Dennis Prager - How Did Absolom Earn His Father's Love?

Recently, I have had some physical issues, as well as some computer problems in the past week. When the personal waters have assumed a relative calm, I have intended to resurrect my Blog, if in a somewhat altered direction. But still, I have typically listened to Dennis Prager’s often provocative weekday radio program. Today in his weekly “Ultimate Issues” hour, Prager discussed the idea of forgiveness, specifically questioning as he often does, the idea of “unconditional love” as commended in Christianity. Prager insisted as others have that for Christians God’s forgiveness is in fact earned by the act of accepting Christ and his work on your behalf. Indeed, he is correct in the fact that Christians will often affirm that forgiveness is offered but not delivered in the absence of such a an individual decision.

However, while The New Testament affirms that forgiveness is assured for those who DO voluntarily accept the grace offered in Christ, and both OT and NT assert that sin is called to account, NOWHERE does The New Testament specifically say that anyone who does NOT personally confess Jesus Christ is hopelessly lost. Quickly, let me say what I am NOT suggesting: a) I am not at all discounting Prager’s overall observation that from childrens' competitions to an adult’s earning of a living, our society is ever more inclining to reward something for nothing. I entirely agree and join in his lament. But more importantly, as a Christian, b) I am not denying that Jesus Christ is the unique medium of salvation, which I affirm more emphatically.

Christians most often refer to Jesus own words.

In The King James Version familiar to many:
John 14:5-7 (King James Version)
5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:5-7 (Contemporary English Version)
5Thomas said, "Lord, we don't even know where you are going! How can we know the way?"
6"I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father. 7If you had known me, you would have known the Father. But from now on, you do know him, and you have seen him."

I intensely believe that all who to attain eternity with God, will do so by virtue of Christ’s work, which was not historically incidental but essential and definitive of the restoration of all of creation. Many Christians may regard the posture as unorthodox, but as to identifying individually who those redeemed humans are, that is WAAAAY above my pay grade. It is OK to say that I don’t know. As I once told a friend who asked about a friend who had died, what I do know is that no injustice will befall him. Christians are charged to tell the good news of Jesus Christ to others, but that is not good news only about a life after death: it is good news about life HERE AND NOW. And, the indispensable surrender to God of human beings is not that of their deeds. It is a humility such that might recognize who is sovereign and certainly who is not: human beings. Prager rightly observed that faith in Christ is subsequently evidenced in the fruit of behavior. But, that is service due an acknowledged master, not recompense for Christ’s work, which is literally the height of a futile idea.

It is more than a mere metaphor when scripture refers to God as father. God doesn’t love us for our deeds. God loves us because we are His children, literally his progeny. Years ago, I explained to our children that we will always love them and care for their welfare because they are our children. As most all lessons have Biblical models, I related to them two Bible accounts: 0ne from The New Testament and one from The Old Testament. There is much to be said with respect to Jesus’ claim that He came not to condemn the law, but to fulfill it. The elements and the prefiguring of Jesus pervade historical Judaism in what Christians now call The Old Testament. The graciousness toward the outsider commended by Christianity is in the instruction to the ancient Israelites of how to treat “the alien.” God gave the son of the promise, as Abraham was spared of doing. Jesus himself is the Passover Lamb. These are only among the tall monuments.

The New Testament account I related to my kids was the well-known tale related by Jesus that is called, “The Prodigal Son.” The son leaves the father’s house and ways, pursuing self-indulgent and wasteful living. But, when that way leads to desolation and despair and he realizes that his father’s servants fare better than he is, the son determines to return home. His father sees him approaching and runs out to meet him and “falls on his neck” and kisses him. The son says that he has sinned and does not deserve to be called his son. But, the father says to bring him the best attire and to prepare the fatted calf for a feast, for “my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”

The Old Testament account is if anything more stark: David’s son Absolom not only forsook his father the King, but organized a rebellion and plot to overthrow his father’s kingdom. When amid the execution of that plan, Absolem is killed, David cries out, “Oh Absolom, Absolom, my son, my son! Would God that I had died instead of you!” How is that not unconditional love? And, can’t most parents of even the barest character relate to the horror of loss of even the most craven and/or spiteful child? Look at both of these stories in Luke 15 and II Samuel 15 for anything hinting at the son’s earning of the father’s love. Quite to the contrary in both cases, the entire point of both stories is the son’s lack of merit of the father’s expression. In both cases, it is just that aspect that is the moving and compelling point of the story.

Black Christian Musician Huntley Brown - Why I Can't Vote For Obama

I am working on filling out the top 10 reasons why an Obama presidency would be bad (now that’s a monumental understatement) for America, both individually and collectively. A friend sent me something written by a black Christian musician explaining why he can’t vote for Obama. Obviously, there is some overlap in subject matter. But, not unexpectedly, there are some matters on which I different somewhat from ordinary reflective sentiment. It’s a disposition I have that some might cal a disorder.

I was going to finish what I was writing and post this subsequently. Though I’have enumerated the top 10 reasons, each of which are compelling by themselves, I decided to post this, first. As I said, I differ to some extent in a few places. But probably most will be able to sympathize with the straightforward sentiment more than the elaborate detail of my concerns. I’ll finish it and post it tomorrow or Monday.

Mr. Huntley’s article has been affirmed as genuine on snope.com

Why I Can’t Vote For Obama

This is an article I did not write, but I felt I needed to share. Everyone needs to vote! And everyone needs to be informed. And before you vote, ask yourself how you will feel about your choice when you stand before our Creator. We must ACT, and we must act in FAITH! Trust the Lord to use a good man to do his will. Our God turns the hearts of kings, so certainly, he can take care of a nation submitted to him. Vote God's way even if it doesn't seem to make "sense".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is from Huntley Brown, a Christian concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. This is too good not to share!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why I Can't Vote For Obama

First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.

I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.

We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.

His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.

Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.

The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure

1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?

Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:

1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

Would you support a President who went to a church like that?

Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.

A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?

So what does all this mean for the nation?

In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.

Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'

Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18 'When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'

Here is what we know for sure.

God is not schizophrenic

He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.

Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.

I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.

Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,

1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?

2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?

Blessings,
Huntley Brown

The Polls Are Misleading, Not Dishonest - How Is That?

Oh, a few wild polls from known biased sources are suspect, perhaps sampling and phrasing questions so as to suit their hopes. But, most polls like Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby for instance, are honest. But, they routinely underestimate the Republican showing in national elections. Just in the last one, Kerry was an average of 6 points ahead on the day of the election. He lost. Republicans always strongly out perform what the polls suggest. Why is that?

I was thinking about that, and a question occurred to me: Do pollsters over-sample in cities? City people are more likely to be too occupied to vote. And, rural populations are more likely to be animated by fears generated by national media coverage.

This year, Obama and his enthusiasts in the media have generated extraordinary fervor. And, there is a corollary enthusiasm among conservatives and in rural areas, which has gotten an extra kick from Sarah Palin (a lot of eggheads are dubious, but boy did McCain make the right pick).

My first prediction is that there will be a record turnout on both sides.

My second prediction is that like other Republicans, McCain will outperform what is reflected in the polls. Those red states where Obama leads or trails slightly? They’ll go to McCain. He’ll hold Ohio (if fraud is sorted out), North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. If Obama doesn’t hold Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, he’s in definite trouble, and McCain may show close in any or all of them.

But assuming they both hold all those states, it may come down to Virginia, which has been trending decidedly purple, toward blue. Outside of Alexandria and the other DC suburbs, McCain will win big with a strong turnout. But, that suburban and heavily populated area has been turning strongly blue. Obama needs to generate a big turnout. But remember that in DC and its suburbs, McCain is hardly a stranger and known as a maverick (yes, I know the word has become overused, but that doesn’t change the meaning. Anyway, watch Virginia.

Possible surprises? First, I’ll go with New Mexico, which polls have not even been showing as a tossup, but solid blue. But demographically, it raises some questions. I think most of the so-called “Bradley effect” is accountable not to racism, but to misleading pollsters for the sake of perception. In any case, to whatever extent there is a Bradley effect; New Mexico is well-defined for it. It isn’t a big electoral number, but if the election is close…? But if Virginia is the decider, New Mexico may not make a difference. Secondly for surprises, I’d look at Pennsylvania. The polls have Obama in a comfortable lead and I still give it to him. But, those bitter Western Pennsylvanian clingers to guns and religion and “Joe the Plumber” types might make a statement (Murtha’s racist comment might help too). Pennsylvania may be close, but also most vulnerable among the blue states. And it’s elect, swingorally BIG. Basically, Obama doesn’t win without Pennsylvania.

The last big question is what will develop in disputes and challenges to the vote. This year, it seems exceptionally likely that Democrats will charge voter suppression AND Republicans will charge vote fraud. Maybe we’ll be spared by a decisive verdict. But it looks like it could be very close, and if it is, hold on to your hats. It might make Florida in 2000 look like a tea party.

Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report

I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.

But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.

For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…

One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.

Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.

First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”

I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.

Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.

Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.

But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.

By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!

As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.

Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.

Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.

Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?

On his radio program Thursday, Michael Medved asked people who dislike or hate Mike Huckabee to call and explain why:

Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?

I have been pondering this, for a month. Conservative regulars, people I have read for years, are almost apoplectic about Huckabee. And if he wins in Iowa, based on experience so far, I would predict that the howling will only get worse, probably accompanied by remarks about the foolishness of Iowa voters.

You understand that competitors will disparage him. But, EVERYONE is lining up: Robert Novak, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, John Fund, Rich Lowery, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh… I could go on. In fact, it’s WAY easier to name the noted conservatives who have not disparaged or complained of Huckabee than the ones who have. I wonder as you do…why is this?

Your callers are typical of the rank & file conservatives who have picked up pop-culture stories about him being “soft” on immigration, a taxer and spender. I have studied his record and his thoughts and words all year. These stories just aren’t true. Okay, you tell a lie long enough…etc.

But, what should we think about these writers, who can’t be so clueless and divorced from the facts? Understand first, that I am a lifelong conservative. I was a Republican activist who left the party and voted third-party for a few cycles (I know you hate that. I disagree, but set it aside for now). Novak, Will, Limbaugh, Coulter and others are quite explicit about what is often implied: that Huckabee is NOT a conservative. Honestly, it’s painfully difficult to believe that these sentiments are genuine.

But, NOT a conservative? Compared to WHOM? The Bushes? Bob Dole? Where were these critics with these guys? Dole claimed NO allegiance to the Republican platform. Bush Sr. raised FEDERAL (not state – Huckabee knows and frequently cites the 10th Amendment. Bush Jr. presided over a broader and deeper expansion of even DOMESTIC spending than Clinton had, and WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!

What about Huckabee’s competitors” McCain and Thompson not just voted for, but PROMOTED McCain-Feingold, an audacious defiance of the 1st Amendment. Romney and Giuliani both have defiled the 2nd Amendment. Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo, for Pete’s sake, and doesn’t understand the crucial relationship to American civility of the first assertions of The Declaration of Independence. Romney does…NOW…wait a minute, that isn’t the only thing he’s “changed on, is it? Whatever is driving his postures, it isn’t a well-seated moral and/or philosophical framework.

But, where is all of THAT noise among these “conservatives?” Huckabee would not have done ANY of these things. On campaign finance, he has already proposed what I have always believed: that contributions should be unconstrained, but fully disclosed, now almost immediately on the Internet. George Will hammered on McCain over McCain-Feingold before the 2000 election. But I surely sense that he’s rather see a president McCain than a president Huckabee. What the heck is going on?

Unable to believe that many of these complaints are genuine, I am left to speculate. With some, the animus may simply be reflected in Huckabee’s common statement that, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it” Maybe, these are just disconcerted by a supposed conservative who doesn’t emanate enough anger for them. Maybe they could say, “I’m a conservative, AND I’M AS MAD AS HELL AT A LOT OF PEOPLE! Ann Coulter, for instance, only likes Duncan Hunter. Actually, he isn’t an ugly guy and he’s very serious. But, he has enough appeal to put him around 1% ‘Nuff said.

Big money traders and managers may not like The Fair Tax: every luxury can be written off as a “business expense,” shifting the tax-burden downward. People accustomed to privilege may not be so hot for a system that is “fair,” taxing everything from jets to paper clips. It’s funny to hear these people despair that The Fair Tax is “regressive.” The wealth will maintain their privilege under Democrats. In fact, creeping socialism favors established business and money. It suppresses aspiring business and money. Will the establishment support the social conservative when the “go-along” shoe is on the other foot?

But with some people I think it may be a very visceral discomfort with an unshaded evangelical Christian faith. Sure, sit in your pews and recite your liturgies…even offer your personal prayer. But for God’s sakes, don’t TALK ABOUT IT! Eccch! How gauche! It’s so…well, unsophisticated!

Like I said, these people aren’t stupid, and their actual words lack credibility, in light of the available facts. So, I’m left to speculate.

See This Short Video: What We Need/We Just Need To Do The Right Thing

This video was posted at the campaign blog, today: What We Need

One of the friends that I sent it to responded…” Thank you Larry, I agree completely! I truly hope he wins....I will forward this to friends...”

I answered with these comments about what forces were at work:

Thanks. I honestly think that the battle is in the early states. In Iowa, conservative Christians like Huckabee. In a vacuum, he would win, especially after he has aired some television ads. What’s working against Huckabee is ironically, the people that should be for him. The old guard social conservatives like him, but they are so tuned to the conventional media that they don’t have confidence in the work that Huckabee has done and what he has accomplished in the early states. How much will their neglect persuade people who like Huckabee to not vote for him? Prominent talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt has been declaring that it’s really a two-man race and any social conservative who votes for Huckabee or Thompson is taking a vote from Romney and in effect voting for Giuliani. He even went so far as to say that supporters of McCain and Giuliani are working for Huckabee and Thompson to derail Giuliani.

That’s an interesting thought, but it has crossed over into delusion when he says he thinks that’s what Giuliani and McCain did at the Ames Straw Poll in August to give Huckabee a strong showing. Giuliani and McCain passed on competing in the Ames Straw Poll and snubbed Iowa Republicans, obviously because they knew that they couldn’t win by trying. And, EVERONE knows that that didn’t sit too well with Iowa voters. Huckabee’s success at that straw poll was simple straight-up face-to-face engagement and persuasion.

Voters just need to ignore what they always thought were their “leaders,” which is now an especially inapt word because the “leaders” are really followers. And they aren’t even following their constituents but the faithless winds of the popular culture. People can now do all of their own investigation and should. You can access information in any form on the Internet and weight it and see what you like for yourself.

Anyway, if Huckabee does well in the early states, I’m sure he’ll do just fine in Texas.

Larry

And Christians Call Them "Leaders"

Moses Demanded That Pharaoh “Let my people go.” Gideon took the meager hand he was given into an apparent mismatch against him. Paul followed his calling through beatings and imprisonment and ultimately martyrdom. With “leaders” like ours, is it any wonder the state that the Christian church has left American society in?

Paul Weyrich in his explanation of how he decided to endorse Mitt Romney, said that he thought it would come down to Romney and Giuliani, and he couldn’t endorse Giuliani. Of course, Pat Robertson did endorse Giuliani, explaining that Rudy is a proven leader and had promised to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. What a dupe! Robertson endorses a man who does not understand the most fundamental dogma of America’s founding documents and of a civil society: the sanctity of human life. This he endorses to be the chief executive charged with protecting and defending The Constitution!

I assume Robertson’s parochial and anachronistic sense of politics had written Mike Huckabee off, though Huckabee has only gained all year and is poised to challenge Romney in Iowa, even without a scrap of help from his Christian brethren! Never mind asking where Robertson has left his faith in the unique potential of the truth when bravely carried. Anyway, in discussing the other options, Weyrich said,

"Huckabee, I came close to supporting him, and if we were running for some sort of religious organization, I would support him, but we're not. He has compromised on so many conservative issues, I simply can't be for him. Every time you turn around, he's taking the wrong stand on a different issue."

What wrong stands would that be, that I as a conservative of all prefixes have been unable to discern while watching the campaign extraordinarily closely all year?

In any case, one could hope that James Dobson might ultimately exercise more fidelity and better judgment. But, Phyllis Schlafly has already brandished her susceptibility to hearsay and Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer their ambiguity (obvious years ago, in his case) about the discernment, advocacy and pursuit of virtue. The lesson is that people should use the extraordinary information tools now at their disposal and do some thinking and praying for themselves, rather than relying on these amateur politicos and faithless Christian “leaders.”

STUNNED: Pat Robertson Endorses Rudy Giuliani

My mother went to work with Pat Robertson when he was setting up The 700 Club in Detroit, over 35 years ago. I was already pretty politically observant as a boy. Pat Robertson has obviously taken a posture on political matters in The United States, as I believe is appropriate in a nation where the people are the designated and accountable sovereign. He even declared his own candidacy for President in one cycle. And, many people have relied on him as a source of counsel for Christians who are not so keenly tuned to the process.

The news this morning is that Pat Robertson will endorse Rudolph Giuliani’s candidacy for the nomination of The Republican Party for President of The United States. CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani «

I am most sorry for the Christians in this country who will still rely on Pat Robertson as affirming the legitimacy of a destructive and cowardly decision to cast a vote for Rudy Giuliani in their state’s primary or caucus. I can only assume that such a calculation is made on the basis of who can win the general election and/or the hope of holding some influence in a possible Giuliani administration. I believe that the prior calculation is misguided and false: even setting principle aside, Giuliani does not offer the best prospect of a Republican victory. And, the latter interest of having influence is a forlorn one.

This action is especially misguided when Giuliani’s positions on the issues are least consonant of all the candidates with what Robertson must know is a noble disposition for the nation. And, it is especially so when one of those candidates is one who defines his objectives and actions according to the character of Jesus Christ: Mike Huckabee. I have supported Huckabee all year because he is bound by what is not only proper but vital principle. But even more so because whether I agree with a prescription or not, his model is the character of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps Pat Robertson has buried his head too deeply in the conventional so-called “pragmatism” of American politics to cast his lot with such an ideal. But, whatever the perception, I will trust in the model of Christ’s character in addition to the most fundamental principles of human propriety and American principle, both of which Giuliani plainly misunderstands. I will not support a Republican candidate who cannot decipher the most basic principles of The Republican Party and the founding of The United States Of America. To paraphrase Michael Corleone: “It’s not personal. It’s strictly Christian American business.”

Personally, I long ago assumed the responsibility to respect such principles and make up my own mind. I would at this point say to Pat Robertson: “Thank you for your service, but Christian Americans should now consider your political counsel irrelevant.”