We Were Going There Anyway!! President Obama Took the Shorter Path

I am a conservative and in no way pleased with our nation’s lawlessness and the increasing irrelevance of the Constitution. The President has added to the chaos. This is one of my consistent concerns about his Presidential “unleadership.” He does not lead. He upsets and confuses in a petulant manner. For him there is no honorable opposition. He demeans and diminishes those with sincerely held convictions that are different than his own.

However, he is doing now what we were going to do anyway. We were not going to do major deportation of those we allowed to be in this country illegally. Nor were we going to continue to tolerate the dissonance created by allowing these immigrants into our country but making sure they never became part of America but only cheaper labor made available to other American’s aspirations. For years there was no political will to shut this down until it became too public to ignore.

My hope is that this is the road to full border security and a lesson learned the hard way. Like slavery, when we learned the devastation that comes from an unquenchable desires to have cheap sources of labor, we again sought the same and again reap the dark consequences.

My hope is also that we will reflect more deeply on what it means to be a Constitutional democratic republic. Even as conservatives fire themselves up for pushback and “street guy” is stirred by the phenomenon of rewarding bad behavior, maybe we will flee back to being a nation of laws and quit playing with utopian schemes that demand totalitarian methods. Utopian dreams always lead to totalitarian methods. Democracy is never nourished by ignoring laws passed by the elected representatives of the people. The people will get the message that the game is fixed and their anger will grow.

Let’s lick our wounds and get back to work.

Ben Carson Interviewed by Chris Wallace

I am beginning to find Dr. Carson’s style attractive. At first I thought he was a bit too slow out of the gate, but he is working his way toward the issues in a thoughtful way. I think his prediction of possible anarchy in the USA is credible. The social unrest in our country is immense and the carelessness of our government growing. We are all on a collision course unless there is wisdom. People can feel the incredible anger amongst us, and good people are finding themselves exasperated at levels that surprise them.

Here is the interview.

The email I sent to Sen Scott Brown

With the announcement of your position on DADT, you will lose my vote the next time around. I voted for you the last time with hopes that you would be able to sustain a conservative trajectory. My wide network of friends are outraged, not just in your vote but in your change of commitment from before the last election. While it may seem that this vote is necessary for you to win re-election, I believe that a consistent conservative position will in the longer run create credibility and electability. You apparently have a shorter term view of things based on your own personal political career.

Could it be that Obama did not spend enough money for a fuller recovery?

There are people who think so? Here is Katrina Vanden Heuvel writing so in her article in the Wall Street Journal.  The reason the GOP took back the house is, for her, simply because Obama was intimidated into not making the full investment necessary. Because the top 1% got richer, it wouldn’t be unfair to make them bear the brunt of the economic recovery, she argues. Of course, you could make the case that the 1% got to where they were not in spite of government but because they were smart enough and brave enough to translate governmental policy into personal gain. Now to demonize them and tell they owe it back is changing the rules.

If you haven’t viewed The Commanding Heights, you need to. It is an overview of the battle of economic theories. Several business classes use it where I teach. I think this series answers once and for all whether or not Obama did enough for the economy or did too much.

Evangelicals and the Tea Party

Mark Tooley writes about evangelicals and the Tea Party. It’s worth a read. The fact is that evangelicals are trying to find a political home, and having danced a bit with Jim Wallis are finding that it’s not as comfortable as it thought it would be. The fact is that Wallis wants the power of the state for the church as much as Jerry Falwell was supposed to have wanted it, too. He wants the state to enforce the experience of the early church in Acts 2:44-45.  “And all who believed were together and had all things in common.  And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.”  The historical evangelical distrust of the state, even when it seeks morality in legislation, doesn’t set well with Wallis’ statism. They just can’t dance to that tune for too long.

I think Tooley is right. The current economic and political climate is moving evangelicals at light speed away from its flirtation with being hip and progressive. It might not know where it wants to go but it’s showing signs that Sojourners isn’t it.

The Right, All Along: The Rise, Fall & Future of Conservatism

Conservatism is not just a cultural stance. It is an intellectual movement. Fox is showing the series The Right, All Along: The Rise, Fall & Future of Conservatism. William Buckley is at the center of this movement, and his contribution is well described, particularly his design to rid conservatism of atheistic Anne Randyism and Lindsey/Bush Republicanism. (Don’t get me started on Nixon, Bush Republicanism). Conservatism in Buckley’s sense of the term hasn’t had much of a run at the highest levels of government for all the complaining we hear about conservatism. Perhaps this is the time when it makes another run stripped of the illusion that the Republicans are ipso facto conservative.

Of course, this kind of conservatism is the old liberalism – skepticism of the state with an emphasis on the inherent dignity in the individual person. What we call liberalism today is statism.


Palin in 2012?

I do like Sarah Palin. I wouldn’t anymore want to debate her than Christopher Hitchens, not so much because she matches his IQ but both will drive the knife when they find the jugular. She is a formidable foe and not easily dispensed by dismissive attitude toward the “stupid women” set the democrats so easily deride.

But I do have an issue. Clearly the Palins don’t do normal. There is a narcissistic, “pay attention to me, make sure we are at the center of things, even the children” approach that leads me to intuit some dysfunction that unsettles me. It’s not that the press itself insists on it. It’s more that Sarah Palin insists. The exhibitionism gets a bit embarrassing. I do wonder what is going on there, and in life as normal these are the kind of people I might move to the outer circles around. And in my deepest heart, I am also repelled by a person who uses ideology and politics to not only make a living but enrich themselves beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. If she wants to settle once and forever whether she is in a run for a political office and decides no, then I have no problem with the money gig. Knock your socks off. But when it comes to office holding, that is war and people at war, a real war, shouldn’t be getting rich at it while other loyal soldiers are living the sacrifice.

A similar issue with Newt Gingrich. Serial monogamy man that he is, there is such a sleazy side to his relationship with women that for all his ability to debate and give the knock out punch, I am always wondering what drives the man. I am much more comfortable with a playboy than a serial monogamist. I am much more comfortable with a married man who is a playboy than a serial monogamist. (Yes, I am a pastor. My wife has always said I should rethink that – too late!!!!)

Mitt Romney seems like a reasonable option, but living in Massachusetts like I do and seeing him change his mind onabortion at least three times, and in major ways, and proposing “Romney Care”, I often wonder what Romney won’t do to get along in the political arena. He is centered on economic issues, it seems. But I don’t have a lot of regard even for the kind of business experience he has – righting companies that have gone belly-up. These kinds of business people are like stock brokers and lawyers to me. They are parasitic on other people’s labors, strains and toils. They do the easy work, if work it be called.

So I am out here wondering about who to gravitate toward. It won’t be these three, though I wouldn’t slit my throat if they gained the nomination like I did when John McCain was nominated and when I did when George Bush 1 and George Bush 2 were. I never voted for any of these men. These men were not and showed themselves not to be conservatives in the intelligent meaning of the term.

I have been tempted to vote for nut-job Ralph Nader with whom I practically disagree on anything. I might have voted for him along the way. I forget. The reason? Once he found a sale at an army-navy surplus store on shoes. They were such a good deal he bought enough to last for a lifetime. I ‘ll vote for any man who would do that. I would vote for Eileen Stroud for President, a woman in my congregation who will keep her car bumper patched together with Duck Tape rather than buy a new car. Her car is old enough that a new bumper would total the car.

Jonathan Turley does a good job reviewing the pros and cons of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayo

While I desire someone more conservative than Sotomayor on the Court, my judgment is that her history does not show her to be a raving moonbat. Obama could have chosen one of those. He did not. I do not think the Republicans should fight over this one. They should applaud and move on. Generally the Republicans have been more gracious in court battles than the Democrats who have demonstrated a deep mean streak and willingness not only to defeat the nominee but destroy him or her as well. Sotomayor is a shoo-in on this and the issues are not big enough to raise a ruckus., which you might do with other shoo-ins where the issues are big enough. Republicans should express their differences, congratulate Obama on a reasonable appointment, and express thankfulness that the court looks more like the American people for whose sake they sit on the court. This is not giving up or giving in. All Americans want qualified people on the court. And Americans have a right to be suspicious of a court where those who make judgments seem to come from only one segment of the population.

Read below the thoughts of Jonathan Turley, who reviews the pros and cons in an objective way Continue reading