Veritas Rex

The Next Ronald Reagan? We're not ready yet.

On August 13, 1981, at his beloved ranch home outside of Santa Barbara, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the largest tax cut in American history. The Washington Post, hardly a mouthpiece of the Conservative Movement, called this event, “the greatest demonstration of presidential leadership in modern history.”

Twenty years later, the American taxpayer would get another tax cut, this time signed into law by President George W. Bush. But there was a world of difference between these two pieces of legislation. What was it?
What people often forget is that the Reagan tax cuts were passed through an overwhelming Democratic congress. Tip O'Neil, a throwback politician and then Speaker of the House, resided over a Congress that was controlled by Democrats nearly 2 to 1.

In contrast, the Bush tax cuts were passed with political muscle. The Republicans had the votes and got the legislation through. The problem with this approach, however, is that when you lose the muscle, which you inevitably will in the ebb and flow of American politics, you lose the result that muscle produced.
The Reagan tax cuts were not produced with political muscle, but rather, with a real change in the way the average American thought and felt about economic policy.

And, the Reagan tax cuts were possible because, in a sense, Reaganism preceded Reagan.

Is it even possible to imagine the Reagan tax cuts without Milton Friedman, Robert Bartley, and Art Laffer? Is it possible to imagine Reagan’s posture toward the Soviet Union without the work of Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham. Is it possible to imagine a conservative like Ronald Reagan even rising to the presidency without the reshaping of the American mind by the likes of Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, and William F. Buckley?

It is time to rebuild the dike. It is time to once again grow the bank of conservative thought and to focus less on the outcome of the coming election and more on the way people think and feel about issues of utmost importance--the underlying values that determine the long-term fate of our country and world.

WIth mere political muscle, we may get lucky now and then. We may elect good candidates and pass good legislation, but this strategy can only yield short term results followed by long-term losses. We need to go about making the country more conservative again.

Before we can even think about who the next Ronald Reagan will be, we need to identify, support, and aid the advancement of the next Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and William F. Buckley. This is the only strategy that can yield the long-term results we desire.

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.

There's a new book out, called Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.

From One News Now's review:

Spencer agrees there has been some global warming, but in his book he defends the argument that the warming is due to natural weather cycles.

"Global warming might well just be part of a natural cycle, and that's what I hear from the public a lot," he shares. "They have this intuitive feel that global warming could be part of a natural cycle. The first thing I wanted to do with the book was to support that view with some basic science, saying, 'Hey look, this is how weather basically works. Here's what we know; here's what we don't know -- and you're being misled by the media,'" Spencer points out.

On the flip side, Spencer argues that even if manmade "catastrophic" global warming were true, all the so-called fixes that are touted by Al Gore and the media amount to pandering. "Al Gore's suggestion at the end of his film -- that just buying compact fluorescents, and buying hybrid cars, and turning the light off when you leave the room is going to fix this problem -- is just pandering. And it's going to have no affect on future global temperatures," Spencer contends.

Test of Faith: Spiritual Mentor v. Ambition

Coverage has abounded on the reckless statements of B. Hussein Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright.  However, what I have been waiting for is a conversation about how you throw your pastor of 20 years under the bus the way B. Hussein Obama has done.  Dinesh D'Zousa does a great job in his most recent article of addressing this very issue (give it a read).  Shouldn't the pastor-congregant relationship be one of the most imporant relationships in one's life?  I know it is for me. The argument that B. Hussein Obama did not know the radical views of his pastor is not a plausible argument in my mind.  So, the real option for Obama was:

A.  Remain loyal to my pastor and spiritual mentor and face the consequences.

B.  Throw my pastor and spiritual mentor under the bus in the name of political expediency. 

Obama was faced with a lose/lose situation, but he may have chosen the worse option.  What does it say about a person when they sell out those closest to them in order to pursue their ambition?  Nothing good.  Is D'Zousa right?  Is Wright really the consistent one, while Obama hides in the shadows?  You can dedide for yourself.  Here is an expert from the D'Zousa article:

Now Obama would have us believe that, as far as Wright is concerned, he's had just about enough. But why? What has Wright said that has finally caused his disciple to end their relationship? While Wright has been pontificating a lot lately, he has not given us any new bombshells. But he did suggest that, in his beliefs like the one about the U.S. government and AIDS, Obama agrees with him.

Wright noted that of course Obama is now saying something different; that's because Obama is now running for president. So he has to say something different! Translation: what we see with Obama is not what we get. And Wright is in a position to know. He's nursed Obama intellectually and spiritually over the years. It is Obama himself who has given us this man, and assured us of his integrity and reliability.

The more I examine the two, the more I think that it is Wright who is being consistent and calling it the way he sees it, and Obama who is hiding the part of himself that once embraced this man and maybe still agrees with many of his beliefs but now finds him a political liability. While Obama continues to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk, at this point he is a candidate enveloped in shadows

The myth of evangelical political engagement

There is a great post on The Evangelical Outpost talking about "the myth of evangelical political engagement."

From the post.

Yesterday Phil Johnson, of the aptly named Pyromanics blog, threw gasoline on the flames of the debate about Christian involvement in politics with his provocatively titled post, "How Evangelicals Traded Their Spiritual Authority for a Mess of Political Pottage." Near the conclusion Phil writes:

How did the evangelical movement get so far off track? I wouldn't suggest that evangelicalism's recent obsession with political activism is the only factor, but I do think it's a major one. If the same energies and resources that were poured into failed political efforts had been channeled into evangelism instead, I'm convinced that would have been instrumental in producing more spiritual good and hindering more of society's evils than all our lobbying, demonstrating, and voting combined.

I'm a fan of Phil's work so it's with some reticence that I criticize his argument. But it's worth debating because it contains a commonly held erroneous view. Aside from the false dilemma and the assumption that energy and resources that produced a failure would have been successful had they only been applied elsewhere, Phil's contention fails for the simple reason that his premise is based on a myth.

Contrary to what many secularists claim--and many Christians believe--we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities--lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.--would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

Brain Banishment

When it comes to cultural issues, it's always a little scary to look at Canada and Europe because all-to-often the U.S. follows suit, eventually.  Here is an example of a Christian non-profit group who was ordered by the Canadian government to cease using an employment contract which has staff promise that they will not engage in "homosexual relationships," among other activities contrary to Christian principles.  Moreover, the ruling demands that the organization pay $23,000, plus two years wages and benefits to a woman who signed onto the contract and then entered a homosexual relationship and was subsequently dismissed.  This story is striking in the blatant disregard for justice the "Human Rights Tribunal of Canada" shows in that the employee signed a contract vowing to stick within the moral guidelines of the organization (which she admitted to breaking), the law in question has a religious exemption that should have covered this organization (but didn't) and how this organization's ability to serve vulnerable populations according to it's faith-based mission has been compromised.

As I see different cases like these around the world, there seems to be a set pattern of homosexual activists pushing for "anti-discrimination" ordinances, eventually getting them passed through convincing elected officials that Christian organizations are covered under a religous exemption provision and then eventually attempting to target and gut Christian organizations with these ordinances by forcing them to recognize anti-Christian beliefs.  Indianapolis and several other cities already have similar ordinances.  I wonder how long it will take for homosexual activists in Indy to start attempting to stamp out those Christian organizations who disagree with them.  Politicos talk about Indiana's brain drain all the time.  It's more like brain banishment in places where homosexual activists dictate public policy.  Read the full story and the actual decision.  It's quite stunning.

UMC church upholds traditional marriage

As a follow up on last week's post regarding the UM church.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy
April 30, 2008                                                                              

United Methodists Vote to Uphold Traditional Marriage
“The vote today in affirmation of traditional marriage represents the will of the international United Methodist Church.”

—Executive Director of UMAction Mark Tooley

Ft. Worth, Texas–On Wednesday, April 30 around 5:30 p.m. the United Methodist General Conference delegates voted on what is considered one of the most controversial issues before the world-wide church body. The delegates voted down the committee report that would change The Book of Discipline to explicitly condone homosexual practice. The Minority Report that was passed by a vote of 501-417 affirms not only that marriage is between a man and a woman but that marriage is a “covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.” The conference, United Methodism’s chief rulemaking body, is a denominational gathering that occurs every four years and brings together delegates from around the world.

Mark Tooley, Executive Director of IRD’s UMAction Committee, commented:

“The vote today in affirmation of traditional marriage represents the will of the international United Methodist Church. Those who demand acceptance of homosexual behavior maximized their campaign this year knowing it was their last chance to win in United Methodism.

“The African and other over-seas delegates represented the margin of victory for the current church stance on marriage and sex. This year they comprised almost 30 percent of the total delegates thanks to their church growth and membership decline in the U.S.  The internationals may comprise 40 percent in 2012.

“Africans and other international United Methodists in coalition with Evangelicals in the U.S. are working for a renewed denomination faithful to historic Christian teaching, and culturally transformative instead of culturally accommodating.”

Let's party 'till November

With the groovy sounds of Stevie Wonder still hanging in the air...they've all packed up and gone home.  Goodbye Indiana - thanks for the votes.

Now what?  Of course the Presidential race is still in play, but it is time we turn from the shiny object of the Clinton/Obama fest and really focus on our own state and the candidates that will run in November to lead Indiana and our home communities.  Important policies and decisions on issues that will save our economy, our families and our lives.

But has the bar been raised?  Do I need for a candidate to give me a concert with Dave Matthews, or drink a beer with me and shoot pool at my local watering hole to get my attention?  We've got candidates all over this state whose grandpappys owned a little shack and raised a family against the odds - will they all become story tellers in casual slacks?

I say yes.  The bar has been raised.  I've learned that in my own way I do actually need some sort of 'hook' that I can relate to a candidate with, even if it isn't, well, quite squared up with the issues.  Offering me some tunes with Stevie Wonder says that you know what I like; having a debate at the law school might never hit my radar screen.  Sitting down for coffee and showing family pictures gives me a story about you; I may never get around to reading your resume.  In Northern Indiana a guy running for the state legislature named Wes Culver hosted a "Wes Fest" last Friday -- now that sounds kindof fun. 

Fun stuff gets my attention.  Oh, say, like a big RV that wanders Indiana, or bright green t-shirts everywhere I turn with "notes from the road".  Ok, that's been done, but you get my point.  Times have changed; I want more.

These national folks came in and showed us - however superficially - that this kind of stuff gets our attention.  I found myself complaining about the lack of issues, the lack of substance.  I wanted them all to go home and leave my state alone.  But now I"m wondering what's going to be so fun between now and November?  Will we go back to more traditional means of campaigning (yawwwnnnn....).

Note to Hoosier candidates: I'm ready to party!

Shocker: Conservative wins London Mayor's race

This is encouraging news for Europe.  Boris Johnson, Conservative party candidate for Mayor of London, was victorious on Election Day.

From BBC News:

Mr Johnson's victory crowns the Conservative Party's May Day local election wins in England and Wales.

He said he hoped it showed the party had changed "into a party that can be trusted after 30 years with the greatest, most cosmopolitan, multi-racial generous hearted city on earth".

Mr Livingstone's defeat ended what Gordon Brown called a "bad" day for Labour, in which it suffered its worst council results for 40 years.

Vote!

Today is primary election day!  Get out and vote!

For helpful information on the 2008 Indiana primary election you can visit the Secretary of State's website.  Speaking of Todd Rokita, I had a very interesting conversation with him last week.  Stay tuned for a post on the newly upheld voter ID law and what it will mean for Indiana families.

Bill Maher still has his job

Gary Bauer has an editorial in Human Events this week that is worth discussion.

Compare and contrast:

Example 2: Last year, radio “shock jock” Don Imus made an inappropriate and implicitly racist comment about the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team.

The result: Imus’s three-word remark landed him on the cover of numerous magazines, and he was lambasted by everyone from Al Sharpton to many of the presidential candidates. Imus’s hugely popular radio show was canceled, even after he apologized profusely.   

Example 3: Last week, a few days before Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to America, TV talk show host Bill Maher went on a profanity-laden tirade against the Pope and the Catholic Church. On his HBO Real Time program, Maher claimed that the Pope “used to be a Nazi,” and called the Catholic Church a “child-abusing religious cult” and “the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia.”

The result: (Cue sound of crickets chirping.)

I am not a Catholic, but as a Christian I consider the Pope my brother in Christ.  So I am inclined to get defensive over statements like this. 

Either way, however, I've long been confused by our country's attitude towards some of these issues.  We are more Christian than not Christian.  Yet we are largely inclined to allow folks like Maher to make statements like this while at the same time destroying people like Imus for his statements.  I consider them both equally offensive.  So why the difference?

It could be the media who report on these things.  They tend to generate most of the frenzy around issues like this and also tend to yawn over anti-Christian bigotry.

It could also be some sort of complacency from Christians who don't fee that the Catholic church is harmed much by what Maher says.  I happen to agree that this is true, but I don't think Imus' view about anything is all that important either.

So I'm going to blame the media.

Conservatism meets Hollywood

I was really surprised when I came across this video by rapper Nick Cannon.  A conservative, pro-life....rap video....what?  This is yet another indication that the pro-life message resonates with the current generation of young people.