as a cross between Commentary, Prospect, and National Review). His daily blog on the Standpoint website is here.

Jonah Goldberg writes over at the Corner:

Since John Miller brings him up, I thought I should add a few things. Michael Burleigh's majestic book, The Third Reich: A New History was an enormous influence on me. It is a fantastic piece of work that draws considerable intellectual inspiration from Eric Voegelin's work on "political religions." Two other books by Burleigh, Sacred Causes and Earthly Powers, trace the religious instinct within nominally secular politics. The religious impulse cannot be destroyed, only misdirected to areas where some people can't see through its secular disguise. Nobody's work has ever been more successful — as far as I am aware — at demonstrating this fundamental insight to the affairs of man.  I haven't read  Burleigh's latest book yet, but I plan to.

Andrew Strattaford adds:

FWIW, I wrote about Blood & Rage for the New Criterion here.

Chuck Colson Lambasts Congress for "Earmarking" and "Pork"

Colson offers a hard-hitting commentary:

In one sense, earmarking is nothing but pure bribery in reverse. It’s a congressman’s or senator’s way of buying votes from the constituents back home.

The practice is an abomination. It violates the biblical understanding of the limited role of government—which is to preserve order and to promote justice—and it also rejects the principles on which our representative democracy was built.

Read the whole thing.

Top Blogs for January, 2009

Here are the top (i.e. widely referenced) political blogs listed by Wikio.  And here are the top business blogs, and here the top technology blogs.  Links to other "top blog" categories can be found on any of these pages.

"OBAMA AND THE POLITICS OF CROWDS" - FOUAD AJAMI (With a personal comment on "original sin" by me)

What is one to make of the huge crowds that have turned out to hear Barack Obama, not only in the United States, but also in Europe?  Such adulation, and the hope vested in him by so many, I have never seen before in the U.S., and to be frank, I find the phenomenon ominous and chilling.  You can imagine how interested I was, therefore, to read an article by Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal (Oct. 30, 2008) titled "Obama and the Politics of Crowds."  Ajami, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University,  grew up in Egypt and consequently brings an international perspective to the Obama phenomenon.  He begins his article this way (my emphases):

There is something odd -- and dare I say novel -- in American politics about the crowds that have been greeting Barack Obama on his campaign trail. Hitherto, crowds have not been a  prominent feature of American politics. We associate them with the temper of Third World societies. We think of places like Argentina and Egypt and Iran, of multitudes brought together by their zeal for a Peron or a Nasser or a Khomeini. In these kinds of societies, the crowd comes forth to affirm its faith in a redeemer: a man who would set the world right.

The whole article is well worth reading, but here are his concluding paragraphs (again, my emphases):

"American sobriety and skepticism about politics--and leaders--set this republic apart from political cultures that saw redemption lurking around every corner."

My boyhood, and the Arab political culture I have been chronicling for well over three decades, are anchored in the Arab world. And the tragedy of Arab political culture has been the

HAS OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN ORCHESTRATED A GOV. PALIN SMEAR CAMPAIGN VIA A MAJOR PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM?

If this story is true (and the evidence seems strong), it underscores the high level strategic deception and maliciousness engaged in by those who fear Gov. Sarah Palin's popularity to sway the election.  It looks undeniable that outright lies and accusations from "grass roots" attacks are actually engineered by a PR firm now apparently trying desperately to cover its tracks.  "Hot Air" offers a good synopsis and Michelle Malkin has still more as she keeps on top of the story.  Update: Click on the previous Malkin link for follow-ups.

Update 9/24/08 - from Michelle Malkin:  "The latest from Rusty Shackleford is here. Ray Robison weighs in here and here. Ace of Spades: “I think they’re lying.” Jay Tea at Wizbang: “Some enquiring minds don’t want to know.”

RICK WARREN'S SADDLEBACK CHURCH TO HOST OBAMA & McCAIN THIS WEEKEND

Update #2 --  8/17/08 - For an example of MSNBC's biased print coverage, click here.

Update 8/17/08 - My reservations and concerns about the dialog at Saddleback Church proved unwarranted.  The contrast between Obama and McCain in both demeanor, verbal acuity, and philosophical substance on major issues could not have been more dramatic.  The transcripts of the interviews can be accessed here.   Byron York of National Review has provided an excellent summary of the evening's answers and significance.  I think Rick Warren did a truly estimable job, evidenced, to cite but one example, by his probing question, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

What I am waiting for is an enterprising person to splice together each person's answer to the same question and put it on YouTube for the world to see and hear.  Maybe it's already been done.

What many viewers don't realize is the troubling slipperiness demonstrated by Obama.  See Hugh Hewitt's post here.

- A friend has sent me a link to a Christian Science Monitor article on this weekend's event.

The event, back-to-back one-hour interviews at Mr. Warren's California megachurch, will be broadcast live on CNN and streamed on the Web [8-10:00 pm Sat.]. It also represents the emergence of a new style of evangelical leadership on the national stage, which is not tied to a single party and has broadened its social agenda beyond that of the religious right.

"This is absolutely a changing of the guard, and it suggests that the new guard of the evangelical movement is able to generate the attention and focus of both parties," says D. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University and author of "Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite."  [more . . .]

I am not enthusiastic about this excursion by Warren into American politics.  I hope it will prove better than I anticipate.  Hard questions need to be asked, and it remains to be seen whether Rick Warren will ask them.  I fear he won't.  Without the hard questions, the evening  could turn out to be an opportunity for candidates to mislead the American people.

SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OKLA), HERO OF THE SENATE

You can add Sen. DeMint (R-SC) as well.  These are the Republicans standing up for fiscal responsibility and for true debates in the Senate.  Did you know that "94 percent of bills passed in the Dem-controlled Senate have been rammed through without debate or vote?"   Read on.

POLITICAL SCIENCE 101 - LOCKE VS. ROUSSEAU

Jonah Goldberg cuts through the jungle of political science by contrasting the two major visions fighting for supremacy in the world.  He writes   

I think political philosophy, or more accurately, political visions can be boiled down to Locke versus Rousseau. The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, that his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign, that the government exists because men of free will cede certain authorities to it in order to best protect  their lives and property.

The Rousseauian vision holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual. 

Fascism, like Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist isms are all based on the Rousseauian vision of the group, the tribe, the class taking precedence over the individual. 

I've also been writing for years that "transnational progressives" are trying to take the Progressive project to the world stage. This was the dream of HG Wells —originator of the phrase Liberal Fascism — who often proclaimed that FDR was the living embodiment of the "world brain." It's the aspiration of Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village, in which the logic of everything inside the village, nothing outside the village is eventually extended, in Clinton's telling,  to the global village. . . 

TIM RUSSERT - DEAD AT 58

- Update 6/16/08 - Jon Meacham over at Newsweek writes on Tim Russert the devout Roman Catholic.

- TV news is full of reminiscences of Tim Russert, by all accounts a most exemplary human being.  He died yesterday, June 13, 2008, of a heart attack.  Michelle Malkin packs a lot of links in her coverage.  Howard Kurtz offers an excellent overview of his work as a broadcast journalist.

Update -I like Byron York's comment - "Even though he was at the absolute top of the Washington ziggurat, he had not a trace of elitism." 

OBAMA THE MESSIAH

** Update 6/9/08 - Check out this blog, Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

- I wrote about Obama as Messiah (or actually non-Messiah) earlier.  But now the enthusiasm has crescendoed ever higher.  Jonah Goldberg has noted that

There are websites dedicated to the question “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” Google that question and you’ll get more than 35,000 hits. (Enter just the words “Messiah” and “Obama” and you’ll get nearly 10 times that.)

Celebrities, as is their wont, rave deliriously. Goldberg again:

Obama’s apostles are hard to dismiss. Oprah simply calls him “The One,” because “we need politicians who know how to be the truth.” (Jesus says in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth ...”) Oprah goes on to say Obama will help us “evolve to a higher plane,” which would put Obama in the role of our Intelligent Designer.

Goldberg says further,

According to the New York Times, Obama’s volunteers are taught to eschew discussions of the issues and instead “testify” about how they “came to Obama.”

I don't know about you, but I find that incredibly scary.  What it testifies to is the hunger of the human heart for a Deliverer.  Directed towards Obama, it also testifies to a horrible lack of discernment.

Goldberg continues:

For many, he’s no retro-redeemer, but a 21st-century savior, a Matrix-messiah and Neo for our modern-day Nineveh. Self-help guru Deepak Chopra dubs Obama “a quantum leap in American consciousness,” while prominent “leadership coach” Eve Konstantine assures us that, “He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.”

Michelle Obama, his wife, is an evangelist.

Michelle Obama is arguably Obamanity’s greatest evangelist, even though she has a streak of Old Testament smiting and wrath to her. She insists her husband has redeemed the entire nation (hence her newfound pride in America). She proclaims her husband is the sort of leader who will fix our broken souls. But don’t hope for grace on the cheap. “The change Barack is talking about is hard,” she insists, “so don’t get too excited, because Barack is going to demand that you, too, be different.”

Could Obama really have said the following? 

In January, he told Dartmouth students that they will know to vote for him because “... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack.”

His view of sin should give us pause. It give me the willies!

When asked in an interview what sin is, Obama defined it as “Being out of alignment with my values.” Apparently, the editor failed to capitalize the “M” in “My.”  

How about this statement for scariness?

“I am absolutely certain,” Obama proclaimed in his victory speech, “that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation ...”

I am probably the last person anyone would want to interview concerning contemporary contenders for the designation "Anti-Christ," In the past I have pooh-poohed such conjectures and those who make them, but how can these statements of Obama not help but give one pause? 

Have we ever had a major political leader arise in America making such claims or exciting such adulation?  Not that I am aware of.  Is there cause for fear?  Yes.

IT'S A MYTH THAT EVANGELICALS ARE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN POLITICS

Joe Carter sets the record straight by noting:

. .  . The Family Research Council (FRC)--the premier lobbying organization of the Christian right in Washington, D.C.--has been attempting to collect signatures on an online petition asking President Bush to approve new Title X regulations ensuring that no taxpayer money goes to subsidize the abortion facilities of groups like Planned Parenthood.

To date, almost one million emails have been sent to Christians asking them to do nothing more than add their name. This is about as minor a level of commitment or involvement as it gets yet only about 3% have done so. More Christians voted for the 5th place contestant on last week's American Idol than have petitioned to defund abortion mills.

Quick Takes

- Sen. Bunning (R-Ky) resists housing rescue effort by the government.  Read Michelle Malkin's post about the brave, level-headed Senator from Kentucky and let your cynicism flow unimpeded towards the Senators who bring on one fiscal mess after another.  They don't even take time to read the bills they pass!

- Tony Blankley rightly warns that with news outlets pulling back from putting men and women on the field gathering news, the lights of true knowledge of events is flickering.  In the future we may not know enough about events to make rational decisions.

NOT EVERYONE IS INTO POLITICS

John Derbyshire writes:

Knee-deep as we have all been, for over a year now, in political chat, we forget how very little most Americans care about politics. A week or so ago a very intelligent, professional acquaintance said to me: "Hey, this Obama guy is something new, isn't he? It would be so cool to have a black President!" It was obvious, from the remark and subsequent conversation, that Sen. Obama had just then, for the first time, impinged on my friend's consciousness, in mid-March of 2008.

I am sure it won't be at all difficult to turn up people in mid-October saying: "Hey, this Obama guy is something new …"

Robert Conquest argues in one of his books that this widespread indifference to politics is one of the great strengths of Anglo-Saxon civilization.

Along the same lines, Byron York cites an e-mail he received:

I am a professor of political science at a state university. When I tried to incorporate the controversy/speech into a segment on elections, I was stunned to find out that only 16 students out of nearly 100 were familiar with the issue and had watched/read the speech OR seen news coverage of it.

SHOULD POLITICAL WIVES BE EXPECTED TO STAND NEXT TO THEIR HUSBANDS AT NEWS CONFERENCES WHEN THEIR MAN CONFESSES SHAMEFUL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR?

I like Mark Hemingway's post.  A reader responds to my article on NRO today about why in tarnation political wives feel compelled to stand next to their husband at a press conference while he announces his depravity to the world:

. . . What I would like to see, however, is a politician show up without his wife and say: (1) she wanted to stand here with me; (2) I am grateful for her support; but (3) I told her "no" - I'm the one who failed and I'm the one who should bear the public scorn.

But that would require that one of these knuckleheads was, emotionally, a grown man.

That strikes me as exactly right. Suffice to say, I don't expect the next disgraced politician to protect his wife in such a manner...

Me: Nor do I, but it would be the right thing to do.  Be sure to read Hemingway's article to which the reader above is responding.

PAUL MARSHALL- THE MIXING OF RELIGION AND POLITICS IS HERE TO STAY

Paul Marshall:

The problem with our contemporary talk of faith and politics is not that it exists but that it is so often so very shallow. We live in an increasingly religious world in which faith and belief affect every dimension of our existence, so our politicians better talk about it.  . . .

I have enormous respect for anything Paul Marshall writes. Yesterday he published an article in the Washington Post titled "Religion and Politics Do Mix." In it he pays special attention to the relationship of religion (and freedom of religion) to economic growth and development, a relationship too seldom discussed.

Kenneth Timmerman's New Book: "Shadow Warriors"

Pretty shocking stuff.  Shadow Warriors carries the subtitle, "The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender."  This Frontpagemag interview with Timmerman spells out the

vast, underground network of government officials, former intelligence officers, members of Congress and their staffs, who were in bed with a complacent, anti-Bush media. They were eager to publish anything that did damage to this president, even if it put the lives of our intelligence officers or of our front-line troops in jeopardy.

ME: If you've ever wondered about the State Department's unconscionable revolt against the administration, it looks like Timmerman's book will serve as an important resource.  He covers a lot of other ground also.  Read the interview.

Why a Candidate's Religious Beliefs Matter

Andy McCarthy explains why we shouldn't shy away from scrutinizing a politician's religious beliefs.  He's taken a politically incorrect position.  I think McCarthy is right.  Following are some excerpts.

If a Muslim were running for high office, even if (however unlikely this seems) he never mentioned his religion or gave public indications of how he understood its doctrines, I would want to know his interpretation of jihad, and his views about such things as whether his first allegiance was to the Muslim umma or the U.S., whether sharia should be the law of the land, the authority of the governed to depart from Islamic doctrine, whether the Qur'an reflects the immutable word of God, whether Mohammed is the ideal role model, whether all people are equal regardless

Mitt Romney Attacked by Former Head of the Massachusetts Republican Party

In the interest of even-handedness, since I've posted negatives on Mike Huckabee, I should also post serious criticisms of Mitt Romney.  Here is Byron York reporting:

A scathing attack on Mitt Romney today from Jim Rappaport, the former head of the Massachusetts Republican party who just held a conference call with reporters to announce his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. Rappaport praised Giuliani's record in New York and said Romney "has a strong record of showmanship as opposed to actual performance." Discussing Romney's relationship with the Massachusetts state legislature, Rappaport said of the former governor, "His word is no good…Mitt Romney would say one thing in a meeting and literally go out of the meeting to the press and tell the opposite story. There was no desire in the legislature to be accommodating to him because they couldn't trust him." Romney, Rappaport continued, "will be clear today on what he believes today, and he'll be clear tomorrow on what he believes tomorrow, but they may be different things."

Who is the Real Mike Huckabee?

I confess I am not sure.  Today Robert Novak came out with a blistering column that agrees with a strongly negative National Review editorial  a week ago.  Novak titled his column "The False Conservative."

Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.

Huckabee's pro-life stance causes conservatives like me to want to like him, but accusations like the following I find really troubling:

But Huckabee simply does not fit within normal boundaries of economic conservatism, such as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed a cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market.

Read the whole article.  Conservatives need to weigh Huckabee's pros and cons carefully.