Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.


Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.





Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations

Jerry Sproul, CPA

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

Guest Post: Logic vs. Emotion Dealing with 9/11

September 16th, 2008 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

An ideological dichotomy shapes the political landscape in America. On one hand, we have the “feelers.” They are the ones who employ emotions as the primary determinant in how they stand on issues. Whether it’s illegal immigration, national security, Social Security, or the commemoration of the 9/11 attacks, all information is funneled through their “emotion filters” to determine their position on issues.

On the other hand, we have what I would call the “realists.” They are the ones who think through issues and employ a logical process to determine their position on issues. While emotion may have an impact on the deductive process, cognition is the primary factor in defining their stance.

A column earlier this week typified this dichotomy while discussing the national commemoration of the horrific attacks of 9/11. Jodean Albright asserted that we are a divided nation because we haven’t “healed” from the impact of the 9/11 attacks, and that we need to reconcile our emotions of anger over those attacks in order to heal as a nation and be unified. She utilized the emotive words of feel, feelings, heal, and emotion 17 times.

For those of us who strive to look at issues based on logic rather than emotion, 9/11 was indeed a heinous attack upon the country. We were initially motivated in large part by emotion, as we were angry for the attack here on our own soil, and sought swift retribution against those who planned and implemented them. We grieved over the loss of life and still grieve for families and loved ones who suffered such a violent and unwarranted loss on that day. But emotion is far from being the primary motivator in our perspective on the ongoing war on terror that the columnist ascribed to us.

Logic and reason dictate that threats against American interests and lives still exist. The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks is still on the lam, hiding out in some cave somewhere presumably, and other nefarious agents of destruction and terror still exist in the world. In a poll conducted last year 30% of Muslim youth living in America believe it’s acceptable to kill innocents in order to advance a cause. While the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are not inclined to violence, it’s believed that as many as 10% subscribe to the extremist Wahabi sect ideals that calls for killing or conversion of all infidels. If you want to do the math, that’s over 120 million people globally who are potentially of a terrorist mindset.

Those of us who approach this logically are driven more by the awareness of reality rather than emotion, and recognize that the threat still exists for more loss of innocent life and horrendous destruction of American interests, at home and abroad. In this context, commemoration of the attacks of 9/11 serves as a reminder of that existential threat and serves to strengthen our resolve to be vigilant in protecting our country and its citizens. It is not, as proffered by Ms. Albright, a rallying point to keep us all angry and stirred up impeding a healing process to just “get over it.” To her, and others who see the world through spectacles of an emotional hue, the war on terror is based on emotions of vengeance and retribution for those attacks, and we just need to work daily on “healing” in order to unify as a country.

The logical process for those of us who see things through the lens of reality, can be summed up very simply. We were attacked. It may have been preventable. The threat of additional attacks still exists. Therefore, we must be vigilant to prevent additional attacks. In forming this postulate there is no reference to emotion. No revenge, no retribution, and no vengeance. In short, it’s not a matter of “getting over it” and allowing the nation to “heal” over the attacks of 9/11. Rather, we need to be mindful that the threat is still out there and we need to be proactive to successfully vanquish that threat.

A year after the attacks of 9/11, Frank Rich, of the New York Times observed that since major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12-24 months, we would know soon enough if Bush was doing his job. Well, Frank, we’ve not been attacked since. I, for one, could not have envisioned going 7 years without another major attack. Fox News provides a list on their website of 20 known terrorist attacks prevented since 9/11/01.

To cite a common aphorism, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. While disconcerting to some, the legislative and executive provisions implemented by Congress and the President over the past few years have undoubtedly had a positive affect on prevention of additional attacks. To me, at least, that’s worth far more than the “pounds” of healing called for by some.

As President Bush has said, the terrorists only have to be right one time, but we have to be right 100% of the time. Perhaps Bush’s success in protecting us for the past 7 years has already led to an attitude of complacency and blissful ignorance about the threat that still exists, which will only be exacerbated if Iran successfully develops their nuclear program.

As long as the threat of terrorism against America exists, we should keep the memory of 9/11 alive and well. It serves to strengthen our resolve to not allow another such attack. What some ascribe to “fear,” I attribute to logic, wisdom, and prevention.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, National Sovereignty, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Press Release: House Leadership Tasks Sali with Leading Floor Debate on Energy

September 14th, 2008 by Halli

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Asked by House Republicans to lead the charge on energy today, Idaho Congressman Bill Sali called on his Democrat colleagues to address energy prices for the American people. Using a House procedural motion, Sali tried to get the House to vote on legislation that would help lower fuel prices. However, Democrats again turned from common-sense energy policies and rejected addressing the number one issue facing American families and companies.

“Though Democrats turned off the lights to the House floor for five weeks of recess, my efforts to provide Americans relief from intolerable gas prices will not cease. Today I again joined my Republican colleagues in offering an ‘all of the above’ plan that would enable us to access America’s incredible natural resources in an effective, environmentally responsible way,” said Sali.

“It is unbelievable the Democrats continue to block legislation that would increase production of badly needed American crude oil. Instead, they’re choosing to sit by while the crippling cost of gas overwhelms our constituents. This is unacceptable. Congress needs to get this work done.”

Sali tried to get the American Energy Act, H.R. 6566, added to another bill during floor debate today. The American Energy Act, authored by House Republican Leader John Boehner and co-sponsored by Sali, would increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanding energy technologies to help lower the price of gas and reduce America’s increasingly costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy.

“Every family in American is affected by this crisis. Especially families with modest incomes have been hit hard by the downturn in the housing market and the increase in energy prices. That means higher prices for fuel and food. Higher prices for senior citizens on fixed incomes … single moms working two jobs … two-parent families striving to make ends meet. It is a shame we cannot take steps to provide them relief today,” Sali said.

“These are real people, not statistics or dots on someone’s graph. They need help now,” the Congressman concluded.

The Democrats voted against consideration of the Republican energy plan.

The American Energy Act was offered during debate on H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act. Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act passed the House today 299 to 118. That legislation contains an amendment that Sali successfully added to the bill in committee . Sali’s amendment provides protection for private property rights. H.R. 3667 now awaits action in the Senate.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Congressman Bill Sali, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Press Release: Sali Urges Passage of Bill to Protect Second Amendment Rights

September 9th, 2008 by Halli

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Idaho Republican Bill Sali said today, during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, that Congress should pass a bipartisan bill that would protect the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents.

Sali is an original cosponsor of the bipartisan H.R. 6691, The Second Amendment Enforcement Act. This bill is in direct response to the D.C. City Council passing emergency laws that disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller case by creating other new restrictions on D.C. residents’ rights.

“The D.C City Council emergency laws blatantly disregard the Court’s ruling but this bill before us today is a bipartisan step to enforce not only the Court’s ruling but the intentions of our Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court did not waver in its June ruling that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,” said Sali.

“Congress must be vigilant to safeguard the right to keep and bear arms, which is now indisputably an individual right for all law-abiding citizens. The D.C. emergency laws need to be swiftly repealed and The Second Amendment Enforcement Act does precisely this,” concluded Sali.

Provisions in H.R. 6691 include:
Repeal D.C. ban on semiautomatic pistols
Restore right of self-defense at home by repealing the draconian trigger lock requirements
Reform registration requirements
Allow D.C. residents to purchase handguns

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Congressman Bill Sali, Constitutional Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

Guest Post: A Tale of Two Conventions

September 8th, 2008 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

Having watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions over the past couple of weeks I feel like I’ve had my fill of flatulent garrulity and hyperbolic rhetoric. I just can’t take another political speech for awhile and need to recover from the sensory overload. But in the midst of my recuperative period, I have reflected over the two conventions and found, at least from my perspective, some interesting dichotomies and contrasts.

For example, staging and presentation at conventions is designed to present candidates in the best possible light, emphasizing the strengths of the respective candidates. Obama’s acceptance speech was staged with grandiosity in a massive football arena, with the stage adorned with Greek columns, undoubtedly to present the candidate as comfortable with the Greek pantheon of gods, equal to his self-perception. McCain’s acceptance speech was staged in an unostentatious setting comparable to a town-hall meeting, which speaking format the Senator has become increasingly comfortable with. The emphasis for McCain seemed to be much more on his message and the convention theme of service and “Country First” than drawing attention to him as an anointed one.

There was great contrast in the fundamental attraction of the two primary pop-star personalities of the respective conventions: Senator Obama and Governor Sarah Palin. Obama’s emotional appeal lies largely in what he says he is and can do, while Palin’s appeal lies in what she has done and the values she represents.

Even at the top of the ticket. The Republican convention featured speakers who spoke from first-hand knowledge of the character and accomplishments of their candidate, while the accolades heaped upon the other candidate seemed somehow paranormal, even they had two autobiographies they could have drawn from to speak to his character and accomplishments.

Ideologically, the contrast was stark as well. McCain and the slate of speakers at the Republican convention spoke repeatedly of the roots of American exceptionalism. They spoke of those things that have, from the very incipient stages of this country, made America great and unique with repetitive references to freedom, liberty, individual choice, and illimitable opportunity. The Democratic convention, to the contrary, focused on governments’ role in improving the quality of life in America, while stressing the requisite election of their pop-star candidate to achieve American nirvana.

Not surprisingly, the themes of the speeches at the respective conventions drew sharp contrasts. I came away from watching the Democratic convention feeling like America was a third-world country, plagued with poverty, inequality, inadequate education, and insufficient government intervention in our lives. Horror story after horror story was laid out of Americans who can’t make ends meet, can’t get the insurance they need, can’t pay for the gas to get to their jobs, and feel no hope for improvement unless a certain pseudo-messianic figure is elected president.

The Republican convention, while at times recognizing the shortcomings of our country, seemed to focus on the greatness of America, and the values and culture that have afforded us our current preeminent status in the world. They stressed the need to perpetuate those values and that culture. Speaker after speaker stressed the ideal that our freedom allows us to become what we want, and that the role of government, rather than serving as a panacea to all the struggles that Americans face, is most effective when it is least affective and minimally invasive in individual liberty and personal freedom.

In short, for the Democrats, government needs to fix everything, whether broken or not, and for the Republicans, government needs to cost less and limit freedom less in order to stay out of the way so Americans can achieve their potential.

Is this an objective reading on the two conventions? Admittedly not, as I subscribe to the latter philosophy of governmental minimalism and reduced incursion into our individual liberty. I don’t believe that government is the panacea and am of the opinion that very little in our government works as advertised. To a large extent, it seems evident that government pulls a “bait-and-switch” on tax-payers: give us more of your money since we know how to spend it better than you do, and we’ll make your lives better in all the following ways. And they then proceed to take more of our hard-earned money and nothing improves. Rather than ameliorating American society and culture, they erode it with high expectations that they cannot deliver and increased encumbrance from the higher taxes. And whatever is proposed, always costs more than advertised, and under-delivers in the services propounded.

Perhaps I am jaded, but I just have a hard time believing that the lambs will lie down with the lions with the election of one candidate, or that America will go to hell in a hand-basket if the other candidate is elected. The President sets the tone for the country and sets the agenda to a large extent for the next four years. That tone can serve to expand the role of government or reduce the invasion of government into our lives. To me, the latter is much more realistic and consistent with the principles America was founded on.

As for the clarion calls of change from both conventions, I don’t envision or anticipate a parting of the Potomac by the election of one of those candidates as the myriad of government workers bow toward the While House in newfound dedication to the service of America. But I do think that a couple of mavericks who have a history of going after corruption and wrong-doing, even in their own party, can make a change worth investing a vote in. That is change I can believe in.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Guest Posts, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Guest Post: The Ugly Treatment of Sarah Palin

September 4th, 2008 by Halli

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

The left’s reaction to Sarah Palin should remind our friends of another dark moment in recent history: the “electronic lynching” of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Because Palin and Thomas both represent fundamental challenges to liberal orthodoxy – one can only imagine that the attacks on Palin will become ever more frantic, ever more vicious, and ever more hypocritical.

Within moments of her announcement, the Obama campaign launched a classic sexist attack on Palin’s “lack of qualifications” for Vice-President. In doing so, they reminded voters of their treatment of Hillary Clinton during the primary campaign; they also scratched the scab of Obama’s infamous remarks about “angry small town America” while being feted by the elites of San Francisco.

To his credit, Sen. Obama moved quickly to squelch such dismissive treatment of a sitting governor. A couple days later, Obama made it clear that he would not stand for attacks on Palin’s children as part of his campaign. (It may be one of his finest moments). Unfortunately, his fellow-travelers will not be leashed.

Palin represents a substantial and direct threat to modern feminism. She is an intelligent, powerful woman who has thought her way free of liberal orthodoxy. She is a woman, of course, but a woman who has rejected the destructive principles of feminism. For that she cannot be forgiven. For that she must be destroyed.

Just as racist rhetoric and tactics have been used by the Left in their efforts to destroy conservative blacks like Justice Thomas and Secretary Rice – so sexism will be used by feminists to keep a powerful woman like Sarah Palin from becoming an American icon of a different value system.

If there is a silver lining to all this, it may be that Americans will get a hard lesson in the hypocrisy and deceits of the Left.

We urge our readers to be in serious prayer for Mrs. Palin and her family. They are certain to be tested in ways that will hard to believe.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, General, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | 1 Comment »

Guest Post: Proof that Palin is an Inspired Choice – “Palin Panic” in Leftwing Media

September 3rd, 2008 by Halli

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

1. Proof that Sen. McCain’s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is an inspired one can be found simply by watching the left wing media bloviate, hyperventilate and mutilate Gov. Palin. The Media Research Center identified no less than 11 all-out assaults on Gov. Palin from leading lights in Big Media yesterday alone.

The simple fact is that left has gone into hysterics because, blinded by rage and animus toward conservative values, they have virtually come unhinged in their mindless attacks on Palin. This is indisputable proof that they are in actuality terrified of Palin and what it may mean for the elevation of conservative values in the public arena. They wouldn’t bother to attack her, let alone with such viciousness, if they were not in a full-fledged panic over her impact on electoral politics.

2. A second proof comes from the sudden and remarkable discovery of family values by the Big Media. Suddenly, the left has become obsessed with the issue of what kind of mother Gov. Palin is, whether she provided adequate prenatal care for her new-born baby, whether she can be the kind of mom her kids need if she holds down an important job, and whether she should even think of working outside the home with children under her roof.

This intense concern for family values is certainly welcome, but will strike the objective observer as profoundly and wildly hypocritical after hearing from these same voices for years that there is a horrible glass ceiling in America, that all conservatives want all their women to be nothing but barefoot and pregnant, and that it is in fact possible for a working woman to have it all.

3. It’s bizarre to see the left wing fretfully wringing their hands over the private sex lives, not of the candidate, but of her daughter, after hearing these same voices stridently shout for years that what a candidate does with his sexuality – let alone what the members of his family do with theirs – is irrelevant to his qualification for public office.

4. Members of the left, Sally Quinn in particular, are hammering Palin for violating evangelical standards for marriage and the family. This also is bizarre, as it amounts to subjecting Palin to a religious test for public office, something they always remind us we are not allowed to do under the Constitution.

5. More proof of the wisdom of McCain’s choice comes from the electricity that has surged through the Republican Party in response to Palin’s selection. Columnist Jonah Goldberg says he has never seen this kind of enthusiasm and energy among party faithful in any of the six GOP conventions he has attended. Palin’s speech tonight, I submit, is the most eagerly awaited speech from a vice-presidential nominee in our lifetime.

6. The enthusiasm around Palin’s nomination is a cautionary one for the GOP. There was simply no male nominee who could have produced the kind of remarkable energy she has generated. The GOP has failed to produce a crop of unapologetic pro-life, pro-family leaders who happen to be men. Palin may have more moxie and courage than the rest of both tickets put together.

Students of history and the Jewish Scriptures will remember that one of the most prominent political leaders in ancient Israel was a woman by the name of Deborah. She is identified in Jewish history as “a wife and mother in Israel.” The historical accounts make it clear that she was elevated to a position of civic leadership because of the cowardice and weakness of the men in her nation at the time. No man could be found with the strength of convictions and the courage necessary to provide national leadership.

The men of her day wouldn’t even go out to battle unless she went with them. Thus they exposed this woman to unnecessary risk due to their own cowardice, and as a consequence, the leader of the army was told, “Because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will hand (your enemy) over to a woman (Judges 4:9).”

7. Ultimately, the decisions a family makes about what a woman does outside the home must be made by the husband and wife together. In my premarital counseling as a pastor, I always encouraged young couples to make financial plans from the beginning of their marriage that would make it possible for the wife to be a full-time mom if that’s what she wanted to do.

Many young couples depend on two incomes from the very beginning of their marriage, making it difficult for the woman to choose to stay home even though she may in time desperately want to. I spoke with the young brides-to-be about the possibility that they may find the nesting instinct a much more powerful instinct than they could have imagined, and that the time to make decisions which would enable her to give her full attention to her children was at the very beginning of their married life together.

But I was always careful to make sure that they understood that this was not my decision to make for them, but one they had to make together. It was, in the end, nobody’s business but theirs how they chose to handle such issues.

Thus it is ironic to a humorous degree to see the left suddenly insisting that it is their right to make this decision for the Palin family, and indeed for the entire country.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | 1 Comment »

Guest Post: All Infants Born Alive Deserve Protection

September 2nd, 2008 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

The value placed on a life is so fundamental to our American belief system that it shouldn’t need any commentary. The Lockean creed, upon which our Declaration of Independence is based declares the veritable sanctity of life, liberty, and property (appears in our Declaration as “pursuit of happiness.”)

The debate has persisted for a generation on the legality and morality of induced abortion, succinctly defined as the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus by medical, surgical, or other means at any point during human pregnancy for elective reasons.

But what is the value, moral or otherwise, of a child already out of the womb? We regrettably read or hear regularly of mothers who gave birth, only to discard or allow to die their newborn infant. Those mothers, if located, are typically charged with murder for their actions, and we look upon them with disgust and contempt.

So what are we to think of someone who not only condones the killing of newborn infants, but apparently encourages it? Even worse, what are we to think of someone who, while being in a position to protect and defend such newborns, not only refuses to do so, but argues in defense of killing them or allowing them to simply expire?

In March, 2001, a bill was introduced in the Illinois State Senate. That bill stated in part, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”

What precipitated this legislation was an investigation of a Chicago area hospital that was allowing babies born alive, following botched abortions, to simply die without any medical care. This was not over finances, whether or not the mother had insurance to care for the infant or not, it was simply determined on the part of the hospital that since the baby was intended to be aborted, that even though it was born alive it should be allowed to expire, since that was the mother’s intent. Technically, from a medical perspective, these infants were no different than the many premature babies born on a regular basis throughout the country.

The bill was the Illinois equivalent to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which passed Congress and passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent in 2002, and was signed into law by President Bush. It was not designed to confer any rights or legal status upon any baby not yet born, which means it had no legal conflicts with Roe v. Wade, the dubious 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized induced abortion.

Sen. Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor of the Illinois statehouse. Further, he was the only senator to do so. Arguing against the bill, Obama declared: “This is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to … a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place … This would be an anti-abortion statute.” The bill passed the Senate, but later died in a House committee.

In 2002, the legislation was reintroduced in three separate bills. Obama voted against the two bills that received a vote and, once again, spoke in opposition on the Senate floor. Obama also has opposed restrictions on partial-birth abortion, a late-term procedure that kills a partially delivered living fetus and is considered by some to be tantamount to infanticide.

It’s easy to see why columnist Terence Jeffrey has declared, “Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.” Consequently, if elected, he would undoubtedly become the most pro-abortion president ever. In July 2007, Obama spoke before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and said: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions.

The debate over the morality of abortion will continue, much to the consternation of those of us who think the preservation of human life, whenever it’s declared to be such, is more important than anything else. But what should not be debatable is the viability of a living infant, outside of the mother’s womb, being granted full protection under the law. To allow an infant to simply expire while gasping for breath with the intention of honoring the mother’s wish for an abortion is no different, morally or medically, than the mother that gives birth and then disposes of the baby in a dumpster. That can be considered nothing less than infanticide!

This is not just a poor reflection on the judgment of Senator Obama, but it strikes clearly at the most fundament values our country is based upon. If his personal value system does not allow for the protection of born, living infants, we might legitimately ask, “What are your values, Senator?”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Guest Post: Wow

September 1st, 2008 by Halli

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin is nigh unto unbelievable. Her name surfaced on some internet sources about a week ago and she immediately seemed a fantastic choice – so good, in fact, that we despaired of her prospects. By Thursday night it seemed inevitable that McCain would turn to his former nemesis, Mitt Romney.

Such a pick had the advantage of bolstering McCain’s “economic” credentials. More importantly, Romney knows how to raise money.

Yet, miraculously, McCain must have seen that picking Romney would have sealed his doom. Tired politicians spinning their way out of statements made just months ago; Democrats and their pals at Planned Parenthood running ads about the disturbing story of Romney’s ambitious journey from adamant pro-abort to adamant pro-Lifer – just in time to help his bid for the presidency.

Within minutes of McCain’s announcement, the energy level of the conservative base increased tenfold.

We took emails and phone calls all day Friday from pro-Lifers anxious to get involved in the effort to elect Sarah Palin. Folks are energized by her clarion call to protect preborn children. But it is already clear that there is much more to Palin than simply having the politically-correct answer to a modern plague. Obviously Palin is not “politically” pro-Life but rather understands at a heart level that abortion is not about the ambition of various politicians – but about its many victims.

As the media coverage continued throughout the day, other things about Sarah Palin became clear: She is actually a gifted and articulate member of the great “middle class”. Her family is composed of average Americans, and her passion is for the average folks from her neighborhood. She won’t have to spend most of the next three months persuading us that she “feels our pain”: Anyone who has seen her with her family already knows she is one of us. One could safely bet the farm that her highest calling is Wife and Mother. Power and privilege have yet to stain her soul or twist her world-view. She is the sort of person whom the Founding Fathers envisioned stepping up out of obscurity to serve the public good for a season.

We must pray that the Lord protects her from the vast temptations which surround a person of sudden celebrity, because her present humility and station will offer renewed hope to millions of Americans that our system of government can still work – can still produce average persons of great character. People like Sarah Palin have the power to confirm the promise of democracy by demonstrating to all the professionals and pundits that government by the People is still within our grasp.

The choice of Palin also says quite a bit about John McCain. Maybe there is not such a disconnect after all between the hero of Vietnam and the present politician. Perhaps he does hold respect for the values which have bred greatness for a nation. His courage in picking Palin may prove to be his greatest contribution to the conservative movement.

All of which is to say that McCain has put himself back in the game to be president.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Next Entries »

Copyright © 2oo6 by Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting