What the Chief forgot to "Hail"

by: R.J. Moeller

Although candid in its delivery and earnest in its intent, the real story of the eighth and final State of the Union Address in President Bush’s presidency was much more about what wasn’t said then what was.

By entirely avoiding, or at best paying uninspired lip service to, absolutely critical issues such as: the imminent collapse of entitlement programs like Social Security; the need to more aggressively confront the epicenter of Islamic extremism in Tehran; and the neglected responsibility of educating and reminding the American people of the individual and collective sacrifices they will all have to make going forward if we are to beat back the seemingly endless tides of terror and jihad, the President exhibited all the tendencies and characteristics of typical modern Republican “leadership” that have driven loyal Conservatives out of their supply-side, Reagan-loving minds for 7 years.

I’ve been a registered Republican, staunch Conservative, and rabid opponent to Liberalism in all its Socialistic forms since the voting age of 18. George W. Bush was “my guy” in 2000 (before it became popular for all of those two months in late 2001 for even Saturday Night Live to cheer him), and I supported Bush even more ardently in 2004 when he ran against the Democrats worst nominee for President since 1984 when Walter Mondale lost 49 of 50 states to Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Trust me when I say that my reserved plot of land in “Bush Country” is not in danger of being revoked. But when I look at and listen to the man, to our 43^rd President, to the one world leader who after and since 9/11 has been resolutely unwilling to flinch in the face of unimaginable pressure, I see a handful of important contradictions and shortcomings in his presidency that have become more and more apparent since his re-election in 2004. The reason these let-downs sting the soul of a true Conservative more than most is precisely because of how much we believed and shared in his visionary policies post-9/11 and pre-November 2004.

A prime example of what I’m talking about is the President’s inability to bring about Social Security reform. The debate over whether or not Social Security is in need of reforming was settled long ago by the crippling entitlement strings President’s such as FDR and LBJ and Democratically-controlled Congresses between 1940-1994 lassoed the American people with. In the land and time where sane people reside, the only thing that has been left for Congress and the White House over the past twenty years to decide has been which course of action is most feasible and appropriate for our elected representatives to take in regards to how exactly Social Security should be re-tooled.

Bush ran both in 2000 and 2004 on a platform that included Social Security reform based on private accounts in which Americans would invest the same money that would have otherwise gone to the Federal government’s untenable “pay-as-you-go” current system. The rate of return, on average, for a tax-payer paying into Social Security his entire working, adult life is at best 1.5%. The private accounts, already working in countries such as Argentina, would return on average no less than 5% on the taxpayer’s investment. The obviousness of such a plan’s potential success, especially in light of the current state of ineffective affairs, almost makes you want to create a new word that would mean “something more than common sense.”

Social Security by 2018 will be running a deficit and will be forced to start collecting on the IOU’s they’ve accumulated over the years by lending their surplus budgetary income out to willing recipients. More than $60 billion of the $575 billion allotted for Social Security last year was lent out to other governmental agencies and pet-projects of Congressional members seeking re-election. I’m no Financial Planner, but something doesn’t sound quite right about such a policy. Why wouldn’t any surpluses be invested to start hedging our bets against Social Security’s collapse? Experts say that by 2040 the entire Social Security system will be bankrupt and expenditures on the entitlement program will comprise the entire balance of the Federal government’s budget. Wow.

So what does Bush do about all this after his momentous victory on November 2^nd, 2004? He spends a few months in early 2005 touting his private accounts plan (something even Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), now the Democratic Party’s Majority Leader, proposed himself in 1997), meets some resistance from Democrats in Congress and AARP ads telling old people that Republicans wanted to kick them out of their retirement villas and take away their shuffle cues, and then George promptly lays down like the New Jersey Nets against the Chicago Bulls in the 1^st round of the 1998 NBA Playoffs. Bad.

Nearly 70% of Americans, not just Republicans, want private accounts to invest their own tax money in so that their retirement will be spent in sunny weather sipping umbrella-clad drinks, not standing open-palmed outside the Capitol Building asking for a handout to make ends meet. Why in the world with six years of a Republican dominated Congress could this President not push through a plan that would prevent the inevitable catastrophic fiscal events that are unambiguously looming in our country’s economic future? Why Monday night did the President not present this case again to the people who need to understand it more than any other: the American people?

And this gets to the heart of George W. Bush’s biggest problem as Commander-in-Chief: lack of effective communication. He has great ideas, he champions worthy causes, and sees the world and all its dangers more decisively clear than any other President or Prime Minister on the planet; but it has become clear that Bush lacks either the ability or willingness to persist in educating, and then constantly reminding, the American people of why they should listen to what he has to say.

Monday night was also Bush’s chance to drop the verbal hammer on the maniacal regime in Iran, as well as it was the perfect time and place to responsibly remind the Free World that the fight against Islamo-fascism will require our collective moral will to be strengthened and resolute.

If Iran is a real threat, as every credible source left tells us, Mr. President, then why on God’s green earth would you throw a mere handful of sentences of decidedly non-confrontational rhetoric at the most dangerous government on the planet? Why is this same man who once told the world that they were either “with us, or with the terrorists” now avoiding the discussion of the world’s leading state-sponsor of terrorism altogether? Better still, if the National Intelligence Estimate released late in 2007 thats says Iran "likely" put part of their nuclear program on hold in 2003 is to believed, then why didn't the President remind the American people of the neglected part in that same report that said if Iran did cease its illegal activities, it did so under pressure from US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? (You know, a huge part of the reason Bush appropriately argued for war with Iraq in the first place...)

Iran funds Hamas in Palestine and fuels their insurgency against their own more moderate brethren in Fatah, and of course, against the hated Jewish people in Israel. Their proxy terrorist group in Lebanon, Hezbollah (the group responsible for the 2^nd most amount of American deaths, after Al Qaeda), has wreaked havoc on a once peaceful, Democratic, Christian nation. We now also know that Iran has been directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq since 2003.

This fight against radical jihad isn’t going away when George Bush leaves office next January. It isn’t “his” fight; it is ours. Every single American citizen is, for better or worse, involved in the great ideological struggle of the 21^st century. Bush has been consistent in this message, but far too infrequent in delivering it. We need to be reminded on a daily basis that we have real enemies, and that Iraq is a legitimate front in the War on Terror. We need to hear that our leaders recognize these threats, understand what must be done to combat them, and are willing to persist in carrying out those strategies.

Ronald Reagan was dubbed the Great Communicator because he could make the inaccessible, accessible for millions of Americans who wanted to go to sleep at night knowing that their President understood what was going on and cared enough to keep the public informed. For more than twenty years before he became President, Reagan utilized television, radio addresses, and thousands of public speeches to present the same anti-Communist, small government, low taxes, strong national defense message that he eventually rode to consecutive terms as Commander-in-Chief on.

Bush’s speech Monday night was a reminder that while he has done his best, and considerably far more than either Al Gore or John Kerry could even have dreamed of had they won, he will never be considered the great President he could have been had his communication skills been as acute and refined as his moral clarity and courage.

The death penalty and religion

A very important debate in the modernized Western world centers around the question of whether or not we should as a society put to death certain criminals. Dr. Albert Mohler offers some thoughts and perspective on the topic that I found immeasurably beneficial and intellectually (as well as emotionally) satisfying.

No Pigs Allowed

I post many columns each week on my site here...but there is one man, and one man alone, who I would recommend you read his column every week. That man is Mark Steyn, and this week he sheds some light on the growing problem leaders in the British government have with standing up to radical strains of Islam among their own population.

PLEASE read it!

The Master speaks

Newt Gingrich, writing in today's Tampa Tribune, tells us why the "world that works" in the private sector could and should be copied and implemented in the "world that fails" (our Federal government). Change is needed, but not the big-government, high-tax, low result change that both Hillary and Obama would certainly bring.

Religion of Peace Update

An unemployed Muslim immigrant living in Britain, off the country's welfare system, was in court this week for having planned to kill British soldiers who happened to be Muslim themselves. Apparently this guy found the thought of Islam and Western Democracy co-existing so deplorable that he was "forced" to plan the be-heading of a soldier and fellow Muslim.

This isn't Pakistan or Iran we're talking about here...this took place in jolly old England. How long before this finds its way to our shores?

"State of the Union" tonight

President Bush is set to deliver his final SOTU Address this evening at 8pm (Central). It will be on most every network, and it is critically important that you watch as much of it as you can. Even for those of you who despise the man, at least tune in and hear what his vision for America going forward looks like.

If you only watch one political-related thing each year, make it tonight's speech by our Commander-in-Chief.

John Edwards: Bad Candidate or Worst Candidate?

Krauthammer hits another one out of the park when he explains why the former Senator from North Carolina is a putz, and isn't worthy of a single American's vote.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/edwards_campaign_of_regret_and.html

I know who the GOP should nominate...

Sarkozy in France is expanding his (to put it diplomatically) "gun-shy" country's military presence in the Middle East. And the Democrats claim by pulling out of the region we will be safer? Call me old fashioned, but I'd be somewhat embarrassed as an American Political Party if my policies were more tepid than the those of the French...just saying.

For more on my man Sarko, please read my column after his monumental win last Spring.

Winning the argument comes first

by: R.J. Moeller

There are two reasons why any of our local, state, and federal governments do not operate as they should: not enough of us understand what actually works and consequently not enough of us are motivated to do anything about the overwhelming incompetence and abuse of power in Washington D.C.

Not surprisingly, politicians are attuned to this new uninformed reality and gleefully exploit the apathetic condition of the average American voter. Some weaker part of us has been trained to enjoy the sound of them telling us how much more “free stuff” they’d offer compared to the other candidates, while the traditional American principles of small federal government, strong support for our free market economy, and military protection from danger both at home and abroad get brushed aside quicker than John Edwards can say “Two Americas.”

It goes without saying that defeating Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in 2008 by raising the appropriate doubts in their qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief will be enormously important to the sustained success and safety of our nation. However, the more important task at hand (for all those still share in the dreams of the alliance that has existed between religious Conservatives and Libertarians from George Washington to Ronald Reagan) is for us to plainly define the differences between modern Conservatism and Liberalism, and then equip ourselves and our fellow citizens with the necessary components with which to create a republican worldview that stresses personally responsibility and civic duty.

But where do we start, right?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was Reagan’s Cold War ally across the pond and a firm believer in many of the same Conservative principles that were embodied by our 40th president’s epic terms in office. She famously once said, regarding potential successes for her Party at the voting booth, “First you win the argument; then you win the election.”

The simplicity of such a statement might possibly betray its penetrating accuracy and insight. To end up as one who would dismiss Thatcher’s observation as unsophisticated, or misunderstand it as empty campaign rhetoric from a politician, would only serve to confirm her point: many people have no idea what is really going on and are therefore unable to discern the meaning of the things politicians say and/or do.

This scarcity of awareness, I believe, is precisely why the United States shamefully lays claim to some of the lowest voter turnout rates in the world. Even under the threat of death, which hundreds of their fellow citizens have sadly experienced, percentages as high as 90% of the population turned out in both Iraq and Afghanistan on multiple occasions to cast their democratic ballot ever since their respective country’s liberations in 2001 and 2003.

Comparatively, in the United States, if there is a brisk November wind outside, the hint of a Charlie-Horse in one of our quads after tennis lessons, or a Hills marathon on the boob-tube, we bravely shrug off as “pointless” the notion that it might have been prudent of us to head on over to the local junior high and cast a few ballots for the local, state, and national “representatives” of our Creator-endowed, militarily-sustained freedom.

Now I don’t blame all Americans for not caring more about politics and campaigns and caucuses and primaries. Most people are rightly busy raising families and working long hours or going to school. Plus, after all, many of us are products of the U.S. public school system, or at least receive our information from network news broadcasts and big-city newspapers, both of which contain educators and journalists who have voted for Liberal Democrats in presidential elections since 1988 to the tune of more than 80%.

We are bombarded with negative images, lessons, and impressions of our country’s history, its economy, and of any candidate running for public office with an “R” in front of his or her name. (And God forbid we turn on talk-radio or Fox News, lest we be accused of succumbing to the wiles of what Hillary regularly calls the “vast Right-wing conspiracy” in the media.)

But the problem runs deeper than the undeniable liberal bias that has stricken down nearly all of ours “gatekeeper’s of information” with a socialistic fever. Those who don’t (or won’t) recognize this bias and its destructive repercussions on the collective psyche and decision-making ability of the average, moderately interested voter are likely past the point of saving anyhow. No, my interest lies in advancing the cause of traditional American values, policies, and customs (e.g. voting in elections) that typify the thinking of our Founding Fathers and their intellectual offspring since 1776.

The route to a man’s heart, it is said, is through his stomach. Most assume that the route to the average American voter’s support is through his or her pocketbook (taxes), but this is only partly true in the United States today. Emotions rule in 2008. Due directly to our unprecedented accumulation of wealth and prosperity, and the corresponding time to sit around and watch Oprah and think about our “feelings” such affluence affords, our secular-progressive culture has produced multiple generations of politically correct citizens who would rather be called “nice” than “right.” It appears that the only person to be feared in our society nowadays is one who claims to know a bit of truth.

We’ve got more leisure time on our hands than at any other time in the history of the world, yet we’re too busy to sit down and read a few articles on how our economy works and whether or not raising taxes hurts its growth. We can squeeze in a spa-day for our pets, but the thought of investigating whether or not Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s promises of “change” might be empty, disingenuous, or detrimental to the very system that provided the level of prosperity where our kitty cats can see pet psychologists, is annoying and potentially tiring. We’re easily convinced that “Bush lied, people died” is an accurate appraisal of a war that has freed the most people (50 million) with the fewest casualties (less than 4,000) of any military conflict in U.S. history, but see no need to seek out alternatives to an educational system that has produced 8th graders who know less overall today than an 8th grader in 19th century America.

The Liberal establishment has raised us to believe in nothing but our own happiness and that eating tuna fish kills dolphins. Well, they’ve got what they ordered: a nation of dis-interested adults-living-as-adolescents who indulge every moral taboo but feel better about themselves because they recycle. The Left has consistently encouraged us not to care so much about “God, family, and country” and a grave number of Americans have obliged.

While certainly not the answer to all life’s troubles, I believe that Conservatism, more than any other political philosophy or particular political Party, holds the road map that can best lead us forward as a nation.

Post-Modern rubbish embraced by Liberals, such as the idea that "all ideas are equal", or that somehow the Right is so very wrong for favoring such "controversial" things like moral standards, shows its true impractical colors the moment that same Liberal insists killing babies in the womb is a natural right of all women everywhere and that Global Warming is the "great moral crisis of this generation" on his way to the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony.

(I wonder if we can get Osama out of that Pakistani cave if we showed him Al Gore's power-point presentation? Maybe Old Bin Laden will have the guts American journalists don't have and ask Gore how the previous Ice Ages came and went before I drove around in my SUV, windows down, making the neighborhood smell prettier with my aerosol spray can? At the very least, can we get the world's most wanted terrorist to make his jihad more "Green.")

Like Bob Dylan likes to say: "You're gonna serve somebody." Modern Liberalism and Conservatism are headed in vastly different directions going in to 2008's historic elections. Which way you walkin'?

I see the vision of the Founding Fathers in modern Conservatism. I see the driving force of continued economic stability in modern Conservatism. I see the appropriate spectrum of discussion regarding the use of military force and spending on National Defense in modern Conservatism. I see, to be perfectly honest, room for nearly every American (as well as their individual hopes, dreams, and concerns) to fit inside modern Conservatism.

The reason we on the Right seem to be losing the argument that our ideas and ideals are best for the governing of this nation is in my humble estimation the result of impotent public relations, spineless politicians who disingenuously run as Conservatives, and the avoidance of a persistent, sustained, and accurate education of our young people. (I’m talking to you on that last one, parents.)

The Left wins the argument so often not simply because they have nearly every media outlet on the planet in their corner, nor simply because more than 80% of the people teaching our children and college students support their ill-advised policies; but because we fail to arm ourselves with knowledge and truth. It’s easy to be a liberal. It’s easy to give in to our emotions and reduce the complex, complicated, and dangerous issues we face as a nation to off-color bumper stickers or the plea: “No blood for oil!”

My challenge is this to those still unconvinced, to those pining for something more tangible and intellectually satisfying than the hollow shell of an ideology that Liberalism is: investigate Conservatism. Seek out what Conservatives have to say about Conservatism, and ye shall find that it’s not what the New York Times says about it and us.

The inherent practicality and effectiveness of Conservative positions and policies will on their own expose the Left’s dirty little secret: Liberalism doesn’t work anywhere but, as Ronald Reagan would say, “In heaven where they don’t need it, and in hell where they’ve already got it.”

Israel Alone

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton told a conference in Israel this week that due to the ill-advised and unsubstantiated NIE Report in December, the US will not have the will to confront Iran on their nuclear weapons program in the upcoming year.

Take a bow, Fred

Former Senator Fred Thompson announced the end to his candidacy for the 2008 Presidential Election today. Thanks for the memories, and although you look, think and act like Baloo the Bear from Disney's The Jungle Book, you're a great Conservative and fine actor.

Now get back to the set of Law&Order.

Dr. King a Conservative?

Although it is assumed and taught that modern liberalism is the intellectual off-spring of those who were the great emancipators and torch-bearers of freedom throughout our nation's history, Paul Greenberg of Townhall.com argues that the late, great Civil Rights champion, Dr. King, might better fit in with the Right rather than the Left if he were still alive today.

Is McCain the GOP's front-runner?

Robert Novak, syndicated conservative columnist of the Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times, thinks so and explains his logic in his column today.

No Stimulus, please

The Wall Street Journal explains why rebate checks and an economic stimulus package are bad ideas right now for the economy and Congress. Highly important that you understand this stuff...

Obama, Hillary, and "Race"

You've likely heard something of the feud that arose this past week between the Obama and Clinton campaigns regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Two of the most important columnists, Tony Blankley of the Washington Times and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, each give their takes on the matter. If you're confused as to what has gone on, these are both required reads.

Olasky on Huck

One of the conservative opinions in this world I respect the most is that of Dr. Marvin Olasky's, who in his latest column at Townhall.com he offers some insight in to the thinking behind Mike Huckabee's platform and campaign.

A must-read!

Laughing all the way to the nomination

Mitt Romney is in high spirits after his key primary victory Tuesday, but what chances does he have going forward? Even TIME Magazine is optimistic on behalf of the former governor.

The GOP and tax-cuts: Who is the real deal Conservative?

The Wall Street Journal takes us through the field of candidates regarding their tax policy proposals, and where the Republican Party as a whole is headed in terms of taxes.

This is the meat-and-potatoes of the Conservative movement, and we need to remain vigilant over how much money the Federal government takes out of our hands and puts into those of unelected bureaucrats.

What is Iran's deal?

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Iran has now developed missiles that can reach Europe, while at the same time continuing their "civilian" Uranium-enrichment program going. Hmm, lets see: the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism, a nation who has publicly called for the destruction of Israel and the Great Satan States of America, is currently engaged in the two most difficult and dangerous steps in constructing nuclear warheads (enriching Uranium and developing missiles with the range capacity to reach the U.S.)....and we're going to take their word for the fact that they have purely benign intentions???

A Divider, not a Uniter

Barack Obama promises us that he is the "new" kind of candidate who can bring all peoples, races, and religions together here in America. I wonder what his militant pastor here in Chicago, the man who married Obama and his wife and baptized both of their daughters, would have to say about that?

If Mitt and Huck get their churches run through the mud, why hasn't the Man of Hope (and, of course, "change") received the same treatment?

Mitt pulls ahead

Mitt Romney won his home state of Michigan's primary last night by a resounding 9% over John McCain. People don't like Mitt either because he is Mormon or because they feel he's too "slick." Yet the former Governor of Mass has won the majority of Conservative votes in the first four primaries. Maybe that's because he's the best and truest Conservative in the field for the GOP???

Ideas, Ideals make America great

by: R.J. Moeller

Roughly 240 years ago there was no nation called America, no mighty American military. The world was dominated by the British monarchy. Representative democracy in conjunction with free market capitalism was non-existent, and the belief that God bestowed power to Kings, who in turn granted rights to their subjects, was the commonly accepted form of government, religion, and economics. That is, until a relatively small band of laymen from the New World began what no other people group had been successful in undertaking in human history: breaking free from the grip of a colonial empire.

This rebellion started small and with little chance of success. As famed historian and biographical author David McCullough reminds us in his Pulitzer-prize winning book 1776, “Those we call patriots were also clearly traitors to the King…we must never forget, when they pledged their ‘lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor’ it was not simply a manner of speaking.”

Out of the unthinkable and remarkable victory that these early Americans were able to steal from the British rose the most unique and, to date, prosperous form of government and economy the world has ever known. The historical narrative of the United States is complex, special, and offers our modern Western world, I believe, the much-needed perspective as to how we should proceed into the 21^st century and beyond.

What made America work where others failed was the Founding Father’s commitment to political liberty, economic freedom, and the personal responsibility in harmonious union with civic duty that embodied the Jeffersonian republican ideals.

As we reflect on our current status as a nation and as a people, it could not be more clear to even the most ignorant observer that things are not exactly as they should be in America. Health care costs, inappropriate increases in budgetary spending, dangerous expansion of centralized power by the Federal government, a grid-locked Congress accomplishing nothing, whispers and rumors of economic recession, and the threat of terrorism and World War around the planet from religiously fanatical enemies we barely can identify, let alone understand. It seems to be a tough time for optimism.

But at the same time we’ve never been more prosperous. Home ownership, even among minorities, is at an all-time high. Unemployment is at a basement-level 4%. Tax revenues in the Federal treasury are at record high dollar figure amounts due directly to the much-maligned Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. The surge in Iraq is proving to be an unmitigated, rousing success thus far. We’ve not been attacked in six years, and our economy, after understandably stumbling in the days, weeks, and months after 9/11, has seen 22 consecutive quarters of growth; another record streak. It seems also to be an improper time for pessimism.

But what is really going on? How can some “experts” incessantly remind us how close to collapse and ruin we are, while then others appear intent on sugarcoating any bad news as good? Who are we to believe? What, if anything, can “we the people” do?

Well, I’m so glad you asked.

I believe the place to start is by asking some routinely ignored questions, like: Why is it exactly that we have achieved so much more in such little time as compared to any other nation in history? How did we arrive at a point where iPhones and hybrid automobiles are readily accessible, and most diseases that still ravage entire foreign societies today are all but eradicated here in the U.S.? How is it that a bunch of rebellious colonials managed to etch out for themselves the most
ingenious form of government and economy ever created? How is it that we are prosperous enough that we can actually argue over which struggling 3^rd World nation we ought to give aid to?

Our success and triumphs are due directly to the ideals (freedom and liberty) and ideas (representative democracy and the free market) that epitomize America. They were, at their inception, radical ideas and ideals that had rarely, if ever, been tested in controlled environments, let alone trustworthy enough to implement as forms of governing peoples and encouraging commerce. Democracy, specifically our wondrous form of it, had to be molded and formed out the blood, sweat, and tears of early Americans who had staked their hopes and dreams on the idea that freedom was worth dying for, and that protecting that freedom won from any and all encroaching hands who would attempt to steal it was all the more important.

The people, not the government, were to keep order and remain vigilant against Man’s insatiable lust for centralized power. For our Founding Fathers to put as much trust in the hands of common, everyday, mostly uneducated, citizens is a testament to their unwavering belief in the right all Men have to autonomy. For the Framers part, it took their faith in the sons and daughters of liberty, not just in the Author and Creator of it, to employ an economic system which depends on an “invisible hand” to guide it towards prosperity. Underlying all of this, as exhibited in the writings of nearly all of the influential Founding Fathers, was the recognition that morality, guided by the Jude-Christian faith of the majority of Americans (then and now), would be able to handle such a responsibility.

As John Adams wrote: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Not to be outdone, the deist Thomas Jefferson added: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift from God?”

Fortunate for us, and the rest of the world, Adams, Jefferson, and their contemporaries made the correct choices. In the light of history and common sense, this fact is undeniable. A practical test for this is to ask yourself: “How many people are sneaking over the borders in to Iran, North Korea, or even Germany? How many Americans get picked up and deported back to the U.S. after trying to sneak into Honduras? How many American businessmen and women wake up in the morning and think, ‘If only our market economy was more like Syria’s…’? ”

How silly is it for so many of us to say that we know democracy and the free market are what have made us prosperous beyond comparison with the rest of the world, but that the best way forward is to abandon those principles in favor of what lesser societies, such as those in Europe, are doing? How is it that Congressional, and more importantly, Presidential candidates who openly and proudly assail the time-tested principles of the free market with their Socialistic rhetoric are even considered as viable options for public office? Do they not see, or at least appreciate, the fact that under Socialistic and certainly Communistic governments, such as the ones they'd have us mimic, those of us on the "Right" would be silenced or voiceless, while they on the "Left" are free to spew their misguided views here in America only because of the traditional values and principles (best embodied today by Conservatism) they themselves criticize?

Why is it so hard for the people closest to success and greatness to recognize their own good luck to be apart of it?

We’re so obsessed with ourselves that we’ve now bypassed the stage where we prudently identify what works in our own system so as to help the most people around the globe and instead moved straight into "self-loathing" mode. We’ve collectively forgotten what made us special. Our school systems have produced consecutive generations of Americans who think that mere dissent for the sake of dissent is what made the United States great, when in reality it has been the innate value and worth of the ideas behind that dissent that have proved themselves timeless.

And that, when you boil it all down, is my point and the secret of our national success: our ideas and ideals were, and are, better than any others. If we can agree upon that, if we can recognize the inherent worth of our system as opposed to all others, then, and only then, will we truly be ready to make a difference at home and abroad. To whom much is given, much is required.

This place isn’t a mistake, it did not happen by chance, and if we are on the road to ruin as so many constantly predict, that ultimate collapse will not be either.

The only "agent of change" we need is Capitalism

So says columnist of the world Mark Steyn. "Change" is only a word if that will succeed or fail based on the ideas and ideals behind it. Capitalism and the Free Market are the only current systems that foster real change that the consumer actually wants.

Reality check

Senator Obama's meteoric rise to a legitimate candidate for President of the United States is in need of some perspective. Who better than Charles Krauthammer to give some to us?

Can we just all admit that "it" worked???

Bush's "surge" was announced by the President exactly one year ago today. Few thought it could work and prevailing wisdom was that Iraq was lost and immediate withdrawal was necessary.

Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) explain to us why the surge has worked and why the critics were so wrong.

The Election Marathon

Washington Post columnist George Will explains why the primary season this year is so up for grabs. Too many voters thus far are voting on emotion, with their "head" no where to be found.

"Mind hardly enters into this response to his nimbus of novelty, and it is impossible to reason people out of affiliations they have not been reasoned into."

Bush in the Holy Land

President Bush is pushing for peace in the Middle East. It seems that every American president feels the need to go over to Israel near the end of his term and attempt to be the one who solves the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Jerusalem Post reports that many top leaders are not happy with the plan Bush and Prime Minister Olmert are concocting.

Where's the love?

The private security firm Blackwater USA has been under fire from Congressional Democrats for an incident in Iraq that ended with civilian deaths, but will we hear anything even resembling praise for their recent rescue of three missionary women in Kenya?

You know who you are

All you Ron Paul fans out there, PLEASE!!! take the time to read this insightful column from The New Republic on the shady, racist past that the Congressman from TX sadly boasts. He's not what you think he is.

Just because he has good ideas about small government and low taxes doesn't mean he's fit to lead a nation. It's good he's in the race to steer the debate into Constitutional and economic areas that some might want to avoid, but he's a nut-job of the first order. Sorry.

And "Traitor" was his name...

A former CIA operative died in Cuba this week, disgraced and estranged from his friends, family, and nation. In the 1970's this man, Phillip Aggee, named names of fellow under-cover agents in Latin America and his "reward" was getting to live his remaining days with Castro.

I'm sure he never regretted the decision to betray his country...

Clinging on for his political life

Many candidates and politicians have run as far (and as fast) as they can from President Bush and his presidency. One man who, on the most important issue to-date, the Iraq War, has stood steadfast with our Commander-in-Chief (whose "surge" is daily resurrecting his legacy) is none other than last night's NH Primary winner Senator John McCain. Although I disagree with him on numerous issues, the man is a great American hero and a faithful public servant.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page today has an excellent assessment of what McCain will need to do if he has hopes of the eventual GOP nomination.

An empty suit

Townhall.com's Terence Jeffery writes today:

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

Crying = NH Women's Vote

Senator Hillary Clinton's teary-eyed performance on Monday may have been just what the menopausal doctor ordered. Even the New York Times' Maureen Dowd saw through the gimmick, but apparently a few thousand women from New Hampshire didn't and were stirred to turn out and vote for the most calculating woman since Jezebel.

If it worked there, you can bet your pant-suit that she'll be turning on the water-works in the near future. Inspired?

He's coming for you, Hill...and this is the best you got?

With her third place finish in Iowa, Hillary Clinton is feeling the heat from an Obama campaign that is surging (note: not to be confused with the kind of surge both candidates still say they oppose, despite categorically accepted positive news from Iraq).

Today in NH, Senator Clinton was heckled by two men who demanded she "iron my shirt". What a coincidence that on the same day of one of the most important political votes of her career suddenly all the sexists decide to show up just in time for a photo-op???

“Ah, the remnants of sexism — alive and well,” Clinton said to applause in a school auditorium. The overflow crowd burst into applause and some began shouting, “Iron my shirt” as the two were taken from the hall. “As I think has been abundantly demonstrated, I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling,” she said. (foxnews.com)

I'm not saying it was staged....I am saying it was most certainly staged.

My Response

Here is my critique of both the open letter to Muslims which Yale's Center for Faith and Culture conceived, and of a fellow Taylor alum's (Brent Maher) decision to endorse it. If you haven't yet, please read Brent's initial letter of explanation click here.




Dear Brent,

I appreciate your thoughtful defense of why you chose to sign the Yale Center for Faith and Culture’s 2007 open letter entitled “Loving God and Neighbor.” My purposes here today are to flesh out some of the important ideas that divide America's people at large, and more specifically, her Christian population (i.e. how to best interact with and reach out to Muslim moderates, theological differences inside the Church and in relation to other religions such as Islam, etc.), which both Yale's letter and your defense of it lend themselves to the discussion of.

For the sake of full disclosure, I present myself as a Christian-American-Conservative-Cubs Fan, whose politics are best represented by those of Ronald Reagan, and whose theology is most in line with C.S. Lewis. I attend an Evangelical Free Church in Chicago, and have yet to find a Democrat at any level I would feel comfortable voting for. I believe that America, despite its numerous mistakes, has been an unparalleled force for Good in the world since its inception. I furthermore believe that the two greatest current threats to the United States are radical Islam (and the leaders and nations who sponsor them), and the pluralistic relativism that now permeates our culture, and in some cases, my faith.

With my worldview now more clearly revealed, Brent, I must say that I found the letter you signed your name to and the name of our Alma mater (Taylor University) to be misguided and naive. While you were correct to admit that “Loving God and Neighbor” is nothing more than words on a page, written (at least on your part) from worthy motives, this does not make it any more worthwhile or prudent in its content or impact. It is possible for us to be sincere and at the same time be sincerely wrong.

You acknowledge that little practical good has come of the letter, including no known lines of dialogue opened between the two religions nor any measurable decrease in violence. I would point out that the only positive sign of a reduction in violence in the Muslim world has occurred in Iraq, where General David Petraeus’ “surge” has helped reduce violent acts some 80% since April of 2007.

Results, like facts, are stubborn things to ignore, and “Loving God and Neighbor” has failed to produce any tangible success. I am disappointed that those who signed their name to it did not see this failed result ahead of time. Any attempt to find meaningful common core theological ground – when none in reality exists -- can only end in frustration. Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God, and this was never clearly asserted in Yale’s letter that you signed. It seems to me to be a fairly important point to raise, or at the very least, acknowledge.

You cited the Old Testament Covenant between God and His chosen people, the nation of Israel, as proof we should be a blessing to our hostile neighbors. Yet, you should have included the very next verse: “I bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” (Genesis 12:3) God’s ultimate blessing through Israel was reserved for Christ a few thousand years later, and until that time, Yahweh commanded the Hebrew people to consecrate themselves to the land and to Him. While they were to engage in missions they were to do so from a position of holiness and uniqueness, not accommodation and syncretism. That in some cases required them to keep their distance from the practices and beliefs of the surrounding cultures and peoples (many of whom make up their Arab-Muslim enemies today). Under the Old Covenant, God, in some cases, even insisted that the Jews decimate entire towns inhabited by those same then-pagan neighbors (e.g. Jericho) to maintain their own spiritual uniqueness and separateness. As uncomfortable as this may make some people in our current politically correct culture, it is a reality we must wrestle with if we are to fully appreciate our God and His immeasurable attributes.

When Abraham sired a son named Ishmael (ancestor of certain Muslim groups today) with his wife’s maidservant Haggar, God warned him that his legitimate son, Isaac, would be in conflict with his half-brother until the end of time. It would be safe to say this prophecy has held up to this day. Here in America, we think it’s been tough having radical Muslims as our enemies for six years while Jews have withstood this assault for nearly four thousand years. While this enmity is regrettable, ultimately Scripture teaches it can only be solved by the exaltation of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel to all the nations of the earth, and not through theological accommodation under the guise of “dialogue.” Our fight is not with Islam, but with the irreconcilable wings inside it.

I also found the misapplication of New Testament theology in your letter. Again, we do not worship the same God as all other religions, save Judaism, and even then the “stumbling block” remains the Person and work of Jesus Christ. His Name and deity is the most important aspect of our faith. The Muslims are fervently devoted to Allah and his Prophet Muhammad and they saw fit to remind us of this fact at the very top of their original letter to Pope Benedict. Why would a group of Christians -- intent on opening honest dialogue with a people group they claim to care so deeply about -- fail to mention that Jesus Christ and His finished work on the Cross alone is the only hope for the salvation of mankind?

If we really do love moderate Muslims, do we do them any favor by avoiding the “offense” of the Gospel? The Apostle Paul said if his goal was to please men (perhaps by opening a dialogue that avoids controversial truth) would he still be suffering for the Cross? If we avoid the very doctrines that make us who we are how can we expect “good” to come of it? Yes, we are to be peacemakers but at the same time that involves being bearers of the truth and light. If we compromise that truth for short-term social-political objectives will we shine bright enough to ever be useful?

The current conflict with the radical strains of Islam that America and Israel are facing will not be resolved by pretending that we all worship the same God. I realize Yale's letter was an attempt to reach out to the more moderate elements of Islam. However, it would be safe to say that even among this group there are fundamental disagreements with Christianity on all major points of doctrine (even their “one God” does not allow for a Trinity). Other than appealing for a practice of mutual tolerance and respect toward one another what other “common” theological ground exists?

While it is commendable for us to do what we can to create harmony among diverse religious communities, I find it curious that the only places on earth where Muslims truly live in peaceful co-existence with their non-Muslim neighbors are nations where Islam is not the dominant religion (most often “Christian” nations). Their record of reciprocating true religious tolerance is an unmitigated failure to date.

In the Yale letter you collectively apologize for the “excesses of the War on Terror.” Only modern liberalism could possibly discover moral equivalency between making Iraqi prisoners pose for a “naked pyramid” at Abu Grahib (which led to the swift and immediate punishment for the guilty) and the thousands of car bombings, IED attacks, and beheadings posted on the Internet while Muslim jihadists proudly chant “God is great!” It would be likened unto claiming we deserved everything we got at Pearl Harbor because we refused to sell oil to the militant Japanese in 1941.

You furthermore make the assertion that we’ve confused liberation for colonization in Iraq. Where’s the proof? I find quite the opposite to be true. Fifty million people are now free from tyrannical governments and dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq. The recent NIE report says that Iran halted its clandestine nuclear program in 2003 because of pressure from U.S. and Coalition troops on the ground that surrounds that nation. Iraqi and Afghani girls are now allowed to vote and go to school, newspapers in those countries are now free to print what they believe, and as a result of our War on Terror we have not been attacked since 9/11. Iraqi provinces are being turned over one after another to local indigenous authorities and police forces as they reach the required level of training and professionalism needed. This is colonization?

While there is value in honestly admitting and apologizing for our mistakes, it is both a failure of logic, history, and theology to assume a moral equivalency between those who believe and practice freedom of religion (America) and those who jail, imprison, and even execute the infidel (in virtually every Muslim nation). We in the West believe in the freedom and tolerance of other faiths that Sharia Law-dominated nations do not. Something I cannot get over is how frustrating it is to see so many Christian scholars and intellectuals wasting their time on something that fails theologically, as well as politically, and does little good in any tangible or even existential way.

If we continue this self-defeating and theologically irresponsible line of thinking -- hoping that writing irenic letters that obscure our key doctrines will somehow win the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslims – we are destined for failure. Because if the Muslim clerics don’t already know it, we have nothing in common when it comes to core theological truth, and our societies and governments embody immensely different ideals and values. By trying to convince them we are just like them when we are not is spiritual and intellectual fraudulence.

For the moderate Muslims, as I imagine most of those original 138 scholars are, they are more than welcome to embrace and enjoy the freedom and autonomy and prosperity that democracy and the free market afford. I will attempt to live and act peaceably toward Muslims and members of all other divergent faith groups. Yet I will not keep quiet in my condemnation of their religion’s obvious and flagrant problems, ongoing persecutions, and record of religious violence anymore than I would keep silent if my Christian brother or sister were to fall of the “straight and narrow.”

If this is the best those who claim to represent my faith in the academic and intellectual community can come up with, my hope and suggestion would be that they turn their attentions to a better learning and preaching of the Gospel message rather than the writing of misguided puff pieces that do little more than give the illusion of genuine spiritual and geo-political progress.

We’re all better than this.

-RJM

For further reading, click here

Brent Maher's self-defense

Below is the beginning excerpt from the defense that Brent Maher (the employee of Taylor University that signed his name to the Yale Center for Faith and Culture's open letter to Muslims) has made for why he decided to endorse the document.

"In this first post, I intend to communicate why I singed the “Loving God and Neighbor” letter written by the Yale Center for Faith and Culture. I admit that the document is not perfect and that is only a letter. To my knowledge, in the few months that it has existed, it has not spawned any revolutionary conversations between Muslims and Christians or achieved any decrease in violence. Yet I still have hope that the sentiments it expresses will inspire the Christian community, myself included, to break down walls of hostility and to achieve peace. I hope that my explanation below goes beyond promoting the virtue of a mere letter and that it calls for an interfaith dialogue that results in a peace that signifies the kingdom of God breaking in, even if just slightly, into our present reality...."

To read the rest of Brent's defense, go on to his blog by clicking here.

(My response to Brent will be posted soon.)

Letter to a blogging nation

This past Fall, a handful of professors at Yale’s Theological Seminary penned a letter of response to a large group of Muslim scholars who had originally written a document calling for common ground to be recognized between Islam and Christianity and the cultures both generally represent. The Yale letter, entitled “Loving God and Neighbor” was printed in the New York Times and read by millions around the globe. As a Christian-American interested in socio-political happenings that involve my faith and my country, I reviewed the texts of both correspondences and was dismayed at the grossly inadequate theological language used (and in many cases, not used), as well as the totally inappropriate references to past and present so-called “mistakes” (i.e. the Crusades, the “excesses” of the War on Terror) made by the West (America) that I found in Yale’s “Loving God and Neighbor”.

Most disturbing of all were the hundreds of names of many respected Christian intellectuals, clergy and theologians who lent their name and reputation (as well as that of the schools each respectively represented) to such an impotent, unnecessary, and self-indulgent document.

Brent Maher of my alma mater, Taylor University, was one of the names I recognized. He and I have been in contact over the past few weeks and decided to include you the reader in the decidedly amicable exchange we will be having in the days to come. STARTING TOMORROW we will begin by both posting Mr. Maher's defense of why he felt the need to sign his and Taylor University’s name to “Loving God and Neighbor,” whereupon I will respond with my own thoughts on the matter, including an explanation as to why I would even bother objecting to what many would likely consider a harmless letter with seemingly good intentions. Brent will then be able to defend himself again after hearing what I have to say, and I will close things out eventually with a final commentary.

The purpose here isn’t to belittle or demean opposing viewpoints. To be sure, Mr. Maher and I share most of the commonly important values that our faith and consciences demand. However, the discussion over how we as both Christians and American citizens should move forward in the present realities of a world-at-war with radical Islam is one that is often avoided or reduced to clichés and generalities that can both foster the prejudice of those with hate already (and always) in their heart, while at the same time help to enable the shortsighted pluralists and relativists among us as they sow their self-crippling seeds of blind lenience. While admittedly only a letter, the misguided rationale behind it, and the poorly worded content in it, both combine to signal a failure on the part of so many respected and trusted leaders in the Christian-American community to grasp the importance and seriousness of the issues we face.

Both Brent and I hope for your participation, and you can enter the debate yourself by posting comments either here at “A Voice in the Wilderness” or at Brent’s blog here. I encourage you to first read the letter "Loving God and Neighbor" (by tomorrow if you can), then Bren't defense, and finally my response. Doing this in-order will allow you to fully appreciate the conversation taking place. It's a lot of reading and thinking, two things most of us hate, but I believe you will be well served to embrace the challenge and expand your intellectual horizons.

Thanks for reading and please continue to engage these ideas because it will be the will and conscience of the American people on a grass-roots level that will drive this nation to a better tomorrow as that shining “city on a hill.”

General Petraeus: Man of the Year

London's Daily Telegraph knew what Time Magazine didn't (or wasn't willing to admit)...the "Man" in 2007 was General David Petraeus.