Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 2 – The Total Depravity of Man

As I discussed in my last post, the 5 points of Calvinism are summarized with the acronym, TULIP. The letters stand for:

• Total depravity of man
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Preservation of the saints

Fundamental to Calvinism is the idea that mankind is totally depraved. He is a hopeless sinner who is not only completely unable to do good works but also lacks even the desire to do good. Therefore, a man is totally without any power to even call on God to save him. According to Calvinism, a man lacks the ability or desire to be saved in the same way a dead person lacks the ability or desire to come out of the grave. It's impossible.

There are some verses in the Bible that support this concept:

John 6:63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing”

Romans 3:10-11, “as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God.” (Paul is paraphrasing Psalm 14)

Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?”

John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

If I read only these verses and nothing else in the Bible, I would have to agree 100% that a man could not and would not come to God by his own will. However, there are other verses that we must consider.

Joshua 24:15, “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

1 Kings 18:21, “Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.””

Isaiah 1:18, ““Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.”

As clearly as the first passages seemed to say we are unable to come to God, these other passages seem clearly seem to say we have a choice. I admit that it seems to be a dilemma. I think the key to understanding all verses in harmony hinges on the realization that God is sovereign but even the sovereignty of God is a difficult subject to grasp.

My point here is not to establish which verses are “correct.” The fact of the matter is that all the verses are correct. Neither am I trying to suggest what is the more likely understanding. Like I've already said, I only intend to discuss the different points of view. As we can see, Scriptural support for either view can be found. It would be rather narrow minded of us to cling dogmatically to one or the other and “explain away” the opposing verses. A better course of action would be to trust that God is loving, merciful, and just and know that He will always do what is right.

We need to simply trust in Jesus as our Savior without worrying about whether or not we were predestined to do so.

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 1

God is sovereign. He controls everything – big and small. Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord.” A bird does not fly, a leaf does not fall, and a man does not take a step except that it should be the will of God. However, this begs the question: if our every action is subject to God's will, how then can we be held accountable for our sins? Does that mean a lost person was ordained to be lost or a saved person ordained to be saved? This is not a new question but one that has raged for centuries. I guess there are a lot of different nuances concerning the idea of predestination but there are basically two schools of thought: Calvinism and Arminianism.

Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a 16^th century, French theologian. He argued that people are “pre-destined” to be either saved or lost. Actually, the idea of predestination preceded Calvin by centuries but he codified the idea into five, succinct points, often referred to by the acronym, “TULIP.” He argued so successfully that his name has become synonymous with predestination.

Almost immediately after Calvin lived, a Dutch theologian named Jacob Arminius began arguing that man, though sinful, still has a free will and can choose to accept or reject Christ. His idea of “free will” is identified by the term, Arminianism. His views became very popular but still remained the minority view in the church until the time of John Wesley in the 18^th century. Today, most protestant churches would identify themselves as believing in free will or Arminianism.

There are certain matters of doctrine that are critical to orthodoxy. For example, I do not believe anyone can be a Christian unless he believes in a literal, physical resurrection. Other matters are trivial, like whether or not the wine Jesus made at the wedding in Cana (John, chapter 2) was alcoholic or not. In my opinion, the difference between Calvinism or Arminianism falls into the trivial category. If a person confesses Jesus as his Savior, what difference does it truly make if he did it of his own free will or if he had been predestined to do it? I'm certainly not going to challenge his profession of faith over it. Unfortunately, many churches do argue over it.

I thought it would be interesting to have a short series discussing the issue. I don't intend to endorse one view over the other (though I do have my personal opinions). Instead, I want to simply present the Scriptural arguments for and against the five points of Calvinism. I want it to be more informative in nature rather than persuasive. Perhaps the only thing I would like to persuade people of is that they may see the issue in the same, non-constroversial light that I see it.

Please check back.

The Yawn Factor

People who read my blog have probably already guessed that I'm very disappointed and a little surprised by the election results. There's been a lot of talk from the right since Tuesday about why we lost the election and theories abound. In my opinion, Obama rivals Jimmy Carter as the worst President in my lifetime. Both are failures in their foreign policy. Both presided over disastrous economies. Both saw fuel prices sky rocket during their terms. At least Carter can be thanked for real estate values rising during his time in office (a silver lining in the gloomy cloud of the high inflation seen in the 70's) but home owners have watched the values of their homes fall below the amounts of their mortgages due to Obama's lack of a plan to save the housing market.

As much of a failure as Obama had been, I was under the impression that there was no way he could be reelected. The disappointment in his policies hasn't just been felt by me and other Republicans, many Democrats have felt the same way. Support for Obama has waned considerably since 2008. Obama was elected into office with 69,498,516 votes. That was nearly 10 million more votes than McCain received. In this last election, 9 million fewer people voted for Obama. If just ½ of those 9 million had voted for Romney this time, he would have been elected. Instead, they must have decided to stay home.

The ebb in Obama support is only ½ the story. If Romney could have held on all the McCain voters, he would have only needed a few hundred thousand more votes to beat Obama. With the eagerness of the right to get Obama out of the office, I would have thought everyone and his brother would drag people to the polls to vote. But it was not to be. Romney actually got 2 million fewer votes than McCain did!

It seems to me that elections are being decided not as much by the engaged voters but rather the apathetic couch potatoes. Conservatism beats liberalism every time and if we had true conservative candidates, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. Every primary, though, Republicans vote for the candidates they think are the “most electable.” They look for moderates who will supposedly appeal to the “independent” voter so we end up with weak candidates like Romney, McCain, and Bob Dole.

There's nothing appealing about Obama's policies. He certainly can't boast a successful record. He should be an easy candidate to beat. Why couldn't we beat him. We don't have a candidate that conservative voters can be enthusiastic about.

Have you ever heard a Republican say he would hold his nose and vote for McCain or Romney? It's because they're not excited about the candidate but would prefer him over a Democrat like Obama. If a Reagan-like conservative were on the top of the Republican ticket, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. As it it now, they vote reluctantly or stay home.

Yawn.

I Guess Obama Would Rather Have Big Bird

I didn't hear it in the VP debate last night – the funny line about Big Bird. I was a little surprised because ever since the Presidential debate, it's been a favorite “gotcha” of the Democrats: “thank goodness someone is finally getting tough on Big Bird.” Yes, Mr. President, that's funny. Ha ha.

Perhaps I should remind the administration that we have a $1 trillion annual deficit. That means that each year, we're adding 1 trillion more dollars to the $16 trillion debt we already owe. I've talked about budgets on my blog before (here) but let me remind you a little of what I said then. A budget is a sort of list of priorities. We can't afford everything we want so we have to decide which things we're going to spend our money on.

Proverbs 22:7 says that the borrower is the servant of the lender. When we borrow money, we are giving away our liberty. In the case of our national debt, much of what we're borrowing is loaned to us from China. It's sad. What's worse is that we owe far more than can be repaid in our lifetimes so we are literally making our children, grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren slaves who will spend all of their lives and most of their paychecks paying back what we're spending today. And what do we have to show for it? Sesame Street? Curious George? We're turning our kids into slaves so that our kids can watch Barney! Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

We're financing PBS to the tune of $400 million per year. That's almost half a billion dollars. It's a lot of money but it's only about 10% of PBS's annual revenue. If we stopped funding PBS, they might miss the money but they will continue. They'll just have to learn do it without tax payer subsidies like companies have to do it in the real world.

For the next four years, we need a President who can make the tough decisions. President Obama can't seem to find anything to cut. How strange. We can't afford to keep borrowing so some things have to go. We need a President who is able to decide what our priorities are. We need to provide employers incentives to hire more people. We need a strong military and good intelligence to fight the war on terror. There are dozens other things that I think would come before funding PBS but I guess Mr. Obama would rather have Big Bird.

Keep laughing, Mr. President. We'll see who's laughing in November.

Some People Aren't Paying Their Fair Share

After months of listening to Democrats whine about Romney not releasing all of his tax returns, we now get to listen to Democrats whine about Romney's tax return. There's really no surprise about what was in his return, was there? I mean, we all knew he's very rich and that most of what he makes now is income from the investments he's made in the past. He paid an effective tax rate of around 14% ($2MM taxes on $14MM income) which is typical for investment income. What is also not a surprise is how liberals are using Romney's returns as a prop in their class-warfare rhetoric.

I've never learned to sympathize with the liberal idea of fairness. Obama has talked ad nausuem about making the rich “pay their fair share” as though the rich haven't been paying their fair share already. According to Heritage.org, “The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.” I just can't get my head around the idea that it's “fair” for 10% of the people to pay 3/4 of all the taxes while 1/2 of the people aren't paying any.

One “fix” Obama has suggested is the so-called “Buffet Rule” where millionaires would be required to pay the same tax rate as “everyone else.” That's rather laughable since we've already seen that 1/2 of the people already don't pay any taxes. But besides that, why must “fairness” be accomplished by increasing the tax rate on millionaires' investments? Why not reduce the rate on working people's income to 14%? Better yet, why not make EVERYONE pay a flat tax of 14% of their income? That would certainly be the most fair thing.

The purpose of the tax code is supposed to be providing revenue to the federal government. However, the Feds see the tax code as an opportunity to engage in social engineering. The want to bludgeon the rich with abusive taxes and then hold themselves up as champions of the poor. Liberal Democrats are bringing back the caste system and want to create a perpetually poor voting base which is totally dependent on the charity of the political aristocracy. Tyrants!! Every one of them is a tyrant.

There's an old saying that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul. The current level of class-warfare goes well beyond that. Democrats are telling Paul to hate Peter.

The Alternative Media Strikes Again

There's a reason I call the mainstream media the “alternative media.” Most TV news shows, cable news shows, liberal news sites, and many newspapers have simply demonstrated they are not credible sources of news. On Wednesday, 9/12, I blogged about the assaults on our embassies in the Middle East. That's news. That's what Americans need to hear about. Well, all the rest of that day and yesterday, the media spends it's time not covering the events in the Middle East but attacking the timing and tone of Mitt Romney's condemnation of the attacks and his criticism of President Obama!

 

Under the headline, “Mitt Romney Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks Called 'Irresponsible,' 'Craven,' 'Ham-Handed',” the Huffington Post provided some of the following quotes:

 

The Romney campaign drew fire on Wednesday morning for issuing a blistering statement condemning the American embassy in Egypt for speaking against an incendiary anti-Muslim film, even though the embassy made the statement before any attacks had taken place. NBC's Chuck Todd, for instance, called the statement "irresponsible" and a "bad mistake." ABC's Jake Tapper said that Romney's attack "does not stand up to simple chronology."

 

When Romney appeared in a press conference, reporters had the chance to ask him substantive questions about the crisis brewing in the Middle East. Instead, they wasted the entire interview prodding him on his criticism of Obama. Here are some of the “tough” questions he was asked:

 

REPORTER #1 (male): The statement from the President was very toughly worded statement last night. Do you regret the tone at all, given what we know now?

REPORTER # 2 (female): Governor Romney, do you think, though, coming so soon after the events, really, had unfolded overnight was appropriate to be weighing in as this as this crisis is unfolding in real time?

REPORTER (male) #3: You talk about mixed signals. The world is watching. Isn't this itself a mixed signal when you criticize the administration at a time when Americans are being killed? Shouldn't politics stop- [garbled]

REPORTER (female) #4: Governor, some people have said that you jumped the gun a little in putting that statement out last night and that you should have waited until more details were available. Um, do you regret having that statement come out so early before we learned about all of the things that were happening? 

REPORTER #5 (male): If you had known last night that the ambassador died, and, obviously, I'm gathering you did not know- If you had known that the ambassador had died, would you have issued such a strongly issued statement? 

REPORTER #6: How specifically, Governor Romney, would a President Romney have handled the situation differently than President Obama? [Finally, some substance]

Are you freaking kidding me?! On the anniversary of 9/11, two US embassies were attacked in the Middle East and four US citizens were killed!! Do these reporters really think the first questions on the public's mind is whether Romney was a little too hard on Obama for the administration's early handling of the situation? 

I'm not a news guy but let me offer a little help: “US Embassies Attacked in Middle East”; “War on Terror Not Over”; “Al Qaeda Suspected in Organizing Riots that Killed 4 US Officials.” These are the headlines we need to be reading. What is President Obama going to do about it? What would President Romney do about it? These are the questions we need to be asking. Questions like those above and headlines like, “Romney Shows He's Out of His Depth in Foreign Policy” are a waste of our time.

We're Still at War with Terrorists

I made the decision to not blog anything yesterday, on 9/11. It wasn't because I don't think the date was important but it was out of a sense of reverence. To simply say, “we won't forget,” is obvious to the extreme and was posted on 1,000,000 other blogs already. I also didn't want to risk saying anything that might sound like, “Happy 9/11.” In the end, I thought it best to leave the day to everyone's own, private reflection.

Last night, The History Channel played video footage reconstructing the time line of the events on that dreadful morning. It was stirring. I went to sleep recalling many of the same feelings I felt 11 years ago. Then I woke up this morning to the terrible news that two US embassies were attacked in the Middle East and the US Ambassador to Libya was murdered along with three of his staffers!

Maybe I should have said something yesterday because I think people are indeed forgetting that there are still terrorists out there who hate us. Many people actually seem to have a pre-9/11 mentality where they believe radical Muslims can be reasoned with. As a mob rioted outside of the US Embassy in Cairo, protesting a YouTube movie critical of Muhammad, the Embassy officials actually sympathized with the protesters. They issued this statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Perhaps I shouldn't be too hasty to judge because it's possible that Embassy officials were afraid for their lives and released this statement in hopes is would quell the mob's anger. It seems to me to be counterproductive, though, since this statement might embolden the rioters by admitting the the movie's creators were out of line. Even after the the mob stormed the Embassy's grounds, took down and burned the American flag, and raised a pro-Muslim standard in its place, the Embassy officials tweeted that their previous statement still stands.

However, after a rocket attack on the US Embassy in Libya killed 4, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, got tough – well, sort of. In still another press release, she seemed to apologized yet again:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Yeah, Hillary, that's very clear. You deplore attacks on religious beliefs (except at the DNC where they booed God) but that's not an excuse for violence. OK, where in that statement do you actually condemn the attack on our Embassy?

President Obama finally got around to putting out the “official,” White House statement. He disavowed the Embassy's statement saying it does not reflect the views of the United States. Really, Mr. President? Our US Embassies don't represent the United States? I guess your Secretary of State doesn't represent your administration either? Anyway, the President said:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

At least in this statement the President condemned the attack before taking a swipe at the makers of the video. Oh, and by the way, it doesn't escape my notice that Republican, Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney condemned the attack before the President.

I'm not the President, of course, and it's hard for me to say how best we should respond going forward. However, after having seen the “blame America first” attitude on grand display so far, I'm not optimistic. The President has said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. He calls acts of terrorism “man made disasters” or, in the case of the Ft. Hood shooting, “work place violence.” The entire Administration refuses to use the words “Islamic extremists” or “radical Muslims.” Democrats will call conservative groups like the Tea Party, “domestic terrorists” but they refuse to use the label for true terrorists!

The anti-American attitudes that has brewed in the Middle East for decades still simmers. Democrats can apologize until they're blue in the face but that won't quell the anger. Liberals can turn a blind eye and call each act of violence an “isolated incident” but that won't stop the violence. And let's be honest, it's not a coincidence that these riots happened on 9/11. We are still at war with terrorists.

Fair Weather Friends

The Tea Party Movement that's swept the country in the last year has really ruffled some feathers. At first, the liberal media tried to simply ignore them but their silence became so painfully conspicuous that they could no longer ignore the protests and still maintain the label of a news medium. Their next tactic was to attack the movement by trotting out the tired terms like “racists” and the much more vulgar term, “teabaggers.” Liberal politicians said this wasn't a “real” movement but referred to it as “astro-turf.” The concerned citizens who protested at the Town Hall meetings were called a “mob” and “un-American.” In other words, the Tea Party did not have any friends among the liberal elite.

It was a completely different story among conservatives. FOX News (a truly balanced news channel but seen as conservative) was the only news network to cover the Tea Parties. Rush, Sean, Glenn, and all the usual suspects discussed the protesters in glowing terms saying that the movement represented the true heart of America. The people were sick of out of control government and had finally had enough. These were citizens standing up to unfair taxes just like the early revolutionaries of their namesake had done.

Since tax-and-spend is the only play Democrats use to solve anything, much of the Tea Party protest was directed at them. Therefore, Republicans were overjoyed, seeing this as a possible windfall for the Republican Party in the 2010 elections. It seems the friendship was fated to be short-lived. After the recent Tea Party convention, I'm starting to hear a different tune from Republicans.

I think the Republican Party is starting to realize that the Tea Party movement isn't exactly a group of Republican cheerleaders but a movement against government waste – whether the “waster” is a Democrat or Republican. Moderate Republicans (like John McCain) aren't likely to receive a ringing endorsement from the Tea Party.

The fear of the Republicans is that the Tea Party will beginning running 3rd party candidates. In an election, a Tea Party candidate could very well split the conservative vote allowing the Democrat candidate to win. Suddenly, the Republicans aren't so keen on the Tea Party movement. They are starting to warn the protesters that running their own candidates would be against their own best interest.

If the Tea Party decided to run its own candidates, I have to agree that it it's not likely they would win and it very well cost also ruin the election opportunity for the Republican on the ticket. But the solution isn't for the Tea Party to water down their message. Conservatives shouldn't have to hold their collective noses and vote for the Republican (or RINO as the case may be) simply because of the “R” after his name. The solution is for the Republican Party to run more conservative candidates.

I still remember the Republican revolution of 1994. We've come a long way since then (the wrong way). We've not only lost our majorities in both the House and Senate, we've lost them in a big way – giving up until recently, a super-majority in the Senate. I saw it coming when I heard Colin Powell speak at the Republican National Convention, 1996. There had been talk leading up to the convention about how Republicans need to become a “big tent.” At one point, Powell mentioned he was pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) and got a standing ovation. I had to check my TV guide to make sure this was the Republican convention. Had they already forgotten the conservative message that swept them into office only 2 years earlier? What were they thinking?

The Tea Party needs to put as much pressure on Republicans as is necessary to insure they run conservative candidates. If it costs us a couple of elections, then so what? In the last election, Republicans pitted a very moderate McCain against the very liberal Obama and look at what happened?

The Electoral Map

There's an interesting, interactive, electoral map at 270towin.com that lets the user toy around with different scenarios to see how the 2008 election might pan out. As I write this, things are looking grim for McCain. If all the Obama leaning states go to Obama, and all the McCain leaning states go to McCain, then Obama is only 1 undecided state away from winning the electoral college. On the other hand, McCain would have to win every single undecided state to take the White House.

.

The good news is that 100 of the Obama leaning electoral votes are only "soft leaning" to Obama. That is, he has only a 5% lead over McCain in the polls. If you consider only those states where the candidate's support is "likely" or "safe", then the electoral votes are 164 to Obama and 156 to McCain.

.

I'm going to add a widget to help readers follow the polls as they shift.

.

Tonight's debate is a "make or break" for either candidate. Senator McCain, if you're listening, I urge you to put your conservative foot forward. In addition, take this opportunity to point out that Obama is the most liberal Democrat in the Senate (and has the third most liberal Democrat as a running mate)! If you do that, you will win.

The VP Debate

Ok. I watched the debate and was thoroughly disappointed. Joe Biden was true to form so I guess I don’t have a complaint with him except that I disagree with nearly everything he stands for. My disappointment is more with Palin.

I like Gov. Palin. She seems to be fairly conservative in her politics. But since she’s on the same ticket with McCain, I guess she has to back up his moderate ideas. There were many issues where I couldn’t tell a difference between her views (or at least her comments) and Sen. Biden’s comments.

How many times did Gov. Palin talk about the “greed and corruption” on Wall Street? How many times did she talk about “oversight, oversight, oversight”? How many times did she have to defend McCain, assuring us that he wasn’t for deregulation? How many times did she talk about taking on the “Big Oil” companies?

Look, Gov. Palin, we’re supposed to be a free market! Ever heard of capitalism? It’s usually the Democrats that are for more regulation, more government control of business, more for punishing “big business” with confiscatory taxes, and more for the social practice of redistributing wealth. Yet she seemed proud of the fact that McCain is going to do all of these things even better than that most liberal of all Senators, Barack Obama.

And did you notice her stance on global warming? She’s promising to reduce carbon emissions. Now, where have I heard that before? Oh that’s right - Biden was saying the same thing! The only difference seemed to be that Biden unequivocally blamed human activity for increasing global temperatures whereas Palin would only concede were partly to blame.

I guess her performance was Ok. She seemed charming and personable. She spoke directly to the people and she spoke with confidence. She’s certainly attractive. There’s a lot to like about her; She just didn’t convey a conservative message. When McCain picked Palin as his running mate, she was supposed to woo the conservative base of the Republican Party. But we’re not electing her for President. It’s still McCain at the top of the ticket. And Palin can’t do as much wooing if she only parrots the luke warm positions of McCain.

McCain didn’t ask for my advice but here’s my opinion anyway: McCain needs to move to the right. Conservative voters are NOT going to vote for Obama but they might stay home and not vote. If he wants their vote, he needs to give them something to vote for. If he’s trying to garner the “undecided” middle, he won’t do that either unless he can distinguish himself from Obama. Conservative issues win elections. Remember the Contract with America? McCain should stop using Palin’s appeal to try to win the base since she’s not doing anything but repeating his moderation. Instead, he should use these last 2 debates to show us his conservative side – that is, if he really does have one.

Who’s Pushing Whose Morality?

I just have to shake my head sometimes. Just when I think I’ve heard it all, liberals go and do something so outrageous that I’m shocked all over again. Apparently, there’s a new, pro-gay book being used in certain public schools called, King and King. You can read the story for yourself here. It’s a book being used for 2nd graders! Needless to say, I disagree with the homosexual life style, oppose gay marriage, and stand against the blatant attempt to mainstream them.

It’s no secret that Christianity is not welcome in public schools. The phrase, “One nation under God” for example, might make some students uncomfortable so Michael Newdow sued to have all students stop saying. His daughter didn’t have to say it herself, mind you, but he didn’t want her to even hear it. Well, now some public schools are reading and promoting pro-gay books in an attempt to make homosexuality normal, even mainstream. Never mind how the parents might feel about it.

A few candidates were asked “Should teachers read the book to second graders as part of the school curriculum? Would you read it - or have read it - to your own children?” Here are some responses:

ROMNEY: “This is a subject that should be left to parents, not public school teachers,” the former Massachusetts governor said in a statement. “We need to strengthen our families by passing a federal marriage amendment and also insisting on marriage before having children.”

THOMPSON: “The answer is no,” Thompson's chief campaign spokesman told Cybercast News Service. “He's very clear. There is no wishy-washiness.”

OBAMA: Said he and his wife have already talked to their 9-year-old and 6-year-old about same-sex marriage. “One of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different, because there have been times in our history where I was considered different.”

CLINTON: “I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children understand the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make," she said. "And that goes far beyond sexual orientation.” [?? - I tried to translate that on Babblefish.com to figure out where she stands but it doesn’t translate Clinton-Speak].

But the winner of the most outrageous statements goes to Sen. Edwards.

EDWARDS: “Yes, absolutely," Edwards said. "What I want ... is my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day; the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their lives.” Edwards said he "didn't want to impose" his views on his 9-year-old and 7-year-old [No, he wants to impose them on our kids]. “Nobody made me God,” said the former North Carolina senator. “I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in - did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade.”

There used to be an old saying that you can’t legislate morality. I guess it depends on whose morality you’re legislating. It doesn’t matter to liberals that, in election after election, 2/3 of the voters always oppose gay-marriage. It doesn’t matter to liberals that many parents don’t want their kids being told gay is OK. It doesn’t matter that public schools are failing miserably at what they're supposed to be doing - teaching our kids basic English, math, & science. Public schools are effective in indoctrination and that’s all that counts.

The Huckabee Cross “Controversy”?

Give me a break, everyone. First off, it’s a bookshelf. Everyone can see it’s a bookshelf. Can't you see the ornaments sitting on one of the shelves? Anybody that says, “well, it could be a bookshelf” is either dense or lying to create a controversy. But so what if it were a cross? Mike’s on TV, wishing everyone a Merry Christmas, and reminding everyone that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus. If it were indeed a cross, how would that be controversial? Normally, if you find an ordained Baptist preacher on TV talking about Jesus, you'd expect to find a cross.

What if, at Easter time, Mike appeared on TV, actually sitting next to a cross (!), and said something like, “At Easter, Christians all around the world celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord. My warmest regards to all families as you celebrate this special time.” I suspect someone watching might say, “You know what? That fireplace in the background looks like an empty tomb! Why, how could he do something like that? He has to know it's there - these things don't just happen by accident. How dare he use the Resurrection for his political gain!”

Exactly how ridiculous can we be?

Maybe Next Time, Keyes

My buddy Alan Keyes was on Hannity & Colmes last night. I was a little surprised to see him in the Iowa debate; Actually, I didn’t get to watch it - I saw some of the clips. Who puts on a debate in the middle of the day? I have to work for a living! Anyway, on FOX he discussed his presidential run and his performance in the debate.

Ordinarily, Keyes would mop the floor with anyone he debated. He’s able to articulate the conservative message like no one I’ve ever seen. But due to the strange debate format (no doubt arranged by the same folks who aired a debate while most honest folks are working) no candidate was able to stand out. The general consensus among pundits was that at least no one made any major blunders.

I’ve always been a big fan of Keyes and, in elections past, I voted for him in the primaries. This time around, though, I wish he would step aside. He came in late (even after Fred Thompson) and is not even appearing in most national polls. Keyes pointed out that he was tied with Ron Paul in the most recent Gallup Poll [albeit for last place].

If Keyes had a shot in this election, I’d be all for it. But he doesn’t. My fear then is that he will siphon off conservative voters from more popular candidates like Huckabee, Romney, or Thompson and we end up electing the not-so-conservative Giuliani.

My hats off to Keyes. He does a lot of great work with his grassroots movement, Renew America but my advice to him would be to sit this one out. Thanks anyway, Alan. Maybe next time.

With Friends Like These…

There’s an old saying that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. In that same vein, you can judge a political candidate by the endorsements he receives. Not so much the endorsement, I guess, but by who is making the endorsement. If there were a judge on the ballot, for example, and I had never heard of him before BUT I knew that he had the endorsement of NARAL, it doesn’t matter what else I learn about him – I’m probably not going to be voting for him.

When Kerry ran against Bush in 2004, I was surprised at the number of times Kerry said he agreed with John McCain on some particular issue. I thought this was a curious strategy: I mean, I know why he kept saying it – he wanted people to think his ideas weren’t radically liberal because he agreed with a Republican about something. But as far as I know, McCain was backing Bush that year.

Anyway, I heard on Fox News this morning that former VP hopeful, Joseph Lieberman (Independent Senator – CT) was endorsing John McCain for president. Not just in the primaries, but for the 2008 election as well.

Now, I know Liebermann is a lot more moderate than most Democrats. For example, he does back our presence in Iraq and the War on Terror in general, which has earned him the scorn of many Democrat colleagues. In his last Senate race, the Democrat Party backed his opponent causing Liebermann to switch from a Democrat to an Independent. But as I listened to him on Fox News, he continuously referred to himself as a Democrat.

So now McCain has the endorsement of a self-proclaimed Democrat. Not a conservative Democrat like, say, Zel Miller - but Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. Doesn’t this speak volumes about how conservative McCain is (or rather, is not)?

Now I know he co-authored that radically unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill known as the McCain-Feingold Act (I can’t believe Bush didn’t veto this and it has even held up in court). Besides that though, he seemed fairly conservative on most other issues. Even so, I’ve always had an uneasy feeling about McCain. And after hearing Liebermann’s endorsement of him this morning, it just reaffirms what I’ve already felt.

I think maybe Liebermann should have waited until the general election to support McCain. His endorsement might help McCain in NH where there are a lot of independent voters, but it’s going to cost him conservative votes everywhere else. When you have liberal Democrats like Kerry siding with McCain on several issues, and now a moderate Democrat like Liebermann actually endorsing him, then there’s something the matter. If McCain should win the Republican primaries, I guess I’d rather have him then Hillary. But for now, I’ll stick with Huckabee.

Rendering to Caesar the things that are God's

Concerning health care, John Edwards said, “What we're going to do is cover every single American, including the 47 million who don't have coverage.” You know, I’ve always been puzzled by this: by what political theory can people justify our government giving people anything?

I don’t want to pick on Edwards because social medicine seems to be a theme among the Democrats. Clinton said, “While I will be requiring all Americans to have health care, I will be calling on employers to do their part as well.” Kucinich said, “A not-for-profit health care system is not only possible, but H.R. 676, a bill that I introduced, and a number of Congressmen, the Conyers-Kucinich bill, actually establishes Medicare for all.” And the list goes on - Biden, Dodd, and Obama all seem bent on getting more people on the public dole.

National health care is probably born out of a “helping people” attitude. OK. I agree it’s good to help people. Still, why do you think this is the duty of the government? In Mark 12, Jesus made the often cited quote, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” We live in a society today where people seem perfectly content to let Caesar do the work of the Church. Personally, I have a problem with letting the state become a charity.

Dr. Walter E. Williams has talked a lot about government involvement in benevolence and has a good list of quotes from some of the founding fathers and other leaders of our country which speak to this very issue. Consider President Franklin Pierce’s quote from that page, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

When you have someone seizing the assets from one person for the benefit of another, it’s ordinarily called “stealing.” It’s not benevolence, it’s despotism. Charity is not charity at all when it’s done under threat of arrest. It doesn’t matter how worthy the cause might be - the government should stay out of it.

Alas, there are people who absolutely refuse to see the wrong in government sponsored “charity.” I believe this is evidence of the truth in that old saying, “When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.” Perhaps there are a lot of people who believe there should be national health care. Maybe it is a “good” cause. But if we allow one “good” cause, we’re saying it’s OK for the government to compel us to do whatever it thinks is “good.” So perhaps the government might think it’s OK to have federally funded abortions. Oh wait, it already does that. How about allowing embryonic stem cell research? And what about federal funding of the arts? Does anyone remember the “artwork” of a depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung? The government still supports the National Endowment of the Arts to the tune of $121 million annually. They do all these “good” things with our tax dollars. Heck, why don’t we just let the Feds raise our kids while they’re at it?

To have a government, we give up a certain amount of our rights to them. One thing we give up is some of our money in the form of taxes. I pay taxes because I want the government to do those things it should be doing: having an army, protecting our borders, building roads, catching criminals, having fire departments, etc. But I don’t want the government to take care of every citizen from cradle-to-grave.

Some people are just plain lazy. Perhaps others think if they leave good work to “the people”, it just won’t get done. Still others might believe they know what’s best for everyone else so they’re just going to make everyone be charitable whether we like it or not. But this attitude that the government should take care of us is just plain wrong. I'll take care of my own family when they're sick. By the way, I'll also take care of my kids' college, my own groceries, and my retirement too. Thanks anyway.

My Endorsement for the Republican Primary

It’s official - I’m endorsing Mike Huckabee as the Republican candidate for President, 2008. I've looked at him, his statements, and his record and he holds the same views as I do on nearly every issue. What's more, he's consistently been conservative throughout his career. Here are some of the hot issues and where he stands:

Faith & Politics: “My faith is my life - it defines me. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives."

Abortion: “I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life.”

Health Care: “The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a "health care" system, not a "health" system. We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funded through ever-higher taxes.”

Taxes: “The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now.”

Immigration: “Governor Huckabee knows that securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.”

The War on Terror: “I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society,… As president, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might.”

Marriage: “I support and have consistently supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

Education: “I have been a strong, consistent supporter of the rights of parents to home school their children, of creating more charter schools, and of public school choice.” [OK, so he kind of blew it on this one. Why only public school choice?]

What more can I ask for? The guy is right on. And he's even got Chuck Norris endorsing him - how cool is that? Let’s hear it for Mike. Mike Huckabee, 2008!

What do they believe anyway?

I watched the GOP debate on CNN last night, well, most of it anyway. Some of the buzz leading up to it was about Mitt Romney being asked about his Mormon faith. Maybe he was asked but I must have missed that part. I did hear, though, a few other questions about the candidates' personal beliefs. One person asked what would Jesus do (WWJD) about the death penalty? Another person, holding up a Bible, asked about 5 times if the candidates believed everything in the Bible was true. And of course, in a previous debate, one person asked which of the candidates did not believe in in evolution.

As far as Romney is concerned, I have serious disagreements with Mormons on doctrine. If it came to choosing between a Mormon and a Christian candidate for President, with all other things being equal, I’d vote for the Christian. But Romney seems to be somewhat conservative on the issues even though his history on conservatism is a little spotted. I guess a Massachusetts Republican can’t be expected to be as conservative as those Republicans from, say, a more southern state. Heck, I’d take Democrat like Zel Miller over a MA Republican; I don’t use that little “R” after someone’s name as an excuse to vote for him. But between Romney and any current Democrat candidate, Romney wins hands down.

But I’m not here to talk about Romney today. I’m really a little more interested over this curiosity about the Republican candidates’ beliefs.

Why is it that the press (or “the drive-by media” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say) is only concerned about the religious beliefs of Republicans? We hear all this talk about the religious right; is there not a religious left? What aren’t more Democrat candidates asked about their personal beliefs? I think I already know the answer. The radical left does not have religious beliefs, unless you count militant atheism or secular humanism as a religion.

It’s funny to listen to non-religious people pretending to be Christians. When Howard Dean was asked which was his favorite book in the New Testament, he said, Job. Uh, Mr. Dean, Job is in the Old Testament. Likewise, when Al Gore ran for President, he said, “In my faith tradition, it is written in the book of Matthew, 'Where your heart is, there's your treasure also.'” I guess he’s never bothered to read Matthew 6:21 because he quoted it exactly backward. But then again, maybe he knew he quoted it backward but just assumed nobody would catch it since nobody really reads the Bible anyway.

Here’s a question I’d love to ask the Democrat candidates who claim to be Christians, “Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me’ (John 14:6), Do you believe that is true?” I predict their answers would spin around being "inclusive," "tolerant of others' beliefs," etc. To be a Christian literally means to be a follower of Christ. I can’t understand how these people rationalize their beliefs. Do they really believe they are Christians but just don’t believe any of that stuff in the Bible? They would benefit to read Luke 6:46, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”

Now if Democrats want to be atheists, agnostics, or (at the very least) irreligious, that’s they’re choice. But I think they should still stand up and voice their non-belief in the same way Republicans have to stand up and express their beliefs. The reason they don’t is simple – as much as they hate the religious right, they know that being non-religious or atheistic is far more unpopular among American voters. So, in spite of their contempt for Christians, they still like to play Christians on TV.

Where have all the conservatives gone?

It is no small annoyance to me that Rudy Giuliani is among the front-runners in the Republican primaries. Perhaps he’s a conservative by New York standards, but not for the country at large.

Now don’t get me wrong - Rudy has several strong points: he’s for lower taxes, less government, and pro-defense. He especially looked good after the 9/11 tragedies. He certainly handled the surprise attack in NY much better than, say, the Mayor in New Orleans handled the Katrina disaster. I’d far rather have him in office than any Democrat candidate running.

But in spite of his good points, there are several issues where Rudy fails conservatism. He’s decidedly pro-abortion (he says he’s anti-abortion but for “the right to choose”); pro-gay; and pro-gun control. And though his views on these issues may not be as far left as those of the liberal Democrat candidates, there are obviously more conservative candidates running for the Republican nomination.

Besides his political views, Rudy has some personal baggage to deal with. I mean, come on, the guy’s been married 3 times. And don’t hand me any of that, “his personal life shouldn’t matter” garbage. If Democrat voters say they’re voting for Hillary because she’s a woman, I can say I’m not voting for Rudy because he’s a womanizer. I think a person’s character is part of his qualifications for being president. And a twice-divorced (actually one marriage was annulled) man has some character issues. Never mind his seeming penchant to dress in drag.

Tell me why, then, did Pat Robertson endorse Giuliani over any other candidate? As a Christian, I can’t imagine how a Christian leader like Robertson could endorse someone like Giuliani. Could it be because he thinks Rudy stands the best chance of beating whoever the Democrat nominee is? One of my biggest pet peeves is when Republicans choose candidates they think are “electable” over the people they think are the best for the job - unless Robertson really thinks he’s the best candidate. In that case, Robertson is just plain wrong.

But the Republican Party has started down a slippery slope in its pursuit of “diversity” or “big-tent” ideology. In 1994, when many Republican ran on a staunch conservative platform as demonstrated by the Contract with America, the Republican Party won in droves. Why have we abandoned that?

I first became concerned when I saw Colin Powell speak at the 2000 Republican Convention. He announced that he was “pro-choice” and was cheered! Kay Bailey Hutchison announced at the 1996 Convention she was pro-choice and was booed. Why the change?

Then there was the Governor’s recall election in California, 2003. The moderate Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected over the much more conservative Tom McClintock. Perhaps in CA, a moderate Republican was more appealing to the Hollywood crowd. But Arnold went on to be a keynote speaker at the 2004 Republican Convention. Is he the new face of conservatism?

And now we have Rudy Giuliani. Do you see a pattern here? Where are the true conservatives? Let me ask a question - as we have been moving away from conservatism toward “moderation” have we been winning or losing elections? After landslide victories in 1994 & 1996, we have been losing congressional seats ever since.

I’ve always believed that you get what you settle for. If we settle for mediocre candidates, we’re going to get mediocre candidates. I suggest that we don’t settle for them any longer. Remember Reagan? Where have all the conservatives gone? They need to step up to the plate in these elections. They’ll have my vote!