Supreme Vindication

The importance of the 2020 election cannot be understood apart from an understanding of the dueling visions for the role of the Supreme Court.  Visions that pit the preservation of our liberty against the erosion of freedom and an insidious and ever-growing tyranny.

In that context, it can hardly be overstated how huge the swearing in of Amy Coney Barrett last week was. Absolutely huge. Absolutely, incredibly huge.

Associate Justice Barrett was the third Supreme Court justice appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Republican Senate in the past four years. As part of an historic remaking of the Federal judiciary, the president has also appointed more than 200 Federal judges - most of whom are Constitutional originalists. As we have seen time and time again, there are never any guarantees about how a judge will rule once seated. Chief Justice Roberts is but the most recent and disappointing example of that. But if our justices don't at least begin from a place of deep respect for the text of the Constitution - and equally important - understand their own role in protecting it, our country's existence would be all but doomed.

 

And we were very close.

Back in 2016, many of us were unsure about exactly what kind of a president Donald Trump Jr. might be. Was he a man of his word - did he mean what he said about draining the swamp and building border walls and getting us out of endless middle eastern wars - or was he just another huckster politician? Could a braggadocios, pugnacious, and sometimes crude New Yorker be trusted to govern with what sounded a lot like mid-western values? Did he truly have a change of heart on the issue of abortion and would it affect his public policy? And above all, would he really keep his eyes on the prize by keeping his promise to appoint only Originalist, Textualist, Constitutionalist judges?

We all had to seriously ask ourselves one very fundamental question: Did the character flaws on public display and being widely and gleefully exaggerated in the predominant news media disqualify Donald Trump from receiving our support? And truly, both candidates were morally flawed. But conservatives and Evangelicals had been burned many times before when going to the dance with Republican candidates.

Many Evangelicals, Catholics, and other people of faith made the prayerful decision to take the chance, trust their gut, and go with the candidate who was right on the issues. Thankfully, many of us - whether joyfully or while holding our noses - cast our vote for Trump and trusted that God would ultimately use him to accomplish His purposes in the same way He has used and still uses flawed individuals today.

Many of us believed back in 2016 - and most still maintain - that the most important issue was Judicial appointments. (Imagine if Merrick Garland had been confirmed in the waning days of the Obama administration to replace Antonin Scalia. And then a President Hillary Clinton had appointed two radical justicial activists to the court.) While we know that court appointees sometimes stray from sound judicial philosophy and we will at times be disappointed in their rulings, still, President Trump's many originalist judicial appointments have gone a long ways toward the restoration of the Constitution as our guiding document, while largely vindicating the value voters' support for the President.

What was it about the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett - this mild-mannered, devout Christian and mother of 7 children, that scares the Democrat party?  Why does a soft-spoken and respectful legal genius, a careful law professor and jurist so rile Senate Democrats?  What is it about the confirmation vote on this thoughtful jurist who promised to faithfully interpret the Constitution sent Chuck Schumer into an apoplectic rage?

I can tell you that it is not because they think she isn't up to the task - she is smarter than any of them and twice as smart as some of them. It is not because she doesn't respect the Constitution - she knows it better and holds it in higher regard than they do or ever did. And it is definitely not that they are politically rudderless partisans - while they may be quintessential partisans, they are anything but directionless.

No, the problem truly isn't that they are without direction, instead it's that their direction is hard left. The Democrat political tantrum we've witnessed over the past four years has shown us how little the average citizen actually has in common with the political party of AOC, Sol Alinsky, Jim Crow, and Karl Marx. They have discovered, to their dismay, that their leftist agenda is too unacceptably radical for the American people and impossible to enact legislatively within the present rules.

For them the court has become far more than just the third of three coequal branches of government - it has become the last chance to enact their unpopular platform. They want to place judicial activists on the court in an attempt to turn it into an unaccountable, un-elected, uber-legislature. Justices such as Barrett, who respect the text of the Constitution, who honor the original intent, and who believe it means what it says are a threat to their radical agenda. That is why Chuck Schumer said of the confirmation of Justice Barrett: 

"It will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate." (1)

It also explains why he didn't bother, in his mad quest for power, to veil his threats about breaking or changing all the rules the next time he gets control of the Senate.  They threatened to abolish the filibuster, add D.C. and Puerto Rico to the union to inflate their numbers in the Senate, and promised a Supreme Court packing power grab.  Adding insult to injury, they want to disenfranchise the entire midsouth, midwest, and most of the western states by eliminating the Electoral College.  Essentially, there is no rule they will not break, lie they will not tell, or depth to which they will not sink to keep from losing their grip on power.

They would have us, as someone wise has said, abandon the Constitution that has served us so well for over two centuries, and enter into, what Constitutional scholar Mark Levin calls a tyrannical "Post-Constitutional America."

Of course, in their wisdom, the founders provided a Constitutional remedy to their concerns.  Simply enact laws which pass Constitutional muster - or - cultivate the necessary support to amend the Constitution.  Of course those things are hard to do, especially when your platform is neither popular nor tenable.

There is another remedy - a much easier one - and one much preferred for those of us who cherish our liberty and freedom, who value the maintenance of our God-given rights, who want to continue to live in a country ruled by laws and not by men, and who want to continue to live in a Republic not subject to the tyranny of the majority.  That twofold remedy is simple:  It involves NOT rewarding the party that gave us a four year political temper tantrum while at the same time voting for President Donald Trump.

 

Return the Trump-Pence ticket to the White House for 4 more years and keep America great.

 

-- footnotes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 - Axios - Monday, October 26, 2020 - Dualing views:  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday "will go down as one of the darkest days" in Senate history, moments before the chamber voted 52-48 to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

 

"...the next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority. You may win this vote, but in the process, you will speed the precipitous decline of faith in our institution, our politics, the Senate and the Supreme Court."

"My colleagues may regret this for a lot longer than they think. Here at this late hour, at the end of this sordid chapter in the history of the Senate, the history of the Supreme Court, my deepest and greatest sadness is for the American people," Schumer said. 

"It will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats oppose the nomination because "they don't like the outcome."

"What this administration and this Republican Senate has done is exercise the power that was given to us by the American people in a manner that is entirely within the rules of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States," McConnell said.

"Elections come and go. Political power is never permanent, but the consequences could be cataclysmic if our colleagues across the aisle let partisan passions boil over and scorch the ground rules of our government." 

Which Lives Matter?

I've been asking myself, lately, "Why are we arguing over bumper stickers?"  Given the chaos we live in today, is there really nothing else to direct our energy toward?  And why does the argument irk me so?

So yes, I deliberately waited several weeks before posting this observation, because emotions were so raw, many friends of mine were seemingly stirring this pot, and I wanted to be sure I was attuned to the Holy Spirit on the matter.

We hear one person say, "Black lives matter."  Another answers, "All lives matter!"  One group shouts, "Black lives matter!"  Another demands, "All lives matter!"

But is it really an either/or?  Why can't both be true?

The Bible speaks to this issue and settled the matter 2000 years ago.  In the 3rd chapter of John, verse 16, it is written:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Our lives, regardless of race or ethnicity, are so valuable, that Christ gave His own life so that we might have salvation, if one but asks Him and accepts the free gift He offers us.  That said, in light of the infinite value that God Himself places on all persons, does it not follow that both statements are equally true?  Perhaps Christians need to redirect the conversation.  To what end do we waste any time arguing and cajoling others about who's got the better bumper sticker slogan?

I do wish that were the end of it.  But unfortunately, there is a caveat.

In the politically-charged times we live in, it is difficult - if not impossible - to separate the phrase "Black lives matter" from the political organization that goes by the same name.  Many of the political goals of the organization's founders and its statement of beliefs are antithetical to the Christian worldview to which I espouse.  That in itself is a topic for another day, but I urge you to do your own homework.

The use of this phrase has been transformed into a radical political purity test in many corners - a bridge too far for me.  But, despite the fact that I avoid using the phrase or acronym (BLM), I do recognize that the Scriptures have clearly spoken on the value of each individual life.

So which lives do matter?  In closing I quote the earliest song I have remembrance learning as a toddler, "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight.  Jesus loves the little children of the world."

A response to Christianity Today

Yesterday (December 19), Christianity Today's Editor-in chief, Mark Galli launched a bombshell into the midst of the current culture wars, planting his editorial flag firmly on the top of the Democrat's impeachment hill:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html?fbclid=IwAR0S0-Negk1nbkaIPnSAf4BFlTYt5cXThacnyWzqSoxzGmjFF-o_yl_BeUo

I don't know Mark Galli. As editor of the neo-evangelical publication Christianity Today (CT), I accept the brother's claims that he is a Christian, with but just a twinge of a hesitation. Personally, I had long ago abandoned CT for similar reasons that I don't give credence to Sojourners, Mother Jones, the Atlantic, The New Yorker, Slate, and the New York Times - in that they are all hopelessly and unapologetically leftist in their biases. While others have questioned Galli's motives or point to his longstanding Trump opposition - I prefer to avoid that direction with a brother in Christ. However, given the editorial leanings of his publication, I certainly do question his judgement. And based on his most recent opining, it appears to me that he has been an undiscerning consumer of MSNBC's opinion hosts and the DNC's latest talking points.

So while I do not know Mr. Galli, I do know this:  the claims he made in Friday's shocking editorial are dubious, if not straight up untruthful. For starters, he needs to pull out a copy of Websters and look up the word "unambiguous".  The facts behind the most recent Democrat attempt to undo the results of the 2016 election are anything but "unambiguous", as Galli claims in his piece. In fact, the whole procedure abandoned both past precedent and due process in a blind pursuit of a predetermined and politically motivated outcome. For anyone who actually listened to portions of the Intelligence and Judicuary Committee hearings, the so-called 'unambigueous' impeachment facts are notorious only for their absence. So much so that not one firsthand witness could be found to bolster the extravagant and ever-changing Democrat claims of extortion, bribery, or even quid pro quo.  As a result, their case was left with conjecture, supposition, and opinion based primarily on hearsay, with a sprinkling of liberal law professors thrown in for good measure.

Despite everything President Trump's detractors threw up against the wall, nothing stuck, so to keep things on schedule, they were left to hastily cobble together just two bogus impeachment articles. The disingenuous obstruction of Congress article and a nebulous abuse of power charge - neither of which are actual, specific crimes, much less a high crime or misdeameanor.

Mr. Galli also disingenuously states that the President exhibited "profoundly immoral" motives (motives are something I am deliberately not speculating on in regards to Galli) to "harass and discredit" a political opponent. If Galli did not hear - along with the rest of the nation - the relevant portion of the Ukraine transcript, the Democrat's bribery, extortion, and quid pro quo charges were blown completely out of the water when Trump called their bluff and he publicly released it early on - even before chairman Schiff's show trial's basement hearings could begin.  So much so that they were forced to misrepresent its contents to try to buttress their evidenceless and weak case.  If anything there is "profoundly immoral", I suggest it is Galli's attempts to ascertain the motives of someone he does not know, on a subject he is not well informed, about a situation he is clearly misrepresenting.

Further, Galli seems to conveniently dismiss the fact that the president is duty bound to enforce anti-corruption laws domestically as well as in regards to Ukraine and morally obligated to ensure foreign aid tax monies are not used to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. If those politicians are foreigners, that means cooperating with Ukraine to root it out. And whether those politicians are vice presidents who are intending to run against him - or their flawed sons - they still do not get a grant of immunity.

Further, Galli's political philosophy lacks thoughtful consideration at best, and is utterly hypocritical at worst. We participate in a system where we almost always are presented with a binary choice in selecting our political representaves and president. In essence, since Jesus himself is not on the ticket, every election provides a series of choices between the lesser of two evils.

It is certainly not, as Galli posits, an affront to our creator to choose and support the candidate which best defends our Constitutional liberties to life, property, and freedom to worship (even when that person speaks using biting, sarcastic, and even embarrassingly hurtful language at times). In a display of hyperbolic absurdity, Galli goes even further when he makes the claim that our "loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments" itself is to be questioned if we don't throw in with Pelosi and the Democrats and support the president's removal by any means possible.  Leaving us - I can only presume - the fiendish choice of either risking our very soul by lending support to Trump on the one hand or choosing the diabolical Democrat agenda of partial birth abortion and infanticide, unfettered homosexuality and sexual perversion in our schools, libraries, & society, radical environmental extremism, and the cherry on top of the ice cream - revisionist judges who will rewrite the Constitution to suit the latest whims of the far left.

Additionally, as someone I read has previously pointed out, CT does not hesitate to hold high the noble and remarkable achievements of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, despite his well known moral failings - and rightly so. But yet, it now claims it to be incumbent on today's evangelicals to ignore the unprecedented achievements in the protection of the preborn, religious liberty, and appointment of originalist judges - and instead excoriate and abandon President Trump because of his very similar moral failings. While such a stance might help us gain acceptance in secular socialist and post-modern circles, it will ultimately lead to our own (and countless children's) demise.

Finally, I want to quickly note that in an apparent attempt to give some credence to his ill-thought-out opinion, he several times invokes the name of the founder of his rudderless publication, the Rev. Billy Graham. Huge mistake there! Alas, this tactic almost immediately blew up in his face, when a clearly perturbed Franklin Graham fired back by not only postulating that his father would have been displeased with Galli's words, but also revealing for the first time that his father had actually voted for and had been a silent Trump supporter.  The elder Graham believed "that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation."

I am very disappointed in the publication which presumptuously calls itself Christianity Today. Opinions are one thing, but facts, they continue to be in short supply these days.

Credible or Incredible

The Standard | Standard

So now we have it.  DNC Deputy chair and Minnesota Attorney General candidate Keith Ellison has two 'believable' accusations (to borrow a term from the Kavanaugh hearings) of violent abuse from former girlfriends.  In addition, Cory Booker has been 'believably' accused of sexually attacking a man in a restroom.  Booker's 'serious' (to borrow another term from the Democratic handbook) charges are doubly investigation-worthy - at least by the new Democratic standards - because they are both anonymous and uncorroborated. [1]

With the incessant chant that 'all claims must be taken seriously' still ringing in their ears, the Democrats are tenaciously following the same standards they deployed against Brett Kavanaugh. Armed with their newly developed Judiciary Committee hearing standards, these Dems are unanimously clamoring that all three 'survivors are to be believed' and insisting that the denials of the accused only lend credibility to their accusers.  Thus, they are noisily demanding that both men must cease their campaigns and/or step down from their current elected positions to allow the FBI and undetermined and unlimited time to conduct at least 6 or 7 investigations - as well as insisting that both men must decisively disprove each and every allegation leveled against them - sometime after the elections are over.

Okay, well actually - they are predictably not doing any of those things.  Those are the standards they insist on for Republicans. They do not apply them to themselves.  Accusations against their own are still largely to be ignored.

The beauty of being a Democrat in 2018 is that you no longer have to be tethered to standards of consistency or even fairness.  Nor is this post-modern, Alinskyite, Democrat party any longer bound by outdated standards of logic or objectivity.  Having thrown aside, for political advantage, any semblance of fealty to the presumption of innocence and due process, the lunatic left has replaced them with judicial concepts dated from the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution.  They now march out before the nearest camera, like modern-day Robespierres, accusing and denouncing their political adversaries in the most hyperbolic language, demanding their exile, and sentencing them to political execution.

Yet, they are completely oblivious to - or deliberately ignoring - their double standard.  For them, it's still "justice for me, but not for thee."   If you doubt that, or if you think I am just a Republican partisan, listen to the conclusion from the Minnesota Democrat (DFL) Party's investigation/probe of their candidate for Attorney General and Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison. According to the report prepared by Susan Ellensted, the Democratic lawyer hired by the MN DFL party to investigate the claims against Ellison, "an allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred. [2]

This is the the reasonable standard Democrats use for their own, however, when Republicans (or Republican nominees such as Justice Kavanaugh) are accused, reasonableness ends and the hysterics begin.  No matter how unlikely the accusation, how incredible the claims, despite a complete lack of any evidence or corroboration - all semblance of reasonableness is tossed aside so the opposition can be destroyed.



The Standard for Credibility
Having abandoned the traditional judicial standards of the rule of law, due process, and presumption of innocence, this new and radicalized Democrat party has little left to cling to except hyperbole, hysterics, and mob rule to try to destroy a Supreme Court candidate (or any other political opponent) with impeccable credentials and character.  In their quest for power, they are seemingly quite happy to take a chapter from the Salem Witch trials:  there is no tactic too low, nothing too desperate, and nothing to lose.

What is really sad about it is that they don't care... not about truth, our form of government, the Constitution, or women.  All those became but casualties of battle in their lust for control.

So for what its worth, I did not find Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony the least bit credible. Notwithstanding the timing of her disclosure or the circumstances by which her handlers attempted to manipulate the confirmation process, her testimony was neither believable nor compelling - and came nowhere near legal standards.  Emotional - yes.  Sincere - perhaps.  But that is not the same as credibility.

Unfortunately for the post-modern Democrats still trying to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election, credibility requires more than wild accusations. We dare not confuse energy, empathy, sincerity with credibility.  As the Hoover Institution's Victor Davis Hanson pointed out, "Credibility is established by evidence, cross-examination, and testimony." [3]

Neither her nor her handlers produced a shred of evidence.  Her testimony withered under cross-examination.  She could garner not a single person to collaborate her story. [4]

Don't be deceived - the 3-ring circus and sideshows that Diane Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer and the Senate Democrats orchestrated for the Judiciary Committee was never about justice.  It was never at getting to the truth.  It was never about respecting women.

Rather, it was a desperate - and Constitutionally reckless - attempt to seize power and exact revenge. It was a 'two-fer' for the Dems - it gave them the opportunity to destroy a political enemy's credibility while bolstering their chits with their radical feminist and leftist-fringe demographics.

They used the issue of sexual harassment and abuse as a simple means to an end - a wicked end - to overturn the results of the 2016 election.  In this quest for power, minorities and women are actually just pawns to be manipulated in a cynical game... for if such hysterical hyperbole and fantastic claims which stretch all credibility are to be given serious consideration, as they insist, then the truly credible claims will most certainly be diminished.

In going down this road, they not only poison the political atmosphere, but delegitimize every credible claim.  All legitimate claims of women who have truly been mistreated and abused are subsequently undermined.  Make no mistake, our system of justice has been diminished as a result.



[1] https://citizentruth.org/gay-man-accuses-sen-cory-booker-of-sexual-assault-in-restroom/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eee4aFavPGM3KVk5Wi9qQzveyeF8Yre6/view

[2] http://www.startribune.com/dfl-will-refer-ellison-allegation-to-law-enforcement-after-internal-investigation-can-t-substantiate/494828181/ 

[3] "Dr. Ford was sincere and empathetic.  But that did not translate into being credible.  Credibility is established by evidence, cross-examination, and testimony..." (Victor David Hanson as a guest on Tucker Carlson Live on 10/02/2018)

[4] The 414 page post-hearing Judiciary Committee report on the Kavanaugh allegations, released on November 2, 2018, stated that they could find "No witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to suport any of the allegations." (Fox News)

For those who have intentionally tried to put this embarrassing episode of our nation's history behind them, I remind you of the following... her story was:

• vague - by her own admission, she couldn't say when or where the alleged event occurred
• inconsistent - her descriptions of the event was continually evolving
• uncorroborated - none of the witnesses she named, including her 'life-long friend' confirmed her story.  One even denied knowing Kavanaugh
• contradictory - she somehow feared flying to D.C, but not to exotic vacation destinations

For analysis of the Rachel Mitchel memo -  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-mitchell-expertly-eviscerates-the-case-against-kavanaugh/2018/10/02/ec1ff7c4-c66d-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf35f23efaf8



UPDATE:  On November 6, 2018, Keith Ellison defeated Doug Wardlow 49% to 45%. ( https://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/Results/AttorneyGeneral/115?id=st&officeInElectionId=17118 )

2016 Election eve thoughts - What is a follower of Christ to do?

It was just over a year ago in this very forum that we discussed the unique national mood we faced this election cycle and how we were in the midst of an historic political revolt against the establishment – the best hope in decades for an refreshingly conservative, anti-establishment candidate to assume the presidency.

As I lightheartedly noted at the time, the Democrat’s options were limited to a choice between a communist outsider (Sanders) and a criminal insider (Clinton).  Whether the nomination was honestly obtained or not – as we would come to question thanks to Wikileaks – the Clinton machine ultimately prevailed, Sanders and his supporters dropped their opposition and capitulated, and Democrats proceeded in lockstep to circle their wagons around one of the most dishonest and unprincipled presidential candidates of modern times.

Republicans would not be so easily herded… starting with far more choices from both the establishment and anti-establishment wings of the party.  However, the field eventually narrowed down to just three choices:   Cruz, Kasich, and Trump.  In a tricky anti-establishment year, the flamboyant and controversial Donald Trump was left the last man standing.  While perhaps not a true conservative, nonetheless, Trump’s positions on border security and immigration (illegal and otherwise), the economy, and his approach to international aid, trade and treaties resonated with a constituency that had long been dismissed, if not ignored, by the party.  Those who identify with the Republicans found themselves with the maverick Donald Trump, a highly unconventional candidate, as their standard bearer.

The establishment itself split in their support of Trump, with some of the most duplicitous of them (Mitt Romney comes immediately to mind) publicly refusing to do what they had always told the dutiful conservative voters to do – put our differences behind us and unite behind the eventual nominee.  Their disdain for the rank and file in the party was apparently so great, their elitist sensibilities so offended, their lust for power so threatened by this party outsider, that they preferred a Hillary Clinton presidency over the  anti-establishmentarian, drain the Washington D.C. swamp, Donald Trump.

For the rest of us, this is one of those years where a lot of people will ultimately hold their nose and cast their vote.  Both candidates are flawed, seriously so.  Trump has already been confronted with various inappropriate and explicit comments he had made over the years.   Then late in the campaign, he faced accusations and possible civil suits from several women relating to alleged disgusting sexual misconduct. 

For her part, Clinton has a 30 year history of scandal, including the more recent suspicious non-prosecution of her 109 felony violations of the Foreign Espionage Act for recklessly storing classified documents on an unprotected private server.  In addition, there is the bribery and corruption charges relating to using donations made to The Clinton Family Foundation to buy access and favors from the State Department.  Even if these somehow go away, you can bet that these will not be the last legal issues she will face if elected.  It is highly likely that the historic nature of a Hillary Clinton Presidency would not be that she would be the first woman so elected, but rather that she be the first President facing felony charges while serving in office.

For these and other issues, many Evangelicals have been tempted to sit this one out, to somehow keep themselves unsullied by all this sleaze.  Some cite their conscience, saying they could not possibly vote for anyone with such low morals.  Others want to send some kind of political message to the party, to the government, to the supposed ruling class that we need better candidates.  I will say that these “excuses”, for lack of a better term, all fall short under scrutiny, but for now, I will save the arguing against these specific positions for another time.

The problem is, we are uniquely a self-governing people who have a 200+ year tradition and privilege of selecting our own leaders from among us.  Almost exactly 200 years ago, founding father and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers.”   He continued that, “it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” (Letter to John Murray (12 October 1816) as published in The Life of John Jay (1833) by William Jay, Vol. 2, p. 376) Unfortunately for us, the candidates who were the most outspoken in their Christian faith did not prevail through the primary process and quite honestly, it is often exceedingly difficult to see much in the way of Christ-likeness in either party’s candidate.  Yet the yoke of such duty remains upon us.

Even though the system has been distorted and abused over time, we still have a long history of free and (for the most part) fair elections.  Although many see the future of Christian’s public participation in society increasingly at risk, we still have the privilege and responsibility to participate in the process.  If we as Christians take a pass on this important election, we engage in dereliction of duty and basically embark in unilateral disarmament allowing those whose ethics and worldview are not informed by Scriptures to determine the direction of our country.

But now, we are down to just two choices – only two candidates have any chance of becoming the next president of the United States. 

So what are we, as Christians who are called to a higher standard, to be in, but not of the world, supposed to do when our choice is essentially limited to two candidates, both morally flawed.  Since we may not personally like either of the choices presented to us, what do we base our decision on?  How are we then to decide?

In one word:  Issues.

Make no mistake, the differences between the two candidates on the issues is absolutely monumental.  And only one of them will lead us and shape the course of the debate.  Only one of two very different views about the proper scope of government and vision for the country’s future ill prevail for the next 4 or possibly 8 years.  One of the two – Trump or Clinton – will be setting the national agenda.

As Bible translator, Theologian, and Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, Wayne Grudem, recently wrote:

This election is more than a choice between two candidates. Americans are making a choice between two very different political parties, two very different views of government, two very different Supreme Courts, and two very different futures for our country. One of them is much more consistent with biblical teachings than the other.

There are enormous differences between the candidates and the two parties, differences that I still think have great significance. The differences concern not only the Supreme Court but also religious freedom, abortion, gender identity regulations, rebuilding our military, protecting us from radical Islamic terrorism, securing our borders, supporting Israel, reducing taxes and regulations so the economy will grow and create jobs, increasing school choice, reforming health care, allowing wise use of all forms of energy, reducing racial animosities and many other issues. These differences will determine the kind of nation we leave for our children and grandchildren.

This is a link containing Dr. Grudem’s initial comments:  http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/09/trumps-moral-character-and-the-election-n2229846

I especially appreciate Grudem’s perspective, since he clearly struggled with his response(s) toward this election over the course of three articles written for TownHall.com.   It is quite evident that he wrestled over this 'issues versus character' argument.  For the entire article, as well as links to his follow-up thinking by Grudem, click here:  http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

There is simply too much at stake to take a pass or register a meaningless protest vote for a candidate equally flawed, but not facing the level of scrutiny applied to the major candidates.  If we refuse to do our part as citizens, to weigh in on the direction of our country, we risk cutting off our nose to spite our face.  We risk losing the freedom to meaningfully speak out in the future.

Grudem continues far more eloquently than do I, writing “If all the Christians in the country decide not to vote for either candidate, our rulers will then be chosen entirely by non-Christians, many of whom will increasingly use the immense power of government to promote evil, silence Christians, and oppose Christian values in every area of life. This is the opposite of what Paul told us to pray for in 1 Timothy 2:2.”

“I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior” (1 Tim. 2:1-3).

No single factor affecting the issues we face in the coming years so heavily swings the scales in favor of voting for Donald Trump than the Supreme Court.  The High Court has been systematically expanding its own role in our system of government since the 1930’s and with few exceptions, has been expanding the role of the Federal government at the expense of individual and state’s rights.  With the death of the brilliant originalist Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, the Supreme Court, and therefore the future of our country hangs in the balance by the appointment of his replacement in the next president’s term.

In fact, given the age and relative health of most of the current justices, many believe the next president will very likely pick 3 or 4 Justices to the High Court.  Those picks will undoubtedly affect the balance of the current court which is at present comprised of 4 liberal judicial activists and 4 moderately conservative and/or originalists justices.  The judges so appointed to the court will likely serve 30 to 40 years and not step down until our grandchildren and great grandchildren are of voting age.

In a follow-up to his original article, after noting the danger of a Clinton appointee replacing Justice Scalia, Grudem confirms my view, noting the far-reaching judicial consequences of having still another Clinton in the White House:

A President Clinton could possibly nominate three or four justices to the Supreme Court, locking in a far left activist judiciary for perhaps 30 or more years. She could also add dozens of activist judges to federal district courts and courts of appeals, the courts where 99% of federal lawsuits are decided. Judicial tyranny of the type we have seen when abortion rights and same-sex marriage were forced on the nation would gain a permanent triumph.

The nation would no longer be ruled by the people and their elected representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who would dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree. And there would be nothing in our system of government that anyone could do to stop them.

For the entirety of Grudem’s most recent comments, click here:  http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/19/if-you-dont-like-either-candidate-then-vote-for-trumps-policies-n2234187

Grudem continues:

If Trump would appoint a replacement for Scalia from his list of 11, and probably one or two other Supreme Court justices, then we could see a 5-4 or even 6-3 majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court. The results for the nation would be overwhelmingly good.  Such a Supreme Court would finally return control of the nation to the people and their elected representatives, removing it from dictatorial judges who repeatedly make law from the bench.

Both candidates have told us what kind of judges they would appoint to the courts.  We must seriously ask ourselves, “Would the Constitution, and therefore our country, be best served if Hillary Clinton’s secular left worldview prevails on the Supreme Court, or if Donald Trump’s list of conservative, originalist judges are picked to serve on the Supreme Court?”  “Will the cause of Christ, or even just this nation, best flourish with judges dedicated to studying and discerning the original intent of the text of the Constitution, or by those who hold the Constitutional text in contempt and view the court as but a means to promote secular humanism and socialism by imposing leftist political agendas on an otherwise unwilling population?”

I understand this is not an easy election cycle.

God has in the past and can in the future use flawed, even fatally so, leaders to achieve His ultimate purposes, but according to His grace, we in this country as self-governing citizens, also have a part to play.  But if we refuse to do our part, we must consider carefully if we are we cooperating with or opposing those purposes.

Some of you may agree, others disagree with my conclusion.  Nonetheless, what is at stake is very clear.  Either way, please leave your comments below.

They will control you...

Most of you probably have not been spending a lot of time this week watching the slickly produced three-ring circus complete with side shows - more commonly known as the Democratic National Convention.  I understand the vast majority of you had lives to live, work to do, and family activities to attend to.  Being one of the rare breed who actually enjoys observing the political arena, I have bravely tried to watch some of it every night this week, but even I could only get through about 15 or 20 minutes before I couldn’t take it any more…

If you had taken the time to watch, however, you would have heard a lot of griping and complaining about our country, traditional values, the free enterprise system, law enforcement, the 2^nd amendment, and noticed an over-arching disdain for the concept of limited government.  You would have heard a lot of noise about our “democracy” and not very much about our “representative republic”.  You would have witnessed scores of heart-wrenching stories - each with the same proposed solution; that being, more government intervention.  You would have heard an unending litany of causes the government should take up and an unlimited number of things it should spend more money on.  You would have heard a lot of blaming and bad-mouthing of conservatives and Republicans, and noticed a lot of swipes against traditional values and basic Christian principles.  And in general, you would have heard a whole lot of misrepresentations and outright lies from a whole lot of people.  Persons who, if they were Pinocchio, would have had noses reaching out to 3 or 4 feet long by the conclusion of their speeches.

They talked much about caring and compassion – but without carefully defining what they mean by those terms.  They promised that if they were returned to power for 4 more years, they would provide many noble and good and wonderful sounding things, without ever a mention of the cost to do so.  Of course, we know that in doing so, there comes a cost – a very high cost – not just monetarily, but in terms of opportunity, freedom, and individual liberty.  And of course, to provide all these allegedly wonderful and compassionate and desperately needed things, will require a big government – no – an ABSOLUTELY HUGE government replete with lots and lots of unelected, unaccountable, uncaring, but highly-compensated bureaucrats running it all and making decisions for you all out here in the heartland from their coveys, cubicles, and offices in Washington, as well as from your state capital, and from your city or township hall.  All of it a far cry from the vision of our founders.

In short, they will decide what is best for you and your family.  As a means to those ends, they will control your life…

They will start by controlling how much or little of your paycheck you may keep.  But that’s not all.

They will control who works and who does not.  They will determine if and where you work, when you work, how many hours you can work, where you must be when you do that work, how old you must be to work, how much you are paid, what benefits you will receive, and whether you belong to a labor union - and how much that union will be allowed to extort from your check in union dues.

They will control who you employ, how much you pay them, what paperwork you must fill out, what benefits you must offer, and how many employees you may have in doing so.  They will control how much you charge for your products or services.  They will control where you do business and dictate who you must do business with.  If you farm, they will control what, where, and when you plant.

They will control where you live, who your neighbors are, and the size of your lot.  If you want to build, they will decide if you can get a loan and what interest rate and terms you will be offered.  They will decide if, where, and what you build, who is allowed to do the constructing, what size studs you use, what insulation you need, the pitch of your roof, what kind of and how many trees you have, when you can water your lawn, how much water your toilet uses, what refrigerant you use, and ultimately - if you can afford to keep and live in your home because of the taxes they will levy upon it.

They will control what you eat.  They will control where your food comes from, how it is grown, how it is manufactured and how it is labeled.  They will control what your children eat, too.

Then they will not only try to control how many children you have, but they will also dictate that you pay for the expenses of other people’s children as well.

They will control your life.

They will control what you can do on your own property, where you can dig, where you can fill, where you can till, and where, when, and what you can burn.  If this government decides it wants your land for itself or on the behalf of a wealthy and politically connected elite, they will also determine how much they will give you for that property when they seize it from you.

They will control the cost of the electricity you use in your home, the energy source to be used to generate it, how many outlets you have and where they are placed, and the kind of lightbulbs you can purchase.

They will control the cost of fuel to heat your home, what country it originates from, how it was extracted, and how it was transported to you.

They will control what vehicle you drive, how much it costs, which safety devices you must purchase, the type of fuel, the gas mileage it gets, the size of the vehicle, how much the gas you put in it costs, and ultimately how much you can drive.

They will control your life.

That’s sounds like a lot of control, but that’s just a start.  It is not nearly enough control to have over the masses for them to achieve all their stated (and unstated) objectives.

They will also control your kid’s school, who their classmates are, and how far they must be transported to attend the school.  They will control how much it costs, how many days it is in session, how much it’s employees are paid, what benefits they receive that you must pay for.  They will control who teaches your children.  They will control the content of the curriculum and what your children are taught.  If you dislike the school they provide you as your default option, they will still make you pay the full price to operate it, thus, they will control how many schools you must pay for, as well.

They will control what college your kids get admitted to, what field(s) they may study, and how much it will cost.  They will arbitrarily decide who gets admitted and who does not and then control who pays for that education.  They will also determine the minutiae of their curriculum, the credentials of their teachers, and the dorms they live in.

They will control what information you receive, where you get your information, and who provides that information.  They will regulate the bandwidth and content of that information and control what you know and when you know it.

They will control who owns firearms.  They will control how many guns you can own.  They will also control where, how many, and what kinds of guns you can purchase.  They will control when and where you can discharge them.  They will control where you can carry them, too.  Then they will control how much ammunition you own, how much it will cost, and when and where you can use it.

They will control and manipulate your healthcare – all the while obfuscating the difference between healthcare and health insurance.  They will control whether or not you purchase health insurance, how much it will cost you, and who will provide it to you.  They will control and who and how many persons can go to medical school and what they study when they get there.  They will control who your doctor is, how much he or she is paid, and how much you will pay for his or her services.  They will control when you see a doctor and how long you wait to do so (be prepared that it will be a very, very long wait).  And in doing so, they will ultimately control who lives and who dies.

Make no mistake about it, they will control your life.

They will control how much money you earn, how much money you can keep, and how many assets  you can accumulate.  They will control how much money you can give away.  And when you die, they will control how much of your accumulated assets you pass on to your heirs and how much they will confiscate from your estate.

They will control which laws are passed.  But they will also decide which laws are enforced, when said laws are enforced, and against whom those laws are enforced against.  Then they will decide who is subject to the laws and who is above the law.

They will control the appointment of prosecutors.  Those unelected prosecutors will determine which citizens are prosecuted and which citizens are persecuted.

They will also control the appointment of judges.  Those unaccountable judges will decide which parts of the law are relevant and which are irrelevant, who is sane and who is insane, who pays and who does not, who goes to jail and who gets a pass.  The top judges will be especially untouchable and will control which parts of the Constitution are followed and which parts are to be ignored.  They will also attempt to rewrite the Constitution via novel and contorted interpretations.

They will control how much money the government prints, how much it collects – and from whom - and how much it spends – or wastes.   They will dictate what all that money is spent on when it is dispersed.  They will determine who the recipients of government largesse are.   They will pick winners and losers.

There is perhaps only one single thing they will not control.  But before you take heart in that fact, however, keep in mind that the one thing they will make no attempt to control is the ever-increasing size and scope of the power of government.  It will control your life.

Small thoughts about a big problem

This was going to be a March blog post, then my belated April blog post, and now it is the first day of July.  Essentially, this post has now been in the works - subject to writer's block - since late-March.

Many of you know by now that I spent two weeks in Greece a couple months ago, working with the hordes of refugees and immigrants flooding into Europe through Turkey.  I won't flatter myself by assuming that many of you have been waiting to read a post about my experience, nonetheless, it was always my intention to do so.  I think the problem was, I kept waiting for a grand solution to this immense problem, that exceptionally profound thought to come to me, or at least something deemed worthy of my friends who read my occasional musings.

Since I am still waiting for such profundity to strike me some three months later, I thought I'd just better go ahead and post something anyway.

In late February and early March, I went on a mission trip sponsored by the Mountain Lake Christian and Missionary Alliance church - the church the Niessen family has been attending since the early 80's.  Mom and Dad went there and my brother and I attended until we moved off on our own - so it is what I consider my 'home' church. Our group went out through Greater Europe Missions (GEM) and under the auspices of the Greek Evangelical organization EuroRelief to assist with the ongoing humanitarian work on the Greek island of Lesvos.

For those of you who are interested in a brief update on what led up to the humanitarian crisis, here's a short synopsis.  With the ongoing Syrian civil war enjoined by upwards of a dozen different groups and factions fighting each other, Syrian refugees began to flee war-torn areas and to make their way to Europe.  When Russia joined the effort on behalf of the Syrian government, it only added to the tumult.  The mass migration of refugees snowballed as they were soon joined by Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Africans, a few Asians (and strangely, even some Cubans) etc. - people who for the most part simply seeking a better life for themselves in Europe. Many of these people made their way to Turkey, following the path of least resistance into Europe by a dangerous, but short, crossing of the narrower parts (2 - 4 miles) of the Mytiline straits - that body of water that separates the Turkish mainland from the Greek island - and arrived en masse to the island of Lesvos.

The problem was, that however kind and generous the Greek people were, a relatively small island such as Lesvos, with a population of around 80,000, simply could not keep up with and provide support for the estimated 500,000 refugees and immigrants (2015 estimate) flooding onto their shores annually.  And it wasn't that much easier for mainland Greece as thousands of people poured into the port of Piraeus in Athens via ferries hoping to make their way north through the countryside toward the Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian borders.  You must understand that the overwhelming majority of these people did not wish to remain in economically depressed Greece.  Rather,they preferred the job opportunities - and the promise of generous social welfare benefits - offered by the more economically prosperous countries of the E.U. in northern Europe.

To compound the issue, as the flow of mostly Muslim asylum seekers continued to increase, the countries neighboring the Greek mainland understandably began to shut down their shared borders to maintain some semblance of sanity and sovereignty for their own homelands.  This left Greece to absorb the brunt of the economic impact and to sort out the dealing with the hundreds of thousands of potential asylum seekers and economic immigrants.

At this point, I can safely say that I still don't and probably never will have any of the big geo-political answers I assumed I would when I returned home with firsthand knowledge of the situation.  Some suggest the humane thing is to simply open up the borders and let them in without limits.  Then, I believe it was Ben Carson who suggested the answer is maintaining militarily enforced "safe zones" within Syria - but as long as Russia remains an active participant at the behest of the Bashar al-Assad, such a solution involves grave risks of military confrontation between superpowers.  Still others say simply "send them back to Turkey!" - but that solution presupposes unprecedented cooperation between traditional enemies Greece and Turkey  In addition, from a Christian point of view, that keeps the refugees fleeing the Muslim world largely locked up and outside the reach of Christian Evangelism.  And as to those who say the U.S. and our European allies should open up the gates to any and all... well, we see how well the lack of proper immigration enforcement, sane screening processes, and the lack of cultural assimilation processes has done to Belgium, the U.K, and our own southern border.

So having said all that, since the brightest minds in the world have yet to agree on a solution, I probably needn't feel too bad about not having one either.  I have no false illusions now that there are any easy answers.  Ultimately, war has caused human suffering throughout human history and continues to do so in the 21st century.  The Bible informs us that that will continue until Christ's reign.

Did we make a profound impact toward solving the global crisis?  Certainly not.  But we did help a few people who crossed our paths by meeting their immediate physical needs  And each of us in our own way were able to point some toward Christ - and that is no small thing.  Personally, it was a great to be privileged to serve in Christ's name for those two weeks.  Thank you to all of you who supported me through your prayers and financial support.

The Dearth (and Death) of Common Sense

Am I the only one who feels like he has been transported to an alternate universe?  Transported to a universe where the rules of logic have been suspended.  A place where black is white, hot is cold, and apparently right is wrong while wrong is right... and for fans of 20th century literature, I really should add the Orwellian references, "War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength." (from the book, 1984)

Illogical?  Ironic?  Ridiculous?  Confusing?  Non-sensical?  "Yes", five times "yes", but sadly, that's where we now find ourselves as a nation in serious moral decline - if not all out ethical freefall.

In this same strange universe, a man is equally and completely free to self-identify himself as a woman, and by logical extension, a kumquat, a green bean, or perhaps even a pretty pink polka-dotted pony; and no longer even have his mental health or sanity challenged.  While it has been oft-repeated that ideas have consequences, now we are simultaneously learning that national elections have consequences, as well.  Obama and his merry band of 'Looney Leftists' are now in charge and they are demanding nothing less than full compliance with the latest politically correct pish posh.

And just in case you aren't quite sure where I am going with this, I am referring to the Obama Administration's Justice Department's announcement earlier this month that the Federal Government is now seizing extra-Constititutional powers under the guise of nebulous 'civil rights' law to dictate restroom, locker room, and shower policies at the state and local level and decreeing that every kind of practitioner of (what used to be called) perversion and deviance can now share your restroom - and you have no say-so in the matter.  This 'putsch' in the name of civil rights was followed a week later by Department of Education threats to withhold funds from those schools who don't jump on their nonsensical bandwagon, and turn the athletic programs, bathrooms, and locker rooms of your sons and daughters into gender dysphoric free-for-alls.

In a country where common sense is increasingly uncommon, it is not surprising that we are actually discussing that fact that the Federal government would tell us that it a violation of civil rights to prevent a man who decided to be a woman and share the public restroom with your wife or mother.  Or that it would be a grievous act of discrimination to deny a boy who insists he's a girl from just hanging out in your daughter's locker room.  The bearer of this kind of twisted logic is no radical lesbian women's studies professor, the ACLU, Child Molesters Anonymous, or a sexual predator advocacy group (although they all would wholeheartedly favor this mandate).  Indeed it carries the weight of nation's highest-ranking law enforcement official - Attorney General Loretta Lynch - who proclaimed that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people would be suing the state of North Carolina for attempting to protect it's citizens from such nonsensical behavior.  (She was, no doubt, taking a break, from the relentless prosecution of 'thoughtcrime' deniers of man-made global warming, cooling et al.)

Employing grandiose words invoking Brown v. Board of Education, the Three-Fifths Compromise, Jim Crow laws, and other such nasty things, Loretta 'Napolean' Lynch applied tortured legal logic, heavy-handed executive branch brown-shirtism/hooliganism, and the threat of Federal blackmail to advance one of the most strange and logically devoid legal arguments yet proposed from the increasingly power hungry Obama regime.

But what should we expect when from our elite institutions of higher learning down to our middle schools have been teaching postmodern thought and denying moral absolutes for at least two decades now.  Why would we even question this as the logical next step following the Supreme court's shameless redefining of the common understanding and plain meaning of the word "marriage" that was held for millenia.  In the unenlightened old days, one's sex was based on their appearance, a birth certificate, or more scientifically, based on the makeup of one's chromosomes.  Apparently in this brave, new - and politically correct - world, a simple feeling of 'identification' with a particular sex is all that's necessary.

We are living in a country where the ruling elites and a growing number of our institutions are completely out of control - and completely void of common sense.

We are told by the chief law enforcement official in the land that the Federal government will from this point forward be dictating local and state bathroom, locker room, and shower policies, without regard for privacy, modesty, personal safety, societal norms, or common sense.  In other words, if I decide tomorrow morning to self-identify as a woman, a unicorn, a  leprechaun, or perhaps Bigfoot - you have to accept me and play along with my little games, and grant me special privileges under the threat of financial and/or legal consequences.  You must accept and affirm me in my self-delusional choice or you will not only be accused of being a "bigot" and a "hater", but sooner or later, big brother government will be knocking on your door with a civil rights lawsuit or an arrest warrant in hand.  That said, I can't help but think of the definition of the term 'doublespeak', again from the book 1984:


"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies."  George Orwell.

Other than the fact that it sounds strikingly post-modern, I circle back around to Orwell only because the dissonance of holding contradictory views apparently goes unnoticed by card-carrying members of the revisionist 'Looney Left'.  On the one hand, they are telling us, "Don't you dare 'discriminate'." - or you will either persecuted or prosecuted - yet on the other hand, we are told that protected classes - including women - must be identified and given special consideration in the form of reverse discrimination.  We are legally mandated to treat differently - or legally discriminate, if you will - between women and men in federal hiring quotas, government contracts, and for collegiate sports teams purposes (e.g. Title IX), among other things.  At the same time, they pretend to not even notice (or perhaps lack the mental capacity to notice) the illogical contradictions of their views, all the while demanding - with the force of law backing them - that we must give assent to their self-contradictory views.




Addendum 1:  At the time I was researching this piece, I stumbled upon a great speech given by Dr. Everett Piper, President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University.  Piper is on the forefront of Evangelical Christian response to troubling cultural trends.  Check out Dr. Piper's take on this subject at: http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2016/05/13816/

Addendum 2:  Another blog citing evidence further illustrating the absurdity of the government position:  http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2016/03/gender-ideology-harms-children-says.html

Addendum 3:  Reading Constitutional Lawyers Herb Titus and William Olson's legal opinion on the Obama Administration's actions is also insightful reading:    http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/herbert-w-titus/obamas-threat-defund-schools-over-trans-bathroom-issue-violates-federal

The Big Tent

Ever since the Haley Barbour days of the Republican Party of the 90’s, the conservative voters within the party have been told we needed to support a ‘Big Tent’ philosophy.  This Big Tent philosophy can be summarized as follows:  In order to grow the party, no one should be excluded, everyone welcomed, and that the Republican Party needs to be inclusive and welcoming to everyone.  Of course this all sounded nice in theory, but in practice the ‘Big Tent’ seemed mostly used as a ‘Big Stick’ to beat up on those who questioned the GOP’s commitment to it’s own conservative-leaning party platform and to attempt to keep them faithfully towing the establishment’s party line.


Such Big Tent Republicanism gave us a host of moderate, milquetoast – and I might add, losing – presidential candidates such as Bob Dole, John McCain, and most recently, Mit Romney.  Candidates all, who had trouble articulating and sometimes – in the case of McCain – barely containing their disdain for the conservative message.


After conservatism reached its ascendency in the Reagan years, it was quickly co-opted.  Every Republican (except perhaps those from New York and Maine) suddenly called him or herself a ‘conservative’... at least while they were campaigning for the conservative voter’s support.  But when they got into office, it was same old, same old.  The term "conservative" was soon rendered nearly meaningless.


More recently, when the Tea Party movement rose to prominence, the establishment for the most part once again gave the appearance of having jumped on the bandwagon.  They held their nose and tolerated the unpolished, but popular, Sarah Palin who breathed new life into the anemic McCain campaign.  Based on the pleas from Republican leadership, newly invigorated Tea Party voters gave Republicans majorities in both the House and Senate - rightfully expecting that great things were about to be accomplished.  But the Boehner-McConnell leadership team in Congress predictably sold us out, caving time and time and time again to the Democrats on budget issues that were of interest to the tea party electorate.  Instead of organizing a fight for conservative fiscal principles, they opted to undermine their new conservative delegations and negotiate secret deals behind the scenes with liberal Democrats – deals which gave away virtually everything Obama and the Democrats asked for  – and left conservatives feeling used and betrayed yet again. 


With that background, is it any wonder that we saw in this election the ascendency of the Republican anti-establishment candidates?  From the brain surgeon Dr. Ben Carson, 1st generation Indian-American Bobby Jindal, HP CEO Carly Fiorina, the maverick Senator Ted Cruz, and entrepreneur/entertainer Donald Trump; all offered disaffected Republicans and independents a breath of fresh air, as clear anti-establishment choices, albeit bringing different strengths to the table.  More importantly, all these candidates brought newly re-energized conservative and independent voters into the process.  In Trump’s case, he even brought disaffected Democrat voters to the table.


But where was the establishment now?  Where were their calls for a big tent?  Where was the effort to fold in the newcomers?  Instead, when this new form of ‘Big Tentism’ proved inconvenient to them, it was tossed aside like a dirty diaper.  The Establishment went into panic mode when their annointed and well-funded candidate, Jeb Bush, couldn’t rise beyond single digits in the polls.  To make matters worse for them, voters found their Plan B (Christie) Plan C (Rubio) and Plan D (Kasich) options equally uninspiring. 


The last straw was calling in the establishment’s previous election choice and a failed candidate, Mit Romney, who took to promoting either Rubio or Kasich depending on which state he was asked to manipulate.  Rubio, seeming less and less relevant when it appeared he could not even win his home state of Florida, actually resorted to telling voters in Ohio to support Kasich rather than making the case for himself, presumably in hopes of gumming up the works for the others.  And tired, old John Kasich clung to the hope that winning his own state of Ohio might be enough to allow him to limp into the convention and trust that the power-brokers might foment some sort of convention-time coup on his behalf.   They seemed to be doing anything to keep either the wildcard Trump or the principled conservative Cruz from securing enough delegates to secure the nomination prior to the convention.  They literally spent more energy opposing Donald Trump than they did the Democratic candidates, seemingly oblivious to the fact that all this activity only added to the resolve of the anti-establishment voters.


I’m far from a committed Trump supporter.  Personally, I prefer Senator Cruz.  The prospect of Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton was not and is not my first choice.  Nonetheless, it is still preferable to yet another uninspiring and dishonest establishment candidate as our standard bearer in the fall.  


I recount all this, not to glory in the fact that we may now be left with Donald Trump as our nominee – or worse that the establishment powers-that-be manipulate the process and give us John Kasich as a ‘unity candidate’.  What they still don’t realize is that the Trump phenomenon is almost entirely a monster of their own creation.  It was born as a result of lying to and taking their own base for granted far too many times.  I completely find humorous that the voters are poking a stick in the eye of the Republican establishment - hopefully in preparation for a thorough house cleaning.


So this is what we are left with:  The far left still has it’s home in the Democrat party, whose current two presidential candidates are attempting to outdo each other in their race toward socialism.  To make the party (pun intended) complete, about the only ‘free’ – that is, government-provided – thing they haven’t yet proposed is beer and cigarettes for those who vote for them.  Squishy moderates, statists, and greedy corporatists have their own ‘tent’, in the Preibus-Rove-Boehner-McConnell-Romney led Republicans.  It’s just too bad that those of us who call ourselves conservatives don’t seem to have a tent these days.


Up and against this phony version of the big tent, Ronald Reagan showed the way to building a true Big Tent Republican party – by going around the establishment by inviting and uniting middle-class Republicans and Democrats and values-voting Republicans and Democrats around a common love for their country and traditional values - and doing so with a winsome and optimistic tone.  But doing the right thing risks taking some unpopular stands – something career politicians rarely have the stomach for.

 

 

Post Iowa/Pre New Hampshire primary thoughts...

On the eve of the New Hampshire Primaries, how do we analyze the field of Republican candidates?  Except for the fact that Christie doesn't much like Rubio, ABC's Saturday night debate certainly didn't clarify much - other than perhaps play into the public perception that media bias is alive and well.




The exclusion from the ABC debate of Carly Fiorina - one of the field's most lucid and refreshing Republican candidates - was only the most recent example of the liberal media's constructing and defending its negative stereotype of the Republican party.  Having an articulate and thoughtful woman standing next to a thoughtful and accomplished black man on the stage of a Republican debate blows up the whole false narrative they have worked so hard for decades now to perpetuate.  So ABC barred the only woman in the GOP race from the debate stage, despite the fact that there was an empty podium sitting unused backstage available for her.


Despite the urging of both Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, ABC was doggedly unwilling to accommodate a change in circumstances and continued to stick with their flawed qualification rules. Rand Paul, who dropped out of the race earlier in the week, had qualified to debate - Fiorina had failed to make the cut.  That made her the only candidate running who was denied an opportunity to debate.  To keep her out, they had to argue the ridiculous position that Paul, a candidate who was no longer running, could still participate if he wished, but Fiorina, who had gotten more delegates in Iowa than either Kasich and Christie, could not participate. * (see below)




Consider this:  Two Latinos - Cruz and Rubio - plus an African-America - Carson - garnered 60% of the GOP caucus-goer's votes in Iowa.  But wait... the entities that make up what is falsely called the 'mainstream media' continuously propagates the narrative that the Republican base is ignorant, lilly-white racist, and hopelessly out-of-touch with the nation's changing demographics and morals.  Meanwhile, the two Democratic candidates left in the race are senile, white, senior citizens pushing each other further to the left in an attempt to prove their relevancy and buy votes.  Doesn't that just blow up ABC's faulty wordview?




Can you imagine the stories if the situation was reversed?  Headlines and editorials saying: Republicans Aging Demographic Spells Trouble, GOP is Out of Touch with Gen-Xers, The Monochrome Coalition, GOP is WOP (White's Only Party), The Geriatric Generation, etc.  Go ahead and have fun with it - I'm sure you can come up with some of your own.




On New Hampshire's election eve, we are told that both Trump and Sanders have double digit leads.  Bernie Sander's lead only goes to prove that today's Democratic party is in serious trouble.  What do you do if you are a Democrat?  You get to choose between a 75 year old self-avowed socialist redistributionist  -or-  an 'about-to-be-indicted' chameleon who despite denying actually being a socialist, is unable to define what a socialist is.  And she may be right in her denials - with her multiple and close ties to crony capitalists - she does appear to be more a fascist than socialist in my mind.




Having reread that last paragraph, I think I portrayed a lot more confidence in the Obama Justice Department than I actually have.  Be it about her phenomenally profitable forays into cattle futures trading, her outright deception of the families of those killed in Benghazi, or lying about her felonious disregard for Classified documents and the security of our country, Hillary has proved remarkably resilient due, no doubt, to the sheer vastness of the web of corruption that has surrounded her since her Arkansas days. I have serious doubt that our current president and alleged "Constitutional Scholar" has enough respect for the law to actually allow his Justice Department to enforce it in an even-handed manner.  Hillary won't be exchanging her tan pantsuit for an orange jumpsuit any time soon.


Donald Trump's lead in the polls illustrate the level of frustration among Republican voters and will test whether those who indicate support in polls are actually willing to go out and vote for the guy.  Remember, the Des Moines Register poll taken a few days before the Iowa caucuses was not accurate.  Conventional wisdom said that Trump was the big loser for skipping the debate just prior to the Iowa precinct caucuses.  I doubt skipping helped him, but, as one who has actually participated in precinct caucuses in Iowa, consider how much work is involved.  Participants have to give up an entire evening, go out on a cold winter night, declare their party affiliation, show up for and spend a couple hours in a political meeting, and (literally) stand up in plain sight of your neighbors and friends for your candidate.  There is no anonymity, no Democrats allowed to vote, and few, if any, uncommitted participants.  Perhaps the format of a caucus doesn't well suit Trump's mixed and eclectic constituency - many of whom may not be registered Republicans.



In New Hampshire, Bush, Christie, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and possibly Carson are all vying for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th spots.  One or more of those who don't do so will likely go the way of Huckabee and Paul, and drop out.  I agree that Bush is in serious trouble.  The man doesn't seem to really be comfortable as a candidate, and Lindsey Graham's endorsement is a compelling reason NOT to vote for him. But with his campaign's deep pockets, don't look to Bush dropping out this soon, no matter how poorly he continues to show.  Cruz, Rubio, and hopefully Carson are in this for the long haul, hoping for more fertile ground in South Carolina.  Christie and Kasich are not both going to last.  Personally, I think a vote for Kasich is a vote for the status quo of the Republican party, but he is polling well among New Hampshire's more moderate Republican voters.  And keep in mind, this is an open primary - independents and Democrats can vote here.  There are still many undecided voters.


I'm sure I'll be up late on Tuesday night!


-----------------------------------------------------------------
* ABC: No Last Minute Invite for Fiorina to Debate


Addendum - New Hampshire final results per WMUR, an ABC News affiliate: 
http://www.wmur.com/politics/2016-full-new-hampshire-presidential-primary-election-results/37649066

President - GOP Primary

February 10, 2016 - 03:57PM ET

New Hampshire - 300 of 300 Precincts Reporting - 100%

Name Party Votes Vote % Trump, Donald GOP 100,406 35% Kasich, John GOP 44,909 16% Cruz, Ted GOP 33,189 12% Bush, Jeb GOP 31,310 11% Rubio, Marco GOP 30,032 11% Christie, Chris GOP 21,069 7% Fiorina, Carly GOP 11,706 4% Carson, Ben GOP 6,509 2% Paul, Rand GOP 1,900 1%