From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Sen. John McCain has rebuffed an invitation to meet with Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, while at the same time California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is urging the Republican Party to rebrand itself and distance itself from the religious right.

What the San Francisco Chronicle calls “rebranding fever” was summarized by Schwarzenegger over the weekend when he said, “[W]e can’t go and get stuck with just the right wing. Let’s let the party come all the way to the center.” He added, “Let’s invade and let’s cross over that (political) center. The issues that they’re talking about? Let them be our issues, and let the party be known for that.”

For Schwarzenegger, one of those issues now is same-sex marriage, as he has pledged to honor the California Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing gay matrimony and pledged to oppose any effort to amend the state constitution to protect marriage. Well, now we know where the “center” is for Mr. Schwarzenegger.

The GOP cannot possibly win the presidency in November without the energetic participation of the evangelical faith community, which was responsible for George Bush’s win in 2004.

But alas, its party leadership is making it abundantly clear that the GOP’s “Big Tent” is not in fact big enough for social conservatives. As the party makes a disastrous and fatal move to the center, at the same time it is pushing social conservatives under the tent flap and to the outside of the tent altogether, into a political no-man’s land.

McCain in particular has staked out positions that are anathema to thinking evangelicals on embryonic stem cell research, illegal immigration, global warming and campaign-finance reform.

The leadership of the Republican Party has shown a staggering and mind-numbing tone deafness to the concerns of its socially conservative base, and the Party at the national level as a consequence is liable to suffer a November meltdown of historic proportions.

My guess is that most evangelicals who go to the polls in November will pull the lever for McCain. But the question remains: will they even show up to vote?

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

By Richard Larsen

Everyone waited with bated breath to observe the grilling on tap for General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker by members of the Senate this past week. All three Presidential candidates were in attendance at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where Petraeus, the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq and Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq testified.

While the questioning and comments by Senators McCain and Clinton reflected their respective views, as frequently articulated and micro-analyzed as they are, the comments by Senator Obama warrant additional scrutiny. His comments belie an ignorance and a moral ambivalence that should be alarming to any who have followed the developments in the Fertile Crescent.

Senator Obama began his remarks, “We all have the greatest interest in seeing a successful resolution to Iraq. We all do. And that has to be clearly stated in the record.”

That may seem innocuous enough, except when added to the context of everything else he said. Success has been carefully defined by the administration to include creation of a stable, self-sufficient government that can eventually handle its own security. Such a precondition to withdrawal would prevent Iraq from declining into a Taliban-like Afghanistan, which was a veritable cesspool of anti-American, and anti-freedom destruction-prone belligerents and malcontents, dedicated to the eradication of anything newer than the 8th century, or anyone not a devout Muslim.

Senator Obama had to state his desire for success in Iraq, even though everything he says indicates he has no desire to see such success. But he had to have it “on the record” nonetheless, qualifying all his subversive comments that were to follow.

He then stated, “I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder (and) that the two problems that you’ve pointed out — al Qaeda in Iraq and increased Iranian influence in the region — are a direct result of that original decision.”

Al Qaeda chose to make Iraq a test of their battle-worthiness against the U.S. They lost. That’s why they have been fleeing Anbar and Baghdad. If anybody had a sense in 2003 that some of the Wahabbists and former Saddamites would join us to turn on Al Qaeda and rout them, nobody would have believed them. And then to learn this past two weeks that an Iraqi Shia government has turned on Muqtada al-Sadrand those who were being backed by Iran completely contradicts Obama’s statement.

Then the revelatory line by the Senator. “I also think that the surge has reduced violence, and provided breathing room. But that breathing room has not been taken the way we would all like it to be taken. I think that what’s happened in Basra is an example of Shia vs. Shia jockeying for power that underscores how complicated the political situation is there and how we still have to continue to work vigorously to resolve it. I believe that we are more likely to resolve it, if we are applying increased pressure in a measured way. I think, and this is where we disagree, that applying increased pressure in a measured way includes a timetable for withdrawal.”

This is an ignorant, or at least poorly conceived moral equivalent statement. It’s not Shia vs. Shia. He’s reduced an elected government into just another Iranian backed Shia clique. It’s not. Rather Iraq has a constitutionally elected government that’s taking on an illegitimate Shia group militia, and successfully at that. He employs a moral equivalency argument that anytime there’s violence, all parties are equally culpable. Iraq has a constitutionally elected government that is losing two to three times more security personnel than the U.S. is. They’re making the political progress necessary having met 12 of 18 benchmarks, and all Obama et al can do is criticize and attempt to delegitimize them. They’re fighting terrorists everyday on their own oil, and they’re the only ones doing so, except the Israelis, under the auspices of a legitimate constitutional government. They’re the only ones who seem willing to take on the Shia led and Iranian backed terrorists, and they get no credit for their success, only criticism from the Senator.

That same erroneous moral equivalency argument is frequently used to question why a rogue, terrorist state like Iran that’s intent on destroying its neighbors shouldn’t be allowed a nuclear weapons since the U.S., has them. It reveals a moral ineptness and vacuity.

If benchmarks and political progress were used as a standard to determine democratic legitimacy and efficacy, our Congress would score an “F,” and we should be collectively calling for their withdrawal. Come to think about it, let’s set a withdrawal timetable for our Congress, and set the benchmark for Nov. 2008 for all the Congressmen and Senators to be withdrawn who just “don’t get it.”

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

By Richard Larsen

Ideologically, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are hardly distinguishable. But what they are promising to do if elected president should shock the sensibilities of any freedom loving and tax-paying American.

With slight variations on similar themes, they advocate nationalizing the nation’s healthcare system (nearly one fifth of the economy), and nationalizing the oil companies by absconding with their profits. They denounce successful American enterprises like WalMart even though they do more good for the average pocketbook than the government does (I think they’re jealous). Their solutions call for more centralized control by the government that, due to the profligate spending of Congress, can’t balance its own checkbook.

Before we consider seriously these socialistic campaign promises, we need to think through the philosophy of the capitalistic system they so vocally and vehemently denounce.

The market economy has created unfathomable prosperity and decade by decade, century by century miraculous feats of innovation, production, distribution, and social coordination. We owe all material prosperity, all leisure time, our health and longevity, our growing population, and nearly everything we call life itself to the free market. Capitalism alone has rescued the human race from degrading poverty, rampant sickness, and early death.

The thousands of diseases that are now treatable and survivable are vanquished because of the tenets of capitalism that rewards successful research with financial success, which in turn is used as the capital to find even more solutions to human ailments. Yet Clinton and Obama denounce “big pharma” for their profits, and employ a class-envy populist rhetoric to garner support among the gullible, uneducated, and financially illiterate.

They do the same with “big oil,” denouncing them for their profits (approximately eight cents per gallon), while we pay increasingly higher prices for a commodity they have contributed to be as high priced as it is. Oil is the fuel of capitalism, providing distribution of goods and services, and personal freedom unfathomable just a couple of generations ago, and we can’t even access the oil that U.S. companies have a claim to. China and Mexico can access the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, but we can’t because Clinton, Obama, and those of like mind won’t allow us to tap our own resources, including the Anwar oil fields in Alaska. If they really cared so much about the high price of oil, they’d allow us to access what we have in our own backyard. Global demand is only going to increase, as India and China’s demand is increasing by double-digits every year now. Supply needs to increase to meet those demands, yet Obama and Clinton tie our hands preventing the increase of supply.

And speaking of oil, our two biggest suppliers are Canada and Mexico, and yet Obama is threatening to revisit and renegotiate NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that facilitates trade with those countries, unencumbered by tariffs. What do you think that will do to the price of gasoline in the States?

I just had to laugh when a columnist earlier in the week said of the economy, “And as usual, the Democratic candidates have better ideas on the subject than the Republican candidate does. At the very least, Obama and Hillary are trying to come up with workable solutions.” The aforementioned proposals display at best, an economic naïveté, but at worst, spell destruction of certain elements of our capitalistic system. Their proposals for increased spending by the Federal government of nearly a trillion dollars, combined with their plans for “big pharma” and “big oil,” creates an unstable and uncertain future for the American economy that currently falters on the edge of a possible recession, but with Clinton’s or Obama’s recommendations, collapses under the weight of a Federal government that may never recover. Come to think about it, their proposals would increase Federal spending by about the same percentage as what two of our commissioners increased Bannock County spending this year. If they’re not all related, at least their detached-from-reality ideology of bigger and more expensive government is.

And how do Obama and Clinton propose financing that big of a spending increase? Bingo! More taxes! This would be humorous if it weren’t so frightening. They both voted for the stimulus package which returns $800 to $1,600 to each household this summer to stimulate the economy, so they obviously have at least a modicum of understanding that the consumer drives the economy. But the consumer can only drive the economy if he has the money to spend. Combine their proposals of increased income taxes, and increased capital gains taxes, and we all have less to spend, which means the economy under their direction would decline precipitously for years.

The solution to an economy that is slowing is never to increase the size of government, or taxes, or nationalizing or penalizing the great industries that make ours the economic envy of the world. If the economy matters to you, neither Obama nor Clinton will be your candidate.

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

By Richard Larsen

Those we look to as heroes speaks volumes about whom we are, and our character. Most of us identify heroes who exhibit qualities of character that we admire and we desire to emulate ourselves. Such character is manifest by actions, and what our heroes do to deserve such respect and veneration.

The recent passing of the dictatorial baton in Cuba from Fidel Castro to his equally totalitarian brother Raul provides a case study in hero worship. Fidel was the revolutionary who deposed Cuba’s corrupt dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Yet Castro became much worse than the ruler he led a revolution against, torturing and executing more than five times as many Cubans as his predecessor. He nationalized business interests in the country, abolished freedom of religion, took over the media, erased free speech, and turned the tropical island into a totalitarian “paradise” stripped of human rights and freedom. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Cuba trails only China in the number of journalists and reporters behind bars.

Political prisoners are beaten, starved, denied that acclaimed Cuban medical care, locked in solitary confinement, and forced into slave labor. Castro long ago eliminated due process of law, and the right to leave the country.

Freedom House, the international human rights watchdog, rates Cuba with the lowest possible rating for civil liberties and political rights. It shares that inauspicious ranking with North Korea and Sudan as the most repressive regimes.

In short, under Castro, a once-flourishing island paradise has been transformed into a poverty-stricken, desolate hellhole where basic human liberties do not exist.

In spite of all this, American media and the Hollywood left heaps praise and adulation on Fidel. Norman Mailer, for example, proclaimed him “the first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the Second World War.” Oliver Stone has called him “one of the earth’s wisest people, one of the people we should consult.”

The paragon of objective documentarians, Michael Moore, holds up Castro’s health care system as the preeminent example. I guess if you don’t mind being stripped of all liberties and can survive the firing squads, the Cubans have something to look forward to.

Why is it that to the left a ruthless mass-murderer and totalitarian dictator would be so adored and worthy of emulation?

For that matter, why is Castro’s primary executioner of the revolution, Che Guevara, still lionized by the left? Even today, kids wear t-shirts with his gnarly image emblazoned on them. Even Angelina Jolie has a Che tattoo, which is immensely ironic considering she travels the world denouncing violence as a U.N. ambassador of good will.

Che longed to destroy New York City with nuclear missiles. He promoted book burning and signed death warrants for authors who disagreed with him. His racism against blacks makes Jeremiah Wright’s racism against whites pale by comparison, yet he’s a hero to Jesse Jackson. He persecuted homosexuals, long-haired rock and rollers, and church-goers. Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering “several thousand” executions during the first few years of the Castro regime. He carried out Castro-ordered executions on a more expansive scale per capita than Hitler’s Nazi Germany did, prior to implementation of the Final Solution.

We can even lump Hugo Chavez into the mix, for he is well on his way to doing to Venezuela what Castro did to Cuba, and he is receiving the characteristic leftist praise for it.

When analyzed logically, the left in America should hate Guevara, Castro, and Chavez. After all, they did all the things they accuse George Bush of doing: torture, capital punishment, imprisonment without due process, elimination of freedom of speech and the press. They’re probably fine with the elimination of freedom of religion.

So why is he so adored by them? What is it about Guevara, Castro, and Chavez that captures the left’s imagination like none other?

There are two possibilities. All three revolutionaries hate, or hated in the case of Guevara, the United States. In 1957, Castro wrote in a letter, “War against the United States is my true destiny. When this war’s over [the revolution], I’ll start that much bigger and wider war.” Maybe the reason the radical left loves those murderous dictators and Castro’s executioner is because they share a disdain for this country.

The other possibility is that the left more frequently judges people for their intent than their actual accomplishments. The current presidential campaign illustrates this aptly, as Clinton’s “experience” seems to have no match for Obama’s “hope.” It doesn’t matter that neither one has really accomplished anything of substance, it’s their intent that matters most.

We are left to conclude that the radical left is totally ignorant of history, and devoid of logic, or their mutual contempt of the United States trumps all else.

Apparently the Obama campaign is attracting that type of ideologue. When his campaign office was opened in Houston before the Texas primary, the volunteer director had a Cuban flag with the image of the Communist mass murderer Che Guevara’s face printed on it. I can only pray that that’s not an omen. And next time you see someone with a Che shirt on, ask them why. Their answer may be illuminating.

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

By Richard Larsen

Perhaps it was inevitable that the Clinton vs. Obama showdown for the Democratic nomination would devolve into a race-baited contest. What couldn’t have been foreseen, at least for many, is Barack Obama would be, if not the initiator of it, at least the perpetuator of it.
Some of the highly incendiary sermons of Senator Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of The Trinity United Church of Christ came to light this week. In a move at damage control, Mr. Obama made a speech this week to address his church and his relationship with the pastor. He instead made it a speech about race.

This is becoming increasingly uncomfortable. It’s easy to foresee a time when, if Obama is elected, any discussion about policy will be contorted to a discussion about race in order to obfuscate or at least blur the issue at hand.

Granted, the kind of black liberation theology that is proselytized by Rev. Wright and his church is inextricably linked with the culture Obama has tried to associate with in order to establish his bona fides as a black politician, according to Juan Williams of PBS. This is understandable to an extent since he was raised by a white grandmother, whom he threw under the bus in his speech for being “a typical white person” herself, and was not raised in the environment characterized by his church.

Since Wright’s controversial statements were made in the context of sermons from the pulpit, and fit a pattern of such diatribes against white people and America in general, it should be safe to say that his comments reflect part of his church’s belief system, or theology if you will. Such a characterization would be true to black liberation theology.
Mitt Romney was theologically crucified over his Mormon Church teachings. While still a candidate, he was constantly grilled about his faith, its theology, and their influence on him. This required Romney to deliver his landmark speech in Houston last fall about religion in America. Pundits were divided over whether he addressed sufficiently the issue of inculcation of his faith by his Mormon parents. Many praised his speech, while his detractors claimed he sidestepped the issue.

In the case of Obama this week, he not only sidestepped the issue, he contorted and twisted the issue from one of faith and religious association to one of race. This was not surprising considering the tenets of his church and his pastor are anathema to mainstream Americans.

Romney is now out of the race. But in the spirit of fairness, let’s engage in a little comparative religious analysis of just two tenets from Obama’s church and Romney’s.

According to Rev. Wright, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God d—- America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d—- America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d—- America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

From Romney’s spiritual leader, Mormon President, Gordon B. Hinckley, “Bless this chosen land that it may remain forever free, that peace and liberty may bless the lives of its people, and that righteousness may reign in the land.”

Regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001, Rev. Wright yelled to his congregation, “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

President Hinckley in October, 2001, “You are acutely aware of the events of September 11, less than a month ago. Out of that vicious and ugly attack we are plunged into a state of war. For the first time since we became a nation, the United States has been seriously attacked on its mainland soil. But this was not an attack on the United States alone. It was an attack on men and nations of goodwill everywhere. It was cruel and cunning, an act of consummate evil.”
These are just two examples, but the pattern should be clear. In short, there is little in Mr. Obama’s theology and belief system to indicate he’s a unifier. The hate speech spewed forth by his minister of twenty years is racist, hateful, divisive, and anti-American. Next to Obama’s church and its racism and hate, Mormon teachings sound downright orthodox.

In light of this, I think I would much rather have a Mormon President, or even neighbor for that matter, than someone from Obama’s church, including the Senator. I think we’ve heard enough hate this week from Rev. Wright to last a lifetime. We don’t need any more.

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

From Richard Larsen

Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, said at a rally in Milwaukee last week, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” The comment was made in the context of the “hope” generated by her husbands’ campaign for the presidency.

At first blush such a comment is inscrutable. How could any American at 44 years of age, not feel pride in anything about our country? After all, this is still the most free country in the world in spite of Congressional efforts to limit our opportunities with increased taxation, and their efforts to limit our individual liberty in the name of global warming, gun control, political correctness, and the “nanny state” mentality afflicting the majority in Congress. The good that has been accomplished by this country in medicine, human rights, technological advancement, space exploration, global magnanimity in times of crisis, and the freedoms afforded to millions in other lands by our military are innumerable. The accomplishments that might foster pride in our country are literally limitless.

The Obama campaign attempted to mitigate the damage by spinning the statement with numerous clarifications and explanations, all of which rang hollow and belied a typical left-leaning animus of America on the part of the candidate’s wife.

This has provided justification for some to question her patriotism, akin to when her husband quit wearing his flag lapel pin last year. That hardly seems proper, as everyone has their own way of showing their love of country. Those on the left think they show their patriotism best when they criticize and demean America and its leaders when they’re of the opposition party. In a perverse sort of way, maybe she was expressing her patriotism.

However, my perception was altered significantly when I heard a gentleman explain it from his perspective. He was in his mid 40’s and his explication put the comment in a completely different light. He said, “I can understand that [what Mrs. Obama said]. Not up until 9/11 did I consider myself a patriot. I just felt like, what was so great about America? I never felt like I was taking part in the American dream, and capitalism, and all that. The opportunities have just never been there for me.”

He continued, “I’m black, and I feel like that’s the reason I’ve never really completely felt like an American. I’ve just never felt like the opportunity was really there. I’m a conservative, and believe in free markets and less government, and less taxes so I can support my family. And I realize I have more freedoms here than I would have had anywhere else. Under President Reagan, I tried to apply his principle of ‘pull yourselves up by the bootstraps’ and I feel like I started to see my opportunities for what they were; that there really was no limitation beyond my own vision for myself. But still, the doors weren’t open for me; I had to kick them open.”

He then explained how he understood where Michelle Obama was coming from. “I don’t think she was trying to say America is not a great country. It’s just that, the frustration as an African-American, you just don’t feel like you’re part of this country. Like we’re not just Americans, we’re African-Americans. We’re qualified with a hyphen. We’re patronized and pandered to all the time like we’re inferior somehow. We even have black leaders. What other racial group has a leader? I don’t see a ‘white’ or ‘Hispanic’ leader out there. But we as blacks have ‘black leaders,’ like Jackson and Sharpton, and I don’t agree with them. But now, to see a black man running for the President of the United States and has a real chance to win, is just liberating to think that’s possible. I have no intention of voting for him, I disagree with what he stands for on almost all the issues, but he has broken through the limitations that I feel society has placed on us. His success to this point has changed my feelings about America and what we stand for. Even if he loses now to John McCain, he has changed how I feel about America. For the first time, I really feel like I’m an American.”

The fact that he was a conservative lent even greater credence to his argument. I can see how the call for hope rings true for many people who feel marginalized by being hyphenated Americans, or for some other reason feel like they’re not part of the America that the rest of us love and cherish. This man’s perceived social limitations trumped his ideology as it related to his sense of belonging.

This seems to be the legitimate hope afforded by the Obama candidacy. His hope is not founded in his policy positions, for they’re right out of a socialist playbook. But by having a legitimate shot at the presidency, he seems to some at least to have shattered racial barriers, whether real or perceived, that have allowed so many to feel alienated in their own country. If this is the case, then the greatest good that can come from the Obama “hope” has already been accomplished.

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