Texian Weblog

Cicero Nerdum Primum fuit

2008-02-05T01:46:00.000-06:00

I found this neat little diversion while reading Father Hollywood’s blog. You may have heard of it. If you are “tagged,” which I have not been, you are to pick up the closet book, turn to page 123, find the fifth sentence, and post the next three sentences.

As I sit at my computer, I have books all around me. There are bookshelves to my left and my right. The bookshelf on the left contains works of philosophy and theology. On my right is Political Science. I blindly stretched my hands out toward both bookcases with the intention of using the first book I touch, hoping it will be from the philosophy section since the Poli Sci section is admittedly dry. I love Political Science, but let’s face it, you can only take so much of it in a day. Thankfully, the first book I touched was On the Good Life a Penguin Classics collection of some of Cicero’s philosophical works. Page 123 comes from On Duties:

Other schools of philosophy maintain that some things are certain, and others uncertain. We adopt a special view of our own [“we” being Cicero’s school, the Academy]. What we say is that some things are probable, and others improbable.

Cicero is making the point here that the Academy argues that no one can ever be certain of anything because man’s reason and senses are too fallible to achieve any degree of certainty. But, that doesn’t mean the philosophers of the Academy simply throw their hands up and give up, complaining there’s no use to study or debate because certainty can never be achieved. Instead, they have “a special view of [their] own.” Some things are probable, others improbable.

Cicero is correct about the fallibility of reason and the senses. The only thing of which we can be certain is our own ignorance.

Cicero is so cool! In the margins of the editor’s introduction to On the Good Life I have written, “Cicero is not for the weak- or lazy-minded.” Very true. Though, I have no idea where I got that. Sure, that part of the introduction is discussing why modern readers neglect Cicero, but the author never says anything close to “lazy-minded.” It certainly doesn’t sound like something that came from my mind. I have underlined on the same page:

[Cicero’s] treatises are for people who possess mature and independent minds, who have no desire to follow other minds slavishly, and who are compelled, in the course of their daily existences, to grapple with problems which are complex–rarely admitting of a purely intellectual solution–and which call on all the resources of their humanity.

Modern people do not have mature or independent minds. They are, in fact, lazy-minded, which is why reality TV and celebrity worship appeal to them so much. That is, except for us nerds who find ourselves compelled to tackle complex problems.

Perhaps Cicero was the first nerd. After all, he never quite fit into Patrician society (because he was not a Patrician nor even true Roman). He was an intellectual. He loved to read and study. He was a loner, he never had much luck with women, and he was bullied by the jocks of his time (i.e. Sulla, Mark Antony, et cetera). So, Cicero was the first nerd.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

How Bush is Destroying the Republic

2008-02-02T01:03:00.000-06:00

President Bush has recently re-started his practice of including signing statements with legislation. These signing statements are used by the president to inform Congress that he has no intention of enforcing certain provisions of the bill he has just signed because he believes those provisions are unconstitutional. This issue first came to light a few years ago, and since the Democrats have won control of Congress, Bush has relented. But recently he has re-started his aggressive use of these signing statements. Usually these statements are used to sidestep a provision in a bill that the president feels is an unconstitutional encroachment of Congress on the president’s executive power.

However, the signing statements themselves are unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the president with three options regarding legislation: he may sign it, veto it, or allow it to be come law without his signature (see Article I, sec. 7). The Constitution is very clear about what the president should do if he objects to a bill, “he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated.” Sorry Mr. Bush, but it says nothing about including a statement saying you do not intend to execute certain provisions of the law. If you believe the law to be unconstitutional, then veto it and let Congress know that you think it is unconstitutional. That’s the way our Republic works.

We are a nation of laws. Our liberties mean nothing without the law, and if those who are charged with enforcing the law have themselves no regard for the law, then the law means nothing and our liberties mean nothing.

Look, the Bill of Rights is not just the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It is the entire Constitution (see Federalist 84). Every provision of the Constitution is intended to limit the power of government, to ensure that only good laws are enacted, to prevent one person or one group in the government from gaining too much power. This is why we have this cumbersome process of law making. This is why annoying little things like the separation of powers are important.

Bush’s practice of including signing statements, however, throws a monkey wrench in the whole process. He is using them to concentrate power in the executive branch (as if enough power hasn’t been concentrated there already). He is ignoring the separation of powers and declaring himself the arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.

This could be forgiven as an overzealous mistake, if Bush were correct in his judgements. But, he is not. The Boston Globe reports:

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Globe gives Bush’s objections:

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

Now, how is Congress’ attempt to regulate how money is spent out of the federal treasury an unconstitutional imposition on the president’s authority? The power of the purse is held by Congress, according to the Constitution anyway. Article I, sec. 8 (regular readers should be familiar with this part of the Constitution by now) says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” (emphasis is mine, though I imagine the Framers would agree). Too vague? The Constitution also says Congress has the power, “To raise and support Armies,” and, “To provide and maintain a Navy.” The president is indeed the commander in chief of the armed forces, but the Congress decides how to fund them. The provision that Bush declares unconstitutional is actually a perfectly legitimate exercise of Congress’ power under the Constitution.

So, let me get this straight. The president is using an unconstitutional practice to declare constitutional laws unconstitutional. Is your head spinning, too?

Actually, my head is not spinning, but my face is flush with anger. This is the Conservative president we are supposed to love and defend, whom history will judge as one of the greatest presidents in American history? What, I humbly ask, is conservative about how this man has governed? He has given us out of control spending, increased entitlements, incompetent management of the war, warrantless wiretapping, “comprehensive” immigration reform (so comprehensive that it forgot to secure the border), torture, secret prisons, devaluation of our currency, and now this, a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to concentrate power in the executive branch. This is Conservatism?

I think when I go to worship this Sunday, along with my many other sins, I will confess and ask forgiveness for my two votes for Bush (actually, four votes including the primaries).

Now, to what can we look forward in the future. According to the Globe, only one of the four remaining (viable) candidates has sworn off signing statements. Romney? No. Hillary? Obama? No, and no. Only John McCain has said he will not continue the practice. All the others, Obama included, have said they would continue issuing signing statements. So much for “change we can believe in.” Of course, I never could take seriously a candidate whose campaign slogan is grammatically incorrect.

But, back to this point. Only John McCain has said he will not use signing statements. Yet, according to Rush Limbaugh and the other high priests of Conservatism, McCain is not a conservative. So, Bush’s actions are conservative? If Bush is the measure of what it means to be a conservative, and McCain does not meet that standard, then I say good. In fact, why don’t you bring me the most un-conservative bastard you can find. I’ll vote for him.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

I’m Comfortable with McCain as the Nominee

2008-01-31T00:25:00.000-06:00

It appears that Senator John McCain will become the Republican nominee. Perhaps his nomination comes eight years too late, but it is finally happening, and I’m OK with that. Of course, my man is Huckabee. But, he doesn’t seem to have a chance now.

Quite a few people who call themselves Conservatives are upset over the prospect of a McCain nomination. Their first complaint, of course, is that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. He explains that he voted against them because they did not include spending cuts. Now, what’s more conservative than that? Instead of those spending cuts, Bush governed us into huge deficits that are now contributing to the decline of the Dollar which has caused inflation and hurts the middle class. A president McCain would have prevented that kind of deficit spending.

He did push for the immigration reform bill that many Conservatives complain would have given amnesty to illegal immigrants. Of course, Bush, who is praised by those same Conservatives, supported the same bill. That was a bad idea, particularly because the border needs to be secure before we start thinking about reforming immigration. McCain has learned his lesson and he is now saying the same thing.

McCain was calling for an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq long before anyone else. McCain even had to convince the White House a surge was a good idea. Many Conservatives were on the fence regarding the issue, but we now see that the surge has worked. Casualties are down in Iraq, the country is more stable, and the Iraqi government is taking control of its country. The surge has given us a new hope for victory in Iraq, and McCain deserves a great deal of the credit. McCain has done a better job at managing the war than Bush, and it's not even his job! There has been much talk lately about McCain’s accusations that Romney supported a time table for withdraw in Iraq. Since Romney is quite eloquent in his poli-speak, it is hard to tell what he supports, but one thing is clear, he was not fighting for a surge and a plan to victory like John McCain.

Unlike a certain other candidate on the Republican side (ahem), John McCain is a solid social conservative. He was pro-life when pro-life wasn’t cool.

Conservatives also complain that McCain is in favor of a Kyoto-style cap and trade system. I have mentioned here before that cap and trade works. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions without harming industry. It puts market forces to work to solve a global problem that threatens our economy, our standard of living, and our national security. It will stimulate industry to find new solutions to the problem of global warming. The world needs America to step up and face this challenge. Americans can solve this problem by bringing to bear the same kind of innovation and ingenuity that has made us the largest economy in the world. A cap and trade system will encourage American innovation. It will also bring new investment into nuclear power and renewable energy, and it will reduce our reliance on oil which we are currently buying from anti-American governments in unstable regions of the world. The most important thing here is that McCain is one of the few Republicans that realizes global warming is a problem and we must do something about it.

Another criticism of McCain regards his campaign finance reform. I agree that the McCain-Feingold bill was a bad idea. But, at least McCain realizes that the current campaign finance system, which gives a disproportionately large voice to lobbyists and special interests, is broken. Special interests are, by definition, more concerned about their own welfare than the general welfare of the United States. Unfortunately, they are the king-makers in American politics. Politicians at every level rely on them for the money they need to run a campaign, and when they get elected, their first concern is for those who helped them get elected. Special interests pay the piper, and he who pays the piper gets to call the tune.

My biggest problem with McCain is that he does not support fair trade, which I think is one of the biggest issues in this campaign. He does, however, support policies that will help ease the pain caused by globalization, and his other fiscal policies would do a great deal in improving our economy.

But, the most important thing to remember about John McCain: he’s not Romney. If my choice is between an honorable war hero or a slick car salesman, I choose the war hero. McCain is certainly not a perfect candidate (I doubt there is such a thing) but at least you know where he stands. Honor and integrity count a great deal for me and they are an important part to being a great president.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Romney’s Michigan Win

2008-01-17T00:13:00.000-06:00

First of all, I think this Romney win will benefit Huckabee by bringing McCain’s surge to an end. Huck’s only real competition in South Carolina is McCain. If McCain had won Michigan, Huck couldn’t stop him in SC. But, with Romney’s win, Huck has a chance to overtake McCain.

But, here’s what has been bothering me since Tuesday night. It is customary, and just plain courteous, for the winner of an election to allow his vanquished opponents to speak to their supporters before he gives his victory speech. Huck gave Romney that courtesy in Iowa, and McCain gave it to Romney in New Hampshire. But Romney did not extend the same courtesy to McCain on Tuesday night. Just as McCain was starting his speech, Romney started his and all the networks dropped McCain and switched to Romney (since he was the winner).

CNN brought this up a few times that night, but I haven’t heard much else about it. Not that it’s a big deal, but it does give some insight into the type of person Romney is.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Small Government Democracy

2008-01-08T19:02:00.000-06:00

Here's something that has bothered me for some time. I have heard people argue that democracy is not the best government because democracy fails as soon as the people realize that they can vote for themselves anything they want. Democracy ultimately leads to big government. Therefore, democracy must be severly limited. It is true that democracy must be held back to prevent mob tyranny (which is why our system places the rights of the individual above the power of the people), and that democracy does not work without a wise and moral populous. However, this particular argument about the shortcomings of democracy is wrong. The people cannot simply vote for whatever they want because they will have to pay for it. Crunchy Con Rod Dreher touched on this in a post today about Conservative arguments that Huckabee is not a true Conservative. Neither are mainstream Republicans, Dreher argues,

My disgust with Bush and the late, unlamented Republican Congress is not that they spent so much money (though that's part of it). My real disgust is that they spent on credit. If the people want big government, then the politicians are going to give it to them, despite (in the GOP's case) their rhetorical pose against it. But if they're fiscally responsible, then they ought to pay for it, and not hide from the voters the cost of what they demand. If politicians told people that they can have this shiny new program, but they were going to have to give up something else, either in terms of a spending cut or a new tax, to get it, then government would limit itself naturally.

Exactly right. Democracy naturally limits government. The GOP was expanding government without paying for it. The people saw the problem with this and voted the GOP out. It is the Republican establishment, not Huckabee, who have been betraying Conservatism. They have twisted the Conservative principle of fiscal responsibility into a policy of free money. This is their failure, not democracy's. Huckabee, on the other hand, saw as governor of Arkansas that you actually have to pay for government, which is why he raised taxes to pay for better roads and schools (with the people's consent, I might add). At the end of his term, the Arkansas state government had a surplus, which he said should go back to the people in the form of a tax cut. That sounds more like a Conservative to me than Bush or the Republican Congress. Which is why Dreher argues that the attacks of the GOP establishment on Huckabee's record are weak. He doesn't use the word, but I will: they are hypocritical.

I suppose it could be argued that limiting democracy is a sure way to get a larger, more intrusive government. Under a democratic-republic with universal suffrage such as ours, everybody is a part of the governing class and everybody shares the burden of government. If democracy is limited, then it would be possible for the governing class to vote for anything they want and pass the cost on to those outside their class. But, I'm not going to bother with that argument for now. Suffice it to say: a democratic-republic naturally limits government and probably does it better than any other system.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Huck and the Christian Democrats

2008-01-08T00:58:00.000-06:00

I don’t think I have ever mentioned this here before, but I’m somewhat of a Germanophile. I have certainly mentioned before that I’m a Huckaphile. One of the reasons I like Mike is that he is the closet candidate we have here to a German Christian Democrat. For those who are unaware, the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union) is a center-right party in Germany. They are socially conservative and advocate an economic philosophy called the Social Market Economy (Soziale Marktwirtshaft) which supports the capitalist system, but uses the government to fix problems created by capitalism (such as wealth inequality, pollution, et cetera).

I have believed for some time that this is the type of party Americans are looking for: a party that is socially conservative and fiscally centrist. Our only two choices are the Dems who are socially and fiscally liberal, and the GOP which is socially and fiscally conservative. The reason elections have been so close over the past eight years is that Americans only agree with either party about half the time. They agree slightly more with the Republicans, and the Republicans are on the right side of the most important social issues, so elections usually break in favor of the GOP. But a party that is socially conservative and fiscally centrist would be tapping into the desires of a large majority of Americans and can expect Reagan-like numbers.

The fact that Huckabee is an American Christian Democrat has been noticed by others, as well. For example, Henry Olsen explains this in The Wall Street Journal. He writes:

Mike Huckabee's stunning victory in Thursday's Iowa caucuses does more than change the GOP nomination race. With a platform explicitly grounded in his Christian faith and a populist economic message, Mr. Huckabee offers the Republican Party a new political narrative, light years removed from the limited government principles governing the GOP in the Reagan and post-Reagan era.
This pro-faith, pro-government message may sound strange to American ears -- but it is a staple of conservative political parties on the European continent. Mr. Huckabee, in other words, essentially gives Republicans a choice: Does the GOP want to become a Christian Democratic party?

I’d say yes, but Olsen follows this question with an argument against Christian Democracy writing,

Every country which has been primarily governed by Christian Democrats since World War II (Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands) is poorer than the United States, with substantially higher unemployment rates and slower economic growth. The differences aren't even close.

This surprised me. After all, the Christian Democrats oversaw the German Economic Wonder of the mid-20th century. Using the Social Market philosophy, Konrad Adenauer and the CDU were able to bring Germany up from the ashes and rubble of World War II to create one of the biggest and strongest economies in the world.

Tremendous growth, however, is not the primary goal of the Christian Democrats. They prefer a slow, stable economy with low unemployment and more equally distributed incomes.

Olsen backs up his argument with stats showing that CD countries do indeed have higher unemployment and slower growth. I can’t speak for all the nations in Olsen’s list, but for Germany, these numbers are more than likely outdated. It is true that Germany has experienced some hard times over the past decade, mostly due to the cost of reunification. However, according to the German news agency Deutsche Welle, the total number of unemployed Germans has dropped from around 5 million to 3.278 million in the two years since Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Christian Democrats regained power from the left wing Social Democrats. That’s a 34% decrease in two years, and it’s the lowest unemployment number in 15 years. Deutsche Welle also reports that,

A survey of top managers and executives from six EU nations has found that Germany tops the list of most competitive economies in Europe. Internationally, the country takes second place -- behind China.

Further, according to the CIA World Factbook, Germany’s estimated GDP growth in 2006 was 2.8%, the United States was at 2.9%. Not much of a difference there. Also, Germany’s economy is the third largest in the world (behind the US and Japan). Germany is also the world’s largest exporter. Americans, concerned about a huge trade deficit and a dwindling manufacturing sector, may look with envy at that number. Obviously, Germany is not as bad off as Olsen claims.

Merkel and the CDU have achieved this turn around by introducing economic reforms that we in America would consider Reagan-esque. The similarity doesn’t end there. Merkel has had to turn around an economy that was experiencing the same kind of malaise as the U.S. economy in the 1970's. When all is said and done, we may look back and see Merkel as a German Reagan.

Olsen has tried to cast Christian Democracy as Liberal. The reality is that it is quite conservative and pro-market, but Christian Democrats don’t believe that the free market system is infallible. Nothing in this world is infallible.

Reagan won by arguing against the forces that threatened the middle class. At the time, the problem was a burdensome government. Reagan fixed the problem by making government smaller and lowering taxes. Today, governmental policies such as lopsided trade agreements (or the lack of a policy, such as in the case of immigration) are harming the middle class. Huckabee seeks to fix these problems by insisting on fair trade and securing the borders.

Much has been said about Huckabee’s tax hikes in Arkansas. The truth is, Huckabee inherited a state with a horrible road system and failing schools. These problems take money to fix. Conservatism is not just about tax cuts, it’s about responsible government. There are quite a few Republicans in Congress who feel they can spend all the money they want and still call themselves Conservative because they voted for a tax cut. Huckabee is not that kind of Republican. That’s why he should be the GOP nominee.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

True Conservatism

2008-01-05T01:42:00.000-06:00

As you already know, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucuses. This, of course, will cause the Republican Establishment to complain even louder than before that Huck is not a true Conservative.

I want to say a few things about this “true Conservatism.” Where is it? Are we to assume that Conservatism is practiced most purely by the Republicans in Congress? If that’s the case, then I’m glad Huck is not a “true Conservative.”

The Conservative message has been hijacked by the Washington Republican Elite and twisted to favor their constituency: corporate CEO’s. Conservatism as Ronald Reagan preached it is about the little guy. It is about protecting the middle class from harmful government policies. Conservatism is not about pandering to the corporations, special interests, and foreign lobbyists. It isn’t about pork-barrel spending. It isn’t about destroying our manufacturing with reckless, lopsided trade agreements. It isn’t about faith based economics. And it certainly isn’t about incompetent administration officials or corrupt congressmen.

When Reagan ran for president, the middle class was threatened by an over-intrusive government. Today, the middle class is threatened by a corporate owned and operated government (the Washington-Wall Street Axis). Ronald Reagan sought to change the policies that were harming the middle class, and the Republican Establishment hated him for it. Mike Huckabee is trying to do the same thing, and the Republican Establishment hates him for it, too.

The problem here is that the Republican Party is too closely linked with corporate greed. The solution to this problem is not found in the nomination of an ex-corporate CEO. It is time for someone new, who will lead the party back to supporting the middle class over corporate interests.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Huck the Anti-politico

2007-12-18T23:33:00.000-06:00

The above is Mike Huckabee’s newest campaign video. And what a brilliant move it is. It is simple, sincere, and it rises above the fray. Instead of saying “vote for me and don’t vote for the other guy,” Huck simply says, “Let’s put politics aside for a moment. Merry Christmas.” For someone like me, who is spending this Christmas rebelling against consumerism and commercialism, this ad is refreshing. I’m sure many other voters will think the same thing, and not just evangelical voters.

The beauty of this ad is that it cannot be attacked. Well, some people still find fault with it. The AP reports,

Catholic League president Bill Donahue said Huckabee went beyond wishing people a joyous holiday. Donahue said he was especially disturbed by the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background of the ad, saying he believed it was a subliminal message.

I’m not sure why a Catholic would be concerned about the appearance of a cross. An apparition of Mary never seems to bother them. Anyway, here’s Huck’s response to the accusation that there are subliminal (or as Bush would say, subliminable) messages in the ad:

Huckabee said the bookshelf is just a bookshelf and shrugged off the controversy: "I will confess this: If you play the spot backwards it says, 'Paul is dead. Paul is dead.'"

Ha! Is there any wonder why I love this guy?

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Religion, Liberty, and Krauthammer

2007-12-18T01:29:00.000-06:00

I’m a few days late on commenting on this. So sue me. Can’t a man take a weekend off?

In last week’s column, Charles Krauthammer, known affectionately here as the Master, criticized the claim that Mitt Romney made in his recent religion speech that freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom.

But this is nonsense -- as Romney then proceeded to demonstrate in that very same speech. He spoke of the empty cathedrals in Europe. He's right about that: Postwar Europe has experienced the most precipitous decline in religious belief in the history of the West. Yet Europe is one of the freest precincts on the planet. It is an open, vibrant, tolerant community of more than two dozen disparate nations living in a pan-continental harmony and freedom unseen in all previous European history.
In some times and places, religion promotes freedom. In other times and places, it does precisely the opposite, as is demonstrated in huge swaths of the Muslim world, where religion has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.

I wanted to make a few quick comments on this.

First, Europe is free, but even some Europeans bemoan the fact that European democracy is not nearly as liberal as American democracy. Simon Jenkins writes,

Americans are people of the book, treating their constitutions, precedents and treatises as of quasi-sacred import. The linguistic beauty and clarity of meaning of their early documents is unsurpassed.
An American election is more than a periodic shifting of oligarchic chairs. It is a mass assertion of the people’s right to choose and dismiss their head of state. It is the closest any big country gets to James Madison’s “pure democracy”, regularly purging the accumulated toxins of the political blood. Europe has nothing to match it.

The reader may like to read Lincoln’s address to the Young Men’s Lyceum for more about our political religion.

Jenkins further argues that the new European constitution would never be signed by an American president without the input of the people. European leaders, however, saw no problem with signing the document without first consulting the people who must live under this document.

Perhaps Americans’ tendency to hold certain things such as God, the Bible, and marriage sacred also encourages them to hold liberty and the Constitution sacred.

There is a more basic problem that threatens European liberty today: a declining population. Rampant Secularism in Europe has encouraged Europeans to seek first the Kingdom of Mammon. Children tend to get in the way of selfish and materialistic pursuits. Accordingly, European families are smaller than American families. Religion in America encourages and strengthens the family. True, there are Americans who place wealth and career above all things, but the majority of Americans place family second only to God. Despite the image many people around the world have of Americans, the average American sees his career as a means to an end, not an end itself. Most Americans only want to earn enough money to be able to support themselves and their families. This is true of Americans from many different creeds. As Europeans selfishly destroy their civilization and their liberty, America will continue to grow.

Europe is not as vibrant as Krauthammer claims. The lack of religion in Europe has much to do with that. Romney was right, freedom does require religion.

But why do we hold liberty to be sacred and beyond the reach of government? We believe that our rights come from God, not government, not society, not nature, not ourselves. The rights of man transcend all the powers of government because they come from a Power that transcends all things. Our sacred documents, our charters of freedom, declare this in majestic prose, “all men are created equal,” and, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” Our Founders declared that they are undertaking the dangerous task of creating a new nation founded upon Liberty “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” Maggie Gallagher argues,

The reason God is on our coins and in our Pledge is not that He is practically necessary to democratic liberty, but rather that He is the philosophical foundation of it. Our rights come from a sphere outside the reach of the state. Government may or may not recognize our rights, but it can never repeal them.

Now to Krauthammer’s second point, that religion in the Middle East “has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.” It is true that religion is used in the Middle East to support oppressive governments. But, let us not forget the other side to Romney’s statement, that religion requires freedom. Religion in the Middle East has become corrupted by a lack of freedom.

It is no coincidence that religion, whether it is Islam, Christianity, or even Secularism, quickly becomes the tool of the state when there is no religious freedom. Introduce religious freedom into the system and religion soon becomes a force in opposition to oppression. Even Krauthammer agrees that religion has helped make society better:

Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation.

But such good work on the part of religion comes only when the religious are free to assert their faith as opposed to having it dictated to them by the state. In states such as those in the Middle East, religion ceases to be religion and instead is simply a tool used by the state to control the populace. If Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the others allowed free exercise of religion (or if the people learn to assert it themselves), we would see a powerful force rise up to oppose the radical terrorists and the oppressors. The problem in the Middle East is not too much religion, but not enough religion.

In Europe we see liberty dying alone without religion. In the Middle East we see religion dying alone without liberty. Romney was right: freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom. They either stand together or they die alone.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

U.S. Blocking Climate Conference

2007-12-13T10:50:00.000-06:00

While trying not to appear as if it is blocking progress at the UN climate change conference in Bali, our government nevertheless has refused to agree to mandatory greenhouse gas reduction goals. Our government would rather like to hammer out a voluntary agreement at a U.S. hosted conference next month. Citing what they perceive to be a refusal on the part of the U.S. to negotiate an agreement in good faith, European Union leaders, led by Germany, have threatened to boycott the U.S. conference if the Bali conference ends in failure.

It is just sad that our government has refused to work with our allies and the global community to find a solution to this problem. Our government has previously refused to sign the Kyoto agreement because it did not include developing nations who are also large producers of greenhouse gasses such as India and China. That was understandable. But, now there is an opportunity to work on a new agreement that would replace Kyoto, and our government still refuses to cooperate.

As I have said before, climate change is a moral issue. We are required by divine law to be good stewards of the blessings and resources that God has given us (Gen 2:15). Further, we are required by divine law to protect the weak and poor among us (Matt 5:42, Matt 7:12, Phil 2:4, Heb 13:16, 1John 3:17), and they will be most affected by climate change. Without getting too deep into a theological discussion here, I would like to say that it could be argued that our reliance on technology instead of God is a sin (Psalm 118:8). The consequence of that sin is pollution which, like all sins, leads to death. I pray that our leaders will see this and try to do more to combat this problem.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Is Romney a Little Thin Skinned about his Mormonism?

2007-12-12T21:38:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney complained today that Mike Huckabee attacked his religion, calling the act, “going too far. It's just not the American way.”

When I first heard this, I was a little confused. Attacking Romney’s religion doesn’t sound like Huck at all. What did he say? The quote comes from a New York Times article. Here’s the offending part:

Chapter 3 [of the Book of Proverbs, which Huckabee is currently reading] also contains the admonition to ‘‘keep sound wisdom and discretion.’’ Huckabee is, indeed, a discreet fellow, but he has no trouble making his feelings known. He mentioned how much he respected his fellow candidates John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani. The name of his principal rival in Iowa, Mitt Romney, went unmentioned. Romney, a Mormon, had promised that he would be addressing the subject of his religion a few days later. I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’

If Huck is guilty of anything, it’s being uninformed about Mormonism. But, that’s something of which most Americans are guilty (probably because the LDS church is not very clear about its doctrine, as we’ve discussed here before). The NY Times reports that Huckabee apologized to Romney after today’s debate and included a transcript of Huckabee’s explaination of the quote to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer,

We were having a conversation. It was over several hours, and the conversation was about religion, and he [the NYT reporter] was trying to press me on my thoughts of Mitt Romney’s religion. And I said I don’t want to go there. I don’t know that much about it. I barely know enough about being a Baptist. And I really didn’t know. Well, he was telling me things about the Mormon faith, because he frankly is fairly well-schooled on comparative religions. And so as a part of that conversation, I asked the question, because I had heard that, and I asked it not to create something — I never thought it would make the story.

So, perhaps Huck is also guilty of a little naivete, trusting that a reporter from the New York Times isn’t going to take a Republican’s quote out of context.

Romney should understand this, too. After all, when CNN showed a question from a kid with the Confederate Flag hanging on his wall at the CNN/YouTube debate, Romney correctly judged this as an attempt by CNN producers to brand Republicans as racists and refused to answer the question. So, he shouldn’t be so quick to take offense at something he reads one of his rivals say in the New York Times, or anywhere else in the Mainstream Media for that matter. When asked about the quote, Romney’s response shouldn’t have been focused on Huckabee, complaining that Huck was attacking his faith. He should have instead said something like this, “I know Governor Huckabee, and this doesn’t sound like something he would say. I suspect there might be a little bias involved here, so I’m going to withhold comment until I hear from Governor Huckabee.” That would have won big points with Iowa Republicans for Romney. Romney missed out on a good chance to regain his footing in this campaign.

The NY Times also quotes the LDS’ explanation of this “Jesus and Satan are brothers” belief,

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)

Actually, Col 1:15 says, “[Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” It doesn’t say anything about Christ and Satan being brothers. And I have no idea what the “D&C” reference is. It certainly doesn’t come from the Bible.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

The Bigotry of Austin Cline

2007-12-11T21:40:00.000-06:00

Hey, I can make cute pictures on my computer, too!

Yeah, I know. The cut and paste job is awful, but that's the point. Cline’s little posters are so bigoted they don’t deserve a serious response.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

AP Tries to Scare Voters With Old Huck Quotes

2007-12-11T18:20:00.000-06:00

I suppose that the AP thought this story about comments made by Huck in 1992 would turn many voters off. Frankly, it makes me more likely to vote for him. Take a look at this quote about women in the military:

women should be treated with respect and dignity and not subject to the kinds of abuses that could occur in combat.

Pretty good. The only problem is the comment about forcing AIDS patients into quarantine. But, when you consider the confusion there was in 1992 about AIDS and how it is transmitted, this comment seems quite reasonable. After all, we do the same thing today for patients with highly infectious diseases.

You know, Huckabee was also grossly overweight back then, too. Why not mention that if you're going to dig up old stuff?

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Romney’s Faith Speech

2007-12-07T01:29:00.000-06:00

Ok, I’ll chime in with the rest of America on this speech.

My first thought on the speech has nothing to do with the speech itself, but with CNN’s broadcast of the speech. Just a few minutes in, CNN covered half the screen with a graphic intended to inform viewers about Mormonism. I guess they assumed that Romney wasn’t going to do the job himself. The graphic was very distracting and quite unfair to Romney. I’m not sure if the decision was made because CNN is biased, or because they, like all the other 24 hour news networks, like to bombard their viewers with excessive information, taking it past the point of diminishing returns. Considering the fact that the recent CNN/YouTube debate proved that they think Conservative voters are interested only in guns and Confederate flags, I tend to think the decision was based on CNN’s bias, with maybe a dash of info-bombing. (In case you missed it, CNN included a question from a gun-wielding militiaman who wanted to know exactly how many and what kinds of guns the candidates had. I was astonished. 5,000 questions were submitted, and this is what they chose? This is what they think Conservatives want to know?)

Second, deciding not to vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon is not violating the Constitution’s ban on religious tests. The Constitution forbids the government from imposing religious tests, but the voters can, and usually do, consider a candidate’s religion when deciding whether or not to vote for him. Think about it. Would you want a radical Islamist as president? What about a Scientologist? Sure, a person’s faith is between him and God, but if he’s a candidate for president and his faith is too far out in left field, then it raises some serious questions about his judgement. And, if his church is secretive and taciturn regarding its doctrine, then that should cause you to think twice about voting for him.

Now to the speech itself. There really wasn’t anything new here. Romney made some excellent points about the role of faith in society and politics, but those points have already been made before, including in this very weblog. But it never hurts to bring them up again. Romney eloquently defended the belief that religion and liberty go hand in hand,

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

He also pointed to the danger of government-sponsored religion,

I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired . so grand . so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

However, Romney only gave partial answers to the questions people have about his church. Christian voters are concerned about Romney’s relationship with Jesus Christ. Many have heard that Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God, and they want to know if this is true. Romney’s answer:

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

Here, we received only a partial answer. Romney appears to answer the question, but he really doesn’t. The question is: does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the Trinity? Why dance around the issue? Certainly you must have good reasons to believe what you do. Let’s hear those reasons. Even the LDS’s own website isn’t clear about this. It isn’t Romney’s faith that gives me qualms about voting for him, it’s his reluctance to be open and clear about it.

The next thing that really stuck out in my mind was this part:

Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

I thought it was quite odd for Romney to say this since he has received quite a bit of criticism over converting to the pro-life side right around the time he started thinking about running for president. Funny how he was pro-choice while running in Massachusetts, but now that he is seeking the Republican nomination he’s pro-life.

All in all it just seems to me that Romney is too slick, too polished, and he isn’t as strong on the two most important issues in this campaign, immigration and fair trade, as I would like for him to be. There are two wings to the Republican party, the Christian wing and the corporate wing. Romney appears to me to be in the corporate wing. That doesn’t earn him any points with me.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Venezuela Election

2007-12-02T20:23:00.000-06:00

The Venezuelan election is too close to call right now. As you may know, the Venezuelan people are deciding on a series of constitutional reforms which would eliminate presidential term limits and allow Chavez to consolidate power.

Chavez has already warned that if the United States try to interfere with the election, he would stop oil exports. It wouldn’t surprise me that if Chavez loses this election, he will blame the United States.

But I doubt Chavez will lose. It’s much more likely that Chavez will fudge the results of a close election and declare himself the winner. That’s how Socialist dictators operate. That’s how all dictators operate.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Novak on Huckabee

2007-11-27T00:37:00.000-06:00

So, I’m finally getting back to blogging. We’ll see how long this lasts.

In case you missed it, Robert Novak criticized Mike Huckabee Monday for calling the Club for Growth the “Club for Greed.” Novak apparently believes this is not the proper behavior of a Conservative. “That,” writes Novak, “sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all Democrats preaching the class struggle.” Novak calls Huckabee’s playful little twist of the Club’s name an ad hominem attack. Actually, Huckabee’s attack was directed at a group, so shouldn’t it be an ad homines attack? Plural: “to the men” as opposed to “to the man.”

Of course, to the extent that the Club for Growth favors policies that enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, I’m inclined to agree with Huckabee. That’s not preaching class struggle, that’s just the plain truth. But saying that will get you branded as a “false conservative.”

Well, that’s not the only reason Novak calls Huckabee a false conservative. Novak also has a problem with Huckabee’s fair trade ideas. He’s misleading, according to Novak. Novak writes, “Huckabee is campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.”

Wow! That’s quite a bit to pack into one sentence.

True, Huckabee is a protectionist. But, what’s so wrong with that? What’s so wrong with refusing to send our money to support the Communists in China? What’s so wrong with ridding our market of dangerous, Chinese-made products? What’s so wrong with investing our wealth in our own industry? What’s so wrong with helping the economy create good-paying manufacturing jobs for the average American? I know people are going to say that if we eliminate these cheap imports from our market, it will only hurt the middle class, the people we are trying to help, because everything will be more expensive. It is true that products will become more expensive, but you have to look at the flip side. If high-paying manufacturing jobs stay here in America instead of being exported overseas, then the middle class (and the lower class for that matter) will benefit and they will be able to afford these more expensive products.

Huckabee doesn’t want to end trade with China altogether. He wants to make sure that American and Chinese industry are competing on a level playing field. Right now, Chinese industry has an unfair advantage, from protective tariffs the Chinese government places on our products, to the subsidization it provides to Chinese industry, to the lack of safety controls it imposes.

Right now, the Chinese government imposes exorbitant tariffs on our products. Then it turns around and gives that money to its own industry. And then it sells us toys with lead paint in them! How is this helping the American people? If that’s what it means to “fit in normal boundaries of economic conservatism,” then count me out. I’d gladly take on the title of protectionist, or better yet, Populist.

Ah, Populism. Having Huckabee around reminds one of the heady days of William Jennings Bryan.

Novak also criticizes Huck for calling global warming a “moral issue.” I guess Novak needs to read his Bible. We are expected to be good stewards of the world God has created for us, and we are expected to help our fellow man. Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is not being a good steward, and since climate change will hit the poor and weak among us hardest, the very people Christ commanded us to protect, global warming is a moral issue.

Novak also says that Huck supports the cap and trade system, which Novak calls an “anathema to the free market.” Cap and trade, which creates an economic incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is an essential part of the Kyoto Protocol. With that system, Deutsche Welle reports that Germany will meet it’s Kyoto goals. Apparently, the cap and trade system works. By the way, according to the CIA World Factbook, Germany is the world’s largest exporter, beating out the United States by $108 billion per year. So, it seems the cap and trade system hasn’t been all that bad for German industry. It remains very productive.

Novak also calls Huck, “a compulsive tax increaser and spender.” That’s better than mainstream Republicans who just spend compulsively. At least Huck governs responsibly. I’m no economist, but I figure if the Republicans hadn’t spent the last six years running up the national debt the Dollar wouldn’t be so weak today. Unfortunately, mainstream Republicans believe they can spend all the money they want and still call themselves conservatives because they don’t raise taxes. Huck knows better.

And that brings me to another point. Novak attacks Huck for attacking the president’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. I’m not sure what problem Huck had with the veto, but here’s mine. The Republican Congress had been sending spending bills loaded down with pork to the president for six years. Bush never vetoed any of those, which is why the Republicans were voted out. Bush never bothered to show Congressional Republicans that there are consequences to uncontrolled spending, so the American people had to teach that lesson. Now the Dems come along, and they come up with this SCHIP bill which Bush promptly vetoes. Let me get this straight, all that pork was never vetoed, but a bill intended to help children does get vetoed? Who’s running this show? Perhaps it was a bad bill, but this is where you choose to make your stand? For pork, but against kids?

Another example: recently, the Democrats in Congress passed a bill which would protect middle class workers from the Alternative Minimum Tax. Republicans voted against it, and Bush threatened to veto it because the bill also included a tax increase on wealthy investment fund managers. With the two parties deadlocked, it appears that the bill won’t get far. If the AMT ends up stinging middle class families, it will be because the GOP sided with the wealthy once more.

Finally, Novak says, “When [Huckabee] decided to lose 100 pounds and pressed his new lifestyle on the American people, he was far from a Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.” Would you like to talk some more about ad hominem attacks? Look, Huck didn’t “decide” to lose weight. He had to. He was dying. And, as an overweight person, I haven’t felt like Huck has pressed his new lifestyle on me. Have you? Also, being far away from libertarianism is a good thing in my book.

The reason Novak and the other mainstream Republicans are worried about Huckabee’s surge in the polls is because their worst nightmare is coming true. Listen to Novak’s own words: “The rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own” (emphasis mine).

So, as long as Christians march in lock step with the party, the GOP is happy to have our votes. As soon as we realize that we are being taken advantage of, we become “dangerous.” It seems Novak believes the GOP has been playing with fire these past 20 years, and now they are being burned.

Novak is right, though. Evangelicals finally have our own candidate, and he doesn’t buy into the faith-based economics espoused by Bush, Novak, Limbaugh, and all the other “conventional” conservatives. For years now, these Republicans have been telling us, “if you give enough breaks to the rich, and you close your eyes REAL TIGHT . . . everything will work out for the middle class, too.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t quite work that way. You have to actually help the middle class. Huckabee understands this, which is why the mainstream Republicans fear him.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Question:

2007-10-01T10:36:00.000-05:00

Why would you want a see-through frog, anyway?

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

The Blog is Dead . . . Long live the Blog

2007-09-29T11:10:00.000-05:00

Christianity Today has posted an article explaining that the blogging phenomenon has peaked. There are not enough new bloggers to replace the bloggers who are stepping away from their blogs. Why are so many people leaving? According to CT, while many Christian blogs are quite good,

What tired bloggers are increasingly discovering, however, is that it's not necessarily the quality of their blog posts that matter. It's matching their quality with frequency.

And I think that’s absolutely true. As a tired blogger myself, I find it very rewarding to do a good quality post, but unless I’m posting at least twice a day no one is going to read it. That defeats the purpose. I might as well just yell my opinions out to myself while driving in my car, which is what I was doing before blogging (OK, I still do it).

This constant demand for updates forces bloggers to lower the quality of their work. CT quotes Alan Jacobs on the sorry state of the blogosphere, “Right now, and for the foreseeable future, the blogosphere is the friend of information but the enemy of thought.” I think that is exactly right.

Thinking actually takes time. A typical post for me, which involves research, writing, and tagging might take up to an hour or more. Sometimes the research is just that involved. Most times I’ll end up rewriting a post several times just to make sure I’m getting my point across and I’m not saying anything I didn’t mean to say. Once the post is out there, someone might misinterpret what I’m saying, and then I have a pointless debate on my hands (I like debates, but let’s be clear, there are people out there who spend more time commenting on other people’s blogs than they spend writing for their own blogs).

Take, for example, the “recent” post, Evangelical Entrepreneurship. I spent the better part of a Saturday afternoon trying to make sure I worded the post correctly. I even had to take a break for dinner! The subject matter was just that difficult, for me anyway. Obviously, I can’t spend every afternoon just writing for my blog. I have a job. I have a life.

A good post is like a Thanksgiving dinner, it takes longer to cook than it takes to eat. Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down after that. After dinner, you are no longer hungry. But after reading a good post, you want more and more. That just puts more pressure on the blogger and either quality suffers, or the blogger just gives up.

The blogosphere could be so much more, if only we rewarded quality instead of quantity.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

UN Inspectors find Iraqi chemical weapons

2007-08-31T01:58:00.000-05:00

The AP reports that UN weapons inspectors discovered Iraqi chemical weapons on Wednesday. Unfortunately, the discovery was not made in Iraq, but at the UN’s offices in New York.

I just find this funny. These are the same people who said Saddam Hussein was not hiding any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After all, they looked for them. They looked high and low. They checked under every rock, and they never found any WMD in Iraq. And yet chemical weapons were hiding in their own offices and for 11 years they couldn’t find them either.

Sometimes, I just don’t know . . . .

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Evangelical Entrepreneurship

2007-07-21T20:33:00.000-05:00

Last week, the United States Senate invited, for the first time, a Hindu chaplain to deliver the traditional opening prayer. Unfortunately, the prayer was interrupted several times by protesters in the gallery who shouted over the chaplain, calling his presence an “abomination.” I’m sad to say that these protesters were Christians who, through their actions, have brought the Gospel down to the level of ACT UP and other militant organizations who choose to advance their ideas through shouting and disruptions rather than through calm debate and prayer (as a Christian should).

I understand the protestors’ concerns, but I disagree with their methods and with their opinion that only a Christian prayer should be given in the Senate. As Christians, we should not expect government to cater to our faith. We should maintain a distinction between the church and the state. Holy Scripture, and American political theory forbid the establishment of a state religion. Those Christians who demand that only Christian prayer be heard in the Senate Chamber violate both the Word and republican principles. They are no different than the atheists who insist on a secular government. Both want a state that is intolerant of any religion or philosophy other than their own.

John Nichols points out that the Framers expected a country and a government that were open to all religions. Their understanding of religious freedom extended to all faiths, not just Christian denominations. And that is as it should be.

The state should not tell the church how, where, or who to worship, and the church should not tell the state how to govern. Both institutions have their separate duties defined by God. The state has the power of the sword, and the church has the power of the Gospel. In America, however, there is a wrinkle in this strict separation. The American government is a democracy. While the church as an institution does not have a right to tell the state how to govern or to use the state’s power to advance its interests, the people who make up the church certainly do have that right. Therefore, despite arguments to the contrary, it is appropriate for the state to pass laws that have only religiously derived moral justifications (such as laws forbidding gay marriage) because the people decide what laws the government should pass. The state has no right to decide that certain laws are invalid because they have only religious justifications.

In an opinion piece for USA Today, Stephen Mansfield argues that “our Founding Fathers did in fact make a covenant with us. That covenant guaranteed us that Congress would make no state church but that religion could be free to shape our national life with its ethical and ennobling content.” This idea, Mansfield argues, has become corrupted by Court decisions limiting religion in the public square. That is not at all what the Framers intended. A moral citizenry is essential for a good democratic government and the church is the most effective means of ensuring a moral citizenry. That is the proper role of the church in politics.

This plan benefits both the state and the church. Consider Europe, where for centuries national churches have enjoyed the protection and promotion of the state. What has resulted from this state sponsorship? According to Andrew Higgins, European church attendance has seen a steady decline through the Twentieth Century. Christianity has given way to secularism. This decline cannot be blamed solely on modernism. The United States, perhaps the most modern nation in the world for the past 100 years, has not experienced a similar decline. The reason, according to Higgins’ article, is that the state churches have become lazy and complacent with their favored status. Meanwhile, American churches have remained vigorous and, most importantly, free of government control. Higgins reports that there are independent churches in Europe who are vigorously confronting the secularist culture, and while the state churches are declining, these young, energetic churches are growing.

Higgins attributes the growth of these churches to a form of free market evangelism. Free from government control, independent churches in America and Europe are more adaptable to the needs of lost souls. This has created what Higgins calls a “religious bazaar.” Just as free market capitalism has created a strong and prosperous economy, free market evangelism has created strong and prosperous churches.

Christianity Today’s Weblog calls this theory interesting, but warns that it “leaves little room for the Holy Spirit.” Of course, it is true that the Holy Spirit can cause the church to grow even under the most oppressive regime. But what is happening here is not government oppression, but government “coddling” as Higgins puts it. The traditional churches in Europe have become tired and therefore have lost the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is at work in Europe, just not in the state churches.

The state churches are an example of how a mingling of state and church can kill the church. The better plan is what the Framers intended: a state that is forbidden from establishing a church, but also remains accommodating to religion. Our government should not be a Christian government, nor should it be a secular government. Religion plays a very important role in the life of a democracy. The Framers understood this, and so should we. We should not use government to advance the interests of the church because that will corrupt the church. But neither should the government be free of religion.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Secularist Persecution

2007-07-14T02:43:00.000-05:00

In a commentary published on Guardian Unlimited, Brendan O’Neill suggests that Environmentalism might be the new Death Cult, and in their zeal to attack Christianity and Islam, atheists have ignored this. He writes,

Forget fundamentalist Christianity or Islam: environmentalism is by far the most influential death cult in existence today. It is inculcating in the masses the idea that the end of the world is nigh; that we shall we punished for our sins; that penance is our earthly duty; and that anyone who says or thinks otherwise is a "heretic" or a "denier" who should be held up to public ridicule.

Just like Christian theology, O’Neill argues, Environmentalism teaches that the Earth is being destroyed by our selfish sins and that we must do penance, such as planting trees to offset our carbon emissions.

I need to make one clarification here. O’Neill speaks as if penance is a Christian doctrine. It is not. O’Neill admits that he was raised Papist (or Catholic as he puts it). As is typical, even those who have abandoned the Papist Church for atheism agree with the Papist faithful that the Papist Church is the only true Christian Church. Therefore, what that Church teaches is assumed by O’Neill to be what Christianity teaches. That is a poor assumption to make. I also disagree with his gleeful assertion that the great monotheistic religions, “in the west at least, are in terminal decline, and [their] influence is miniscule bordering on non-existent.”

Despite this, O’Neill makes a good point. Those who deny global warming are ridiculed as heretics and deniers. What O’Neill fails to see is that those who deny evolution and other sacred doctrines of Secularism are subject to the same ridicule.

Take, for example, another commentary published on Guardian Unlimited. Adam Rutherford comments on Iowa State University’s decision to deny tenure to Guillermo Gonzales, an Intelligent Design supporter. The University President did not say that Gonzales’ acceptance of Intelligent Design was an issue in the decision, however many in the ID community believe it was. While Rutherford believes the University when it says that ID did not play in its decision, he also argues that it should have played a role. Rutherford writes,

Saying, whether in 4004 BC or 13 billion years ago, that "God made it" is not falsifiable and therefore not science. I know that, were I in a position to offer Guillermo Gonzalez tenure, I would deny it for the precise reason that his, yes, religious views about purpose in the universe explicitly mean he is a crap scientist, regardless of his ability to generate valid data.
Furthermore, I hope I would have the conviction to say the same if he hadn't failed in the other academic criteria. As a vocal supporter of the demonstrably unscientific guff that is intelligent design, Gonzalez displays ignorance of the scientific process, and appears to wilfully defy it. And for that reason, he neither deserves the use of the facilities of a university to conduct scientific research, nor the privilege of teaching the next generation of scientists.

I apologize for the long quote. We typically do not like to include such long quotes in our posts, but in this case it was necessary to make our point. Gonzales’ opinion that there is purpose and design in the universe makes him, in Rutherford’s opinion, unqualified as a scientist. Rutherford never actually calls Gonzales a heretic, but I think “crap scientist” comes awfully darn close. I have dealt before with the issue of whether ID is science or not. I will repeat what I said then. ID can be disproved if one can prove there is no design, and isn’t that what atheistic science has been trying to do lo these many centuries? Also, if ID’s presumption of a creator disqualifies it as science, then what about evolution’s presumption of naturalism?

Let’s move on to another of Secularism’s sacred doctrines: homosexuality. President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General, James Holsinger, is causing quite an uproar because in the early 90's he wrote a paper for the United Methodist Church in which he outlined the health risks of homosexuality and claimed that homosexuality is not natural. His opinion of homosexuality is based in his Christian faith, and many who share his faith (myself included) share his opinion that homosexuality is wrong, ungodly, unnatural, and destructive to both body and soul. But, the president wants a person with this opinion to be the next Surgeon General. So, the question is, do Holsinger’s religious opinions disqualify him from high office? Christianity Today points out in an editorial that the high priests of Secularism seem to think so. CT writes,

[A]ffirmation of homosexual behavior seems to be shifting from an in-group shibboleth to an unwritten requirement for American leadership.
Where does that leave biblical Christians? We may soon come to the point where supporting a sexual ethic based on an orthodox reading of Scripture becomes part of our cross to bear.

CT then explains that Christians today face a sexually promiscuous culture similar to the one the first Christians faced in the Roman Empire. Our rejection of that culture gives others reasons to persecute us, even barring us from high office. CT explains that we should not give in to persecution, but continue living according to Biblical principles. After all, the same principles that tell us to reject homosexuality also tell us to shelter the weak and provide for the suffering.

The simple fact here is that God’s way is better than man’s way. Whenever we reject homosexuality or evolution, or hold fast to the belief that God will, in His time, fix this broken world and end the floods and droughts that the environmentalists claim are coming, we proclaim His majesty, righteousness, and grace. The world hates us for it, but Christ warned that this would happen (Matt 24:9). Our job is to preach God’s grace to the world while at the same time exposing the world’s hypocrisy, and there certainly is quite a bit of hypocrisy in Secularism’s claims of “tolerance.”

Father Hollywood has recently published and excellent post on Secularist persecution. I encourage our readers to see what he has to say, as well.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Update: What, would you say, you believe?

2007-07-13T23:29:00.000-05:00

We commented recently on Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal Priest who claims to be both Christian and Muslim. It was reported by the Seattle Times that Redding’s Bishop was comfortable with her new-found heresy. Therefore, we asked in our comment that our readers pray for the Episcopal Church because it obviously “needs the Holy Spirit to convict it of its sin and bring it back into the righteous worship of God.”

Looks like we are receiving an answer to our prayers. The Seattle Times now reports that Redding is actually under the disciplinary authority of the Diocese of Rhode Island, which is where she was ordained more than 20 years ago. The bishop of that Diocese, Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, has decided to remove Redding from her duties as an Episcopal priest for one year so that she can “reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what [Rev. Wolf] see[s] as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam.”

Good. Of course, the Episcopal Church still faces the problem of having many clerics who are comfortable with, even excited about, Redding’s heresy. Not to mention the other positions held by the Episcopal Church as a whole (not just a few renegade priests) that are contrary to Holy Scripture, such as ordaining women and non-celibate homosexuals. These and other problems are symptoms of the larger problem of the Episcopal Church’s refusal to accept Scripture as the inspired and inerrant Word of God and the only true authority by which all teachings are to be judged. So, our prayers are still needed for the true unity of the Church.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Have we learned nothing from Luther?

2007-07-01T00:46:00.000-05:00

Honestly, I didn’t know they still do this. The Papist Archdiocese of Philadelphia will be celebrating its upcoming 200th anniversary by offering indulgences. For those who need to brush up on their Papist theology, the Philadelphia Inquirer explains what an indulgence is:

An indulgence, according to the church, allows Catholics who perform certain acts to shorten the time after death that their souls will have to spend in purgatory to atone for their sins.

The Inquirer then explains what acts the faithful must perform to earn an indulgence:

Between now and the final bicentennial Mass of April 13, local Catholics seeking an indulgence must make a pilgrimage to an area shrine or special bicentennial Mass, make an act of sacramental confession and receive communion around the time of a pilgrimage, and pray for the intentions of the pope.

So what happens after April 13? Are you SOL? And what exactly are the Pope’s intentions and why should we be praying for them? Should we be praying that his intentions are honorable?

According to the Inquirer, the Papist Church is well aware of the controversy surrounding indulgences. They should be. After all, indulgences sparked the Protestant Reformation nearly 500 years ago. The debate over the quality and quantity of scriptural support for them still rages.

A few years ago, the Papist Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. According to the article this document states that:

salvation is achieved "by grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part."

This statement is in line with the thinking of the Protestant reformers who claimed that justification comes by grace alone through faith alone. Scripture, which is the Word of God and therefore is the only valid authority, affirms this belief.

The Papists’ continued use of indulgences threatens this agreement. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which did not sign the document, warned that this would happen. They explained:

. . . the JDDJ very carefully avoids precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification.

But the Papists insist that the only reason the debate over indulgences still rages is because Protestants do not truly understand the theology behind them. Christian Washburn, a theologian for the Philadelphia Archdiocese explained to the Inquirer that Lutheran misunderstanding of indulgences lies at the heart of the controversy. He explains:

"It is surprising that, after all of the advances made by the ecumenical movement, some Lutherans still persist in asserting that Catholics believe indulgences bring justification," Washburn wrote to The Inquirer.
"In order to obtain an indulgence, the individual seeking indulgence must have already been justified, or as Catholics would more commonly put it, must be in the state of grace."

But, if one has already been justified, why does he need an indulgence? What good does an indulgence do that the precious blood of Christ our Savior fails to do?

Allow me to quickly run through the problems with indulgences.

First, they have no scriptural support. Scripture is very clear that man cannot earn salvation because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Further, salvation is only found in Christ, as He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Also, the only means of grace that were established by Christ are Baptism, Communion, and the preaching of the Gospel. These are the only ways in which humans receive grace. Christ never once offered an indulgence.

Nor did He ever tell His disciples that before they enter Heaven, they must spend time in Purgatory to rid themselves of their remaining sins. The concept of Purgatory is not found anywhere in Scripture. Indeed, as Christ hung on the cross, He told the repentant thief who hung beside Him, “today you will be with Me in paradise.”

When Christ died for our sins, He died for all of them. There is no need for a Christian to purge himself of sins that have not been cleansed by the blood of the Savior because all his sins have been cleansed by the blood of the Savior. Salvation is the free gift of God. It is not earned through good works or by making “a pilgrimage to an area shrine or special bicentennial Mass” or anything else. It is not earned because it cannot be earned. Again, “there is none righteous, not even one.”

The doctrine that justification comes by grace alone through faith alone is clearly explained in Scripture. So clearly in fact that one might begin to think that the Papist Church’s continued refusal to accept the doctrine is rooted in its desire to keep faithful Christians under its domination by preying on their fear of falling out of grace. No wonder the LCMS calls the pope “Antichrist.”

If you would like a more thorough explanation of the problems with indulgences, you might like to read Luther’s 95 Theses (which can be found here). Consider it the Declaration of Independence for the Protestant Reformation. If you’re a Papist and you don’t think that you should be reading something written by the hand of a “drunk German monk,” then you might consider reading Paul’s letter to the Romans (which can be found in your Bible). It is, after all, where Luther got all of his ideas.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

What, would you say, you believe?

2007-06-23T12:04:00.000-05:00

The Seattle Times reports that Ann Holmes Redding, a local Episcopalian pastor, has declared herself to be both Christian and Muslim. This is, of course, quite disturbing since this woman is in a position of leadership in one of America’s most prominent protestant denominations.

First of all, let’s be clear, there is no way someone could be both Christian and Muslim. The two faiths are mutually exclusive. If you are a Christian, then you believe in the Trinity. You believe that God came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ and died for the sins of the world. You believe that through this loving action, men are reconciled to God. If you do not believe that Christ is God, then his sacrifice means nothing because only God could pay the debt of our sins. Muslims do not believe this. They do not believe that man is reconciled to God by God’s grace alone, but through works, specifically by completing the five pillars of Islam (confession of faith, alms, pilgrimage, fasting, and prayer five times a day). This doctrine is contrary to the Gospel. Further, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. Again, Christians believe in the mystery of the Trinity, that there is one God who is three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Muslims reject this, claiming it is masked polytheism. So, a person could not be both Christian and Muslim. Even at a basic level, the two religions are not compatible. He or she would have to choose one side or the other.

So, how can Redding claim to be both? In reading this article, it become clear that Redding has fallen into apostasy. She is no longer a Christian (and so she really never was a Christian), but now a Muslim with Christian leanings.

Redding says that she was first attracted to Islam because of Muslims’ commitment to prayer. Praying five times a day “gave her the deep sense of connection with God that she yearned for.” Of course, a Christian should no longer be yearning for a deep sense of connection with God since a Christian is already in a state of grace and His grace is sufficient for us (2 Cor 12:9). But, she continues. The article quotes her as saying, “Living a life where you’re remembering God intentionally, consciously, just changes everything.” Indeed it does. But, is she saying that she was not remembering God intentionally and consciously before she started praying with the Muslims? What exactly was she doing all those times she was leading worship services and distributing the Sacraments? She also claims that praying to Allah is the same as praying to God because “It’s the same person, praying to the same God.” That, unfortunately, is an error that many Americans, including Christians, fall into. They are not the same God (as I explained earlier). Even the Seattle Times article makes this clear:

Muslims generally believe in Jesus' virgin birth, that he was a messenger of God, that he ascended to heaven alive and that he will come back at the end of time to destroy evil. They do not believe in the Trinity, in the divinity of Jesus or in his death and resurrection.
For Christians, belief in Jesus' divinity, and that he died on the cross and was resurrected, lie at the heart of the faith, as does the belief that there is one God who consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As for Redding, the Times says

She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

There appears to be a Gnostic flair to her beliefs. Continuing where we left off:

She does believe that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and acknowledges those beliefs conflict with the teachings of the Quran. "That's something I'll find a challenge the rest of my life," she said.

That’s because she’s wrong! She is trying to have it both ways, and she can’t. God demands total commitment and love from us. He deserves no less. Redding has rejected His grace because she believes that she has found a better way. She has not. She is only being fooled by Satan.

But, what is perhaps more revealing of Redding’s attitude is the fact that she found comfort in Islam because there are more black people at the Islamic worship center than there are at her church. She says,

To walk into Al-Islam [the Islamic worship center] and be reminded that there are more people of color in the world than white people, that in itself is a relief.

Race should not matter to a Christian. A Christian should worship God regardless of the color of his fellow worshipers. The fact that it does matter to Redding shows how her beliefs are clouded by materialism, which is something Christ warned about (Matt 13:22). Here we see the root of Redding’s rejection of God. She wants a god that matches her idea of god and she wants to worship among people who are like her. Like all sin, her apostasy is rooted in selfishness.

According to an interview with Redding published in the diocese’s newspaper, Redding believes that Islam is helpful to her because “what Islam does is take Jesus out of her relationship with God. . . .” Exactly how do you take Jesus out of your relationship with God if Jesus is God (John 1:1-5) and is the only path to God (John 14:6)? Again we see Redding’s rejection of God, the Trinity, and Christ’s Sacrifice, further evidence of her apostasy.

Later in the interview, she says, “I just am not willing to put ‘onlys’ in front of all those affirmations about Jesus.” And that’s the whole problem, because a person is saved only by Grace, only through faith, and only by Christ.

What makes matters worse is that Redding is not being punished by the Episcopal Church. The Seattle Times says,

Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting.

There is no condemnation of her apostasy in the interview published in the diocese’s newspaper. In fact, many people in the Episcopal Church are happy about Redding’s apostasy. According to the Seattle Times:

Doug Thorpe, who served on St. Mark's faith-formation committee with Redding, said he's trying to understand all the dimensions of her faith choices. But he saw how it deepened her spirituality. And it spurred him to read the Quran and think more deeply about his own faith.
He believes Redding is being called. She is, "by her very presence, a bridge person," Thorpe said. "And we desperately need those bridge persons."

No, we need people who will unashamedly preach the true Gospel, not this feel good, everyone is right crap.

Please pray for Redding and the Episcopal Church. It’s bad enough that they allow women to be pastors and have started blessing homosexual marriages (both are perversions of the gender roles created by God and defended in Scripture), but now they are allowing heretics to teach and lead Christians in worship. This entire denomination needs the Holy Spirit to convict it of its sin and bring it back into the righteous worship of God.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

That Bush is killing the GOP – and what to do about it

2007-06-15T02:32:00.001-05:00

For a while there, it looked like he was going to be our political savior. He brought the Republican Party and the country out of the dismay of the Clinton years and gave us something to be proud about, something to cheer for, a reason to feel proud to be American. He stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and said, “We’re going to catch these bastards.” With tears in our eyes we applauded, we held back our sobs and cheered.

But that was nearly six years ago, and what was once a noble quest to rid the world of terrorism has become bogged down in a mismanaged war in Iraq, a country being fought over by two sides that hate us almost as much as they hate each other.

President Bush is killing the Republican Party with free trade at all costs, immigration reform, kowtowing to corporate elites, and, of course, the poorly managed Iraq War. When we look around America, we see a nation that is being sold to foreign investors. High paying manufacturing jobs are being sent overseas, and those jobs that remain here are being taken by illegal aliens, causing wages to be depressed. Our trade deficit with less-developed countries is growing, becoming a national security issue as well as an economic issue. All the while, we are racking up trillions in public debt and losing our superior standing on the world stage.

It’s time to bring some populism back to the Republican Party. America needs a party that will actually stand up for her.

If the Republican party expects to win this next presidential election, it had better maintain its focus on two key points: immigration and fair trade. By addressing these two issues, we can address many of the domestic and foreign problems we face.

Immigration and Border Control

Illegal immigration can be solved with a plan that is so simple, it would never be passed in Washington. First, we should secure the border. That’s a simple request, but for some reason the federal government has repeatedly failed at this task. That has left the border states to spend their money to do what should be the federal government’s job. Let’s make that clear. There is no border between Texas and Mexico, or Arizona and Mexico. The border is between the United States and Mexico. Simple logic dictates, then, that the United States (as opposed to individual states) should be responsible for security on that border. But, if simple logic does not make this point forcefully enough, then consider the Constitution of the United States which declares that the United States should protect each state from invasion.

Once the border is secure, we should deport all illegal immigrants. Let’s remember that they are illegal immigrants. They have not shown any regard for our laws, they have no legal right to be here, therefore they should not be permitted to stay. They certainly should not be rewarded for their crimes with amnesty.

We should require all employers to submit the Social Security Numbers of their employees to the Social Security Administration for verification. Employers should be required to terminate the employment of any workers who do not have valid Social Security Numbers. Employers who refuse to fire such employees, or who continually hire known illegals should be heavily fined.

New immigrants and guest workers should then be permitted into the country based on our economic needs, and preference should be given to skilled and educated workers.

Fair Trade

The Bush administration (and the Clinton administration before it) has pursued a policy of open and free trade at all costs. We have entered into free trade agreements with nations that are so poor, so far behind our level of economic development that they could never afford to buy the products we sell (for example, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA). Consequently, free trade with these nations has become a one way street. They produce cheap products which they sell here, but they do not buy the more expensive products produced here. While these free trade agreements have been beneficial to these nations, it has not been so helpful for Americans, as evidenced by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Looks like Ross Perot was right. Free trade results in a giant sucking sound of jobs going overseas.

In some cases foreign firms are subsidized by their governments and are therefore able to sell cheap products in our markets. At the same time, these governments impose enormously high tariffs upon our products. This is the case with China. Our “free” trade with that nation has also become a one way street.

Therefore, we should replace free trade with fair trade. We should impose reciprocal tariffs on nations such as China and we should only enter into free trade agreements that are in the best economic interest of Americans.

By securing our borders and returning to self-sufficiency, America will remain strong and continue to be a force for liberty in the world.

Unfortunately, the major Republican candidates have demonstrated varying degrees of apathy regarding these problems, especially on fair trade. The major candidates are all beholden to corporate and foreign interests that do not want these problems to be fixed. Large, multinational corporations like being able to hire low-wage illegals and foreign workers. Foreign governments like being able to cash in on the American market and undercut our economy. And their allies in government (many of whom are bought and paid for) are all too happy to sell out our country.

There is, however, one dark horse that is hitting these issues dead on: Congressman Duncan Hunter. Hunter advocates a triple fence along the border and reciprocal tariffs. He also supports a right to life amendment, a marriage amendment, a balanced budget, reduced tax burden on the middle class, protection against eminent domain abuse, reforming the Alternative Minimum Tax, justices that strictly interpret the law, Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, and the reformation of the UN. His stance on these and other issues can be seen in detail here.

In a recent CNN debate, Hunter was asked if he would pardon Scooter Libby if he were President. His clever answer should make all Conservatives happy. He said he would not pardon Libby, instead he would pardon the two border agents who were sent to prison for doing their job. Later, he was asked what would be good for the GOP. He said the GOP should support fair trade agreements that strengthen the middle class. I applauded both answers while watching the debate on TV.

Now, it is true that Congressman Hunter is a dark horse, with little chance of winning. But that can change if Conservatives stand up and take their party back. We must stop looking for the candidate that “looks presidential” and vote for a man that will bring America’s greatness back. Hunter’s positions are not only appealing to Conservatives, but also to centrists. The voters of this country want a candidate who is conservative, but will also stand up to corporate and foreign interests and not let America be sold out from under us. I think Congressman Hunter is just that candidate.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Where Faith Meets Politics

2007-06-13T00:32:00.000-05:00

No, I’m not scared at all to mix my faith and politics. In fact, I wouldn’t have it any other way. My faith defines my politics. I vote the way I vote because I believe what I believe. And, it is because I believe what I believe that I find it very difficult to become excited over the slate of Republican presidential candidates. Don’t get me wrong, the front runners all look “presidential,” but the good news ends there. Quite literally, actually.

Take, for example, Mitt Romney. He has gained some support among Christian voters because of his Conservative stance on social and fiscal issues. And, he looks like he can win. He was governor of Massachusetts, after all, so we know he can win in the blue states. He’s clean, polished, and confident (maybe a little too clean, polished, and confident). There’s just this nagging problem with his Mormonism. If only we can find a way to look past that.

Never fear. Christianity Today published a “Speaking Out” article from Robert Millet and Gerald McDermott that explains why evangelicals should not be concerned with Romney’s Mormonism. They begin, of course, by pointing out the obvious,

Romney is attractive to evangelicals for a number of reasons. Unlike Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, Romney is clearly conservative on both social and fiscal issues. He talks about the need to protect traditional marriage and is opposed to abortion on demand and stem-cell research. . . . Furthermore, Romney can claim political success. As a conservative governor in liberal Massachusetts, he eliminated an inherited deficit and pushed through major healthcare reform.

Yes, yes, guys. That’s all in the brochure. Let’s get to the hard stuff.

The authors run through the list of complaints that evangelicals have against the Mormon church, such as its belief in the authority of the Book of Mormon and its belief “that humans are of the same species as Jesus and can someday attain his status.”

They note that America has a history of electing non-Christians to high office. For example, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. So, none of this should really be alarming. And . . .

Besides, Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For Latter-Day Saints, Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists agreed that Jesus was "without sin," Mormons were among the "most likely" to say that Jesus was sinless.

So, there really isn’t that much of a difference between Mormons and Christians. In fact, Mormons are Christians. I’m sure we’re all glad to hear that. I know I was, until I read a little deeper. You see, “holding firmly to the deity of Christ” is not quite the same as accepting the Trinity.

Sure enough, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations for the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod released a brief report about Mormon theology a few years ago. They found that Mormon beliefs really are “as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think.” According to the report,

The Father and Son and Holy Ghost worshipped by Mormons are separate beings, three distinct Gods. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” God and man are not a “different species.”

The CTCR goes on to record other non-Christian ideas in Mormonism. According to this report, then, Christians are right to be concerned about Mormon teachings. Now, why would Millet and McDermott lie so blatantly about Mormon beliefs? It certainly raises some serious questions about the integrity of Mormonism. Thank God for His Word, which is the light that exposes error. Let us pray that all Christians are familiar enough with Scripture that they will be able to spot Satan’s lies when they arise.

But what, you may be asking, does all this have to do with the presidential race? Well, first of all, if you are a Christian, and your faith is important to you, then you should think twice before voting for a non-Christian. I’m not saying that it is wrong to vote for a non-Christian, but we should be cautious when we do, especially when there are viable Christian candidates out there.

But, here’s the kicker. Romney and his supporters all say that his Mormonism should not be an issue in the campaign. Douglas Wilson (whose blog I have been reading lately because of his recent debate with Christopher Hitchens) said this about Romney,

[He is a] a flop flipper. I don't trust him, not hardly for a minute. Obviously competent, which is another reason to not vote for him. He and his supporters say his Mormonism wouldn't make any difference, which is another thing. It ought to make a difference (at which point it would become another reason for opposing him), but the only reason it doesn't is that Romney has bought into secular/sacred divide which plagues our political discourse. Potent secularism is more of a problem than impotent Mormonism.

So, Mitt Romney’s Mormonism is an issue for Christians because, despite the misleading claims of Mormon apologists, Mormonism is not merely a Christian denomination, but a perversion of the Gospel, and a dishonest one at that (is there any other kind?). Further, the fact that Romney says his Mormonism isn’t an issue is itself an issue because it raises serious questions about the strength of his convictions.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Conclusion to Hitchens/Wilson Debate

2007-06-02T10:12:00.000-05:00

The final installment of the Hitchens/Wilson debate has been posted at Christianity Today. In his concluding remarks, Hitchens asks,

Can you name one moral action, or moral utterance, performed or spoken by a believer that could not have been performed or spoken by an atheist? My email is available to any reader who is willing to accept this challenge.

If Hitchens really intended to post his email address, CT decided not to publish it. Either way, I would not email my response to him. First, I'm sure he's too busy denouncing Mother Theresa. And second, I'm not convinced that debating atheists will really achieve anything. Atheists and Christians have completely different world views. In all of the debates that I have seen (including this one) or have been involved in, the two parties only end up talking past one another. Atheists won't accept Christian arguments that are based on faith, and Christians can't accept the atheist standard of proof (atheists want God delivered to them in a box that they can see, feel, and understand, but God does not fit in a box). Instead, Christians should simply preach the Gospel and pray that atheists stop seeking signs (Matthew 12:38-40, and 1Corinthians 1:18-24).

However, I cannot resist the temptation to answer Hitchens' challenge. Besides, my answer will demonstrate why I say debates between atheists and Christians never achieve anything. My answer is this: A Christian, through grace, lovingly and faithfully submits to the will of God. That is a moral act that an atheist could never do, because as soon as he does, he is a Christian. Of course, an atheist would never consider this to be a moral act, and that makes the weakness of atheistic morality apparent: the atheist moral system is founded upon human logic, not Divine Love. Which means, in essence, it is founded upon nothing since what is considered "right thinking" changes from place to place and time to time (which Wilson had been arguing all along). In other words, atheistic morality is too wishy-washy.

We can easily see how a Christian arguing that faithful submission is a moral act, and an atheist arguing that it is not will end up talking past each other. We will probably see another example of this when an atheist reads this post and decides to submit a comment. He will refuse to accept my assertion, and I will be unable to make God understandable to him. An atheist will never be made to understand this accept by grace alone through faith alone.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Debating Atheists

2007-05-30T23:38:00.000-05:00

First, there is a very interesting debate currently on Christianity Today’s website between prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens and theologian Douglas Wilson on the question, “Is Christianity good for the world.” It is a very interesting debate, though Hitchens keeps refusing to answer Wilson’s central attack: that atheism is mired in relativism. Wilson argues that Christianity is good for the world because Christ is the light of the world that frees us from that mire. According to Wilson’s blog, there is one more installment to be published this week.

Click here for parts ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, and FIVE.

On the same subject, we recently received a comment to one of our posts regarding atheism, Tell me Again Why You’re an Atheist. Since we believe that this comment and our reply would be edifying to all of our readers, we have decided to give them more prominence by posting them here.

From Lydia:

First, I'm an atheist, and I say you make some good calls. But we all believe what we believe, and while there is no proof that God doesn't exist, Christians are Christians, and while there is no proof that God exists, atheists are atheists.

The atheist and theist are both at a loss with evidence. The theist can bring evidence from books and good experiences and such (you can think of something; I wouldn’t know) and while they hold some good morals, that isn't enough to convince an already convinced atheist. And an atheist can bring logic and science, and like you said, does not convince a devote Christian. Indeed, what kind of proof are both sides looking for? Both arguments to me sound good, so long as religion/atheism isn't misused.

But people are people, and we are all ignorant, knowing, cruel, and loving, despite religion. Love your neighbor, indeed. At least the world is more tolerant these days.

Reply:

Thank you for your comment.

I want first to ask you, if you agree that atheists and Christians are both at a loss for evidence, then why do you stick with atheism? I admit that I have no proof that God exists that would be acceptable to an atheist. But I also admit that I am not concerned with proof. I do not base my world view on proof. My point is that logic and physical evidence will not bring us to Truth, and I love Truth more than logic. So, my lack of physical proof does not affect my faith.

But, atheists are concerned with proof. Atheists do base their world view on proof. That’s the whole point of atheism–there is no reason to believe a claim unless there is proof to back up the claim. That is all fine and good, if we were talking about anything other than God. But, when it comes to God, logic falls flat. God, by definition, is unknowable. Logic is no help in discovering Truth. You apparently agree, so why stick with logic? Isn’t Truth more important than a strict commitment to logic?

Now you may ask, if we abandon logic, how do we keep from believing in just anything? Why should we accept Christianity and not Norse paganism, or radical Islam?

Allow me to kill two birds with one stone by answering this question and responding to another point you made. You said that theists offer evidence for their opinion from “books and good experiences and such”. I must correct you. I do not offer evidence from books or good experiences. I do not offer any evidence at all. I have no evidence to give. My faith is just that, a faith. It is not a hypothesis, or theory, or even an opinion. I have not come to Christ on my own. I have not been convinced by argument, or reason. I did not consider the evidence before me and then come to the conclusion that Christ is Lord. I would never flatter myself in that way. I did not walk to Christ. Christ walked to me. Actually, he ran to me (Luke 15:20).

How do we know that Christ is Lord and not Allah or Odin? Because Christ runs to us. Allah does not run to us. Odin does not run to us. Atheism certainly does not run to us.

I do not ask that you accept my words here. Rather, I pray that you would stop seeking proof. Admit that you do not and cannot know Truth on your own. Admit that your way is not the best way, or even a good way. You say that we are all loving and knowing despite religion. No, we are not. We do not have a choice between good and evil, between knowledge and ignorance. We are evil and ignorant without Christ. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” (Proverbs 16:25)

Our only salvation comes when we stop putting ourselves ahead of God; when we, like the prodigal son, admit that we tried things our way, and it wasn’t good. So we decide to return to our Father, hoping that we can be his servant. But while we are still a long way off, he runs to us and welcomes us, not as a slave, but as his long lost child. Only Christ does that, and that is why we know He is Truth.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

O’Donnell Quits “The View”

2007-05-25T21:27:00.000-05:00

Rosie fights last fight on 'The View'

Not that I really care, or anything. But, on behalf of all Conservatives, I would like to thank Rosie for showing America just how vicious, ignorant, and rude Liberals can be. Not that we really needed more proof.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Even the new guys practice politics as usual

2007-05-15T01:53:00.000-05:00

You knew that it would take a tremendously stupid story to get me to come out of my self-imposed exile from blogging.

KHOU News reports that first term Republican State Senator Glenn Hegar (District 18) has successfully attached an amendment to SB 911 that would legalize the sale of horsemeat for human consumption in Texas.

Sen. Hegar explains his amendment thusly:

This amendment ensures the commission can track animal diseases and also assist law enforcement to catch and prosecute animal theives.

But KHOU explains it this way:

In reality, what the amendment does is attempt to sidestep a 58-year-old Texas law preventing the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Texas is home to two foreign owned slaughtering facilities, both effectively shut down earlier this year when a U.S. court of appeals ruled the law was valid. More obvious attempts to overturn it have stalled in the legislature.

You might ask why an up and coming State Senator would try to sneak such a ghastly provision under the noses of the Texas voters. Well, the meat-packing industry is quite powerful in Texas and other agricultural states, and slaughterhouse money usually finds a way to influence key legislators and other elected officials. Sen. Hegar is no different. KHOU notes that Sen. Hegar "lists a lobbyist for the horse slaughter industry among his campaign contributors." Could it be that Sen. Hegar was trying to pay off a debt? It wouldn’t surprise me. That’s politics as usual.

What’s also politics as usual, especially here in Texas, is to exaggerate your "down-home" style. Take, for example, Rick Perry’s fake accent. Or Sen. Hegar himself, who claims to be a sixth-generation Texan farmer, though he received a law degree from the University of Arkansas. How many farmers do you know that have law degrees? I have known quite a few. I have several in my family. They’re smart people, don’t get me wrong. But a law degree doesn’t come in handy when you’re trying to round up cattle, mend fences, or fix an old tractor. Aside from that, no one ever earns enough money from farming and ranching to make the expense of law school worthwhile. Perhaps Sen. Hegar owns a farm, but I seriously doubt that he actually works the land.

–J.E. Heath per-fidem.org

New Ann Coulter article

2007-04-20T17:25:00.000-05:00

Brilliant.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Get a life!

2007-04-20T17:24:00.000-05:00

Oh, goodness . . .

I agreed with John McCain on something. I think for sure now Armageddon is nigh.

But, no, I agree with McCain on his joke about bombing Iran — get a life! A bunch of people, even Conservatives I respect, are all up in arms over this. I'm nor offended that the joke wasn't that funny.

I'm getting a little annoyed about our society, where we apparently are not allowed to even mention other people or countries without everyone jumping up and down in some protest. Iranians are angry that the movie 300 depicted pagan Persians as villains (even though that part, at least, was historically accurate). We're not allowed to suggest that people breaking the law by sneaking into our country are doing something illegal. And we can't make fun of Rick Perry's hair. I mean, come on! (That last one was a joke.)

Let's take a serious look at McCain's foreign policy ideas and make judgements on that (and there are some serious criticisms to be made, especially on the border issue). But I'm a little tired of condemning people for joking.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Challenge!

2007-04-15T20:18:00.000-05:00

Yes, I challenge you! This is such an important challenge that I have broken my month-long vow of blogging silence! I challenge you to kick farther than my monkey!

Mwa-ha-ha!

-Paul Lytle Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Bono and a mission from God

2007-03-16T17:36:00.000-05:00

First Things ran a very good criticism of Bono's efforts to solve poverty in Africa. Now, don't get me wrong; I applaud Bono's efforts. We don't agree on several issues, but his compassion impresses me, and I definitely think his heart's in the right place. (It may not be, but I try not to get in the business of judging the hearts of other people. You know, except Democrats when it comes to public policy.)

(That was a joke.)

But the article does question the approach. In one campaign, Bono's organization spent millions on advertising in order to raise a fifth of that money to combat poverty. Why not just forget the advertisements and spend the money directly to battle poverty?

I have no doubt that Bono thinks he is on some divine mission, but I wonder what his fruits really are. The reason I wonder this is because he is trying to change people's hearts with words and images and music, but how hard is it to change a heart that way? It has never worked on me. The only one who could change my heart was Christ.

A friend of mine mentioned the other day how great it would be if Bono turned his focus to the Word rather than on physical hurting. How great if he could use his influence for Christ. You see, it's not a bad thing he's doing, but he's waving at the deaf to try to make them see him. Perhaps sometimes he can grab hold of someone, but there's a whole lot of blind people out there, and he doesn't have that much influence.

But there's a light that even the blind can see, and it is one that causes your eyes to open for the first time. It seems to me that if you want to help Africans in poverty, take care of their souls first. If you want Americans to be concerned, give them a heart of compassion. Preach the Word rather than charity, because it is in Christ that charity stops becoming a tax write-off and starts becoming a way of life.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Why I haven't posted in a while

2007-02-09T17:44:00.000-06:00

I've been listening to a story lately that is simply leaving me floored. These two border patrol agents find this drug dealer, shoot at him, and he runs back across the border. Now he's saying he was shot in the butt, the border patrol agents are in jail, and the dealer (with immunity for his crimes) is suing the government.

Yeah, we've all been following that one. But a few Congressmen back in September decide to question Homeland Security about the matter, and they are told by three officials that the two border patrol agents said they wanted to "shoot some Mexicans" that day. Doesn't make a lot of sense, since the two border patrol agents are Mexican, but let's go with it. The director of Homeland Security admitted under oath that the statement was a lie.

"DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner testified under oath his deputies had lied to Congress about non-existent reports that were supposed to have established Ramos and Compean as rogue cops who wanted to 'shoot some Mexicans.'"

Now it looks like someone in Homeland was actually helping the drug dealer.

So the border patrol agents are in prison. Bush would intervene and do the right thing, but he is reportedly too busy not doing anything else.

This is the story they're talking about on AM radio and the blogs. The "alternative" media. The mainstream media is overworked right now with their team coverage of a bimbo's death. Seriously, people! The only thing that surprises me about the Anna Nicole Smith story is that she didn't die ten years ago.

Does it matter? Does Smith's death matter to any of you? If so, then there's nothing I can do for you. There's nothing I can say to bring you out of the mire of mediocrity that you are in. Does the border patrol story matter? The guys trying to protect us are in jail, the drug dealer being treated like a king, and Bush's precious Homeland Security is covering it up. Why aren't the Liberals all over this one? Why? Because they don't see anything wrong with it! They threw a fit when the government said that they would start keeping records of books you borrowed from the government, but this seems okay!

Scooter Libby will probably convicted soon and sent off to a Federal prison. Anyone know what he did? I see a lot of hands raising. How many of you think he leeked the name of a top-secret CIA operative? Everyone? Wrong. Here's what happened:

PROSECUTER: Mr. Libby, when did you first hear the name Valerie Plame?
LIBBY: I think Tim Russert told me.
RUSSERT: Hey, wait a minute! It wasn't me!
LIBBY: I think you're mistaken, Tim.
PROSECUTER: Okay, Libby's obviously hiding some deep, dark crime here. Let's press charges.

Seriously.

And who discredited Joseph Wilson in all of this? Joseph Wilson. It has been pretty much proven that his entire report was a lie. Have you heard that in the news? Did you know that?

Mayor Bill White's 17-year-old daughter was just found not guilty for DWI, even though she refused the breath test and failed the roadside tests. She also had "I am guilty as sin" tattooed on her forehead, but that was inadmissable, for some reason.

And your blood pressure begins to rise against me now. "No, Paul! We are innocent until proven guilty! She has the right to a vigorous defense! If you don't want to give her that right, then the government will come after you next!"

Is anyone else tired of that? I am. I'm tired of pretending that it is wrong to punish a criminal for his crimes because it is wrong to punish an innocent person for crimes he did not commit. You know what? It is wrong to try an innocent person, and it is wrong to not try a guilty person. I am tired of pretending that justice means letting the guilty off without punishment. It is not.

I'm tired of pretending that Bush is not the most Liberal President this country has ever had. I'm tired of pretending that he is doing even one thing he is Constitutionally supposed to be doing. I'm tired of pretending that he has had even one accomplishment in six years.

I'm tired of pretending that Hillary Clinton would somehow be worse. There is no evidence that she would be.

I'm tired of pretending that someone cares about the Constitution anymore. Even the most Conservative members of the Supreme Court completely ignore it. You want proof? How many times have they declared something "Unconstitutional"? The Constitution does not give them that power.

I'm tired.

I'm tired of Republicans spending my money faster than any Democrat ever did while I can barely afford to stay in my house. I don't want to hear about it anymore.

That is why I have not posted in a while.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Senate Rejects Minimum Wage Hike

2007-01-24T23:19:00.000-06:00

The Senate today failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to end debate and pass a bill that would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Republicans opposed the bill because it does not include a tax cut for businesses such as restaurants that rely on low-wage workers.

Reacting to the defeat, Sen. Ted Kennedy said,

Why can't we do just one thing for minimum wage workers, no strings attached, no giveaways for the powerful?

First of all, Senator Kennedy, you are the powerful.

As a member of “America’s royal family” and the second longest serving United States Senator, Kennedy should be careful when he complains about “the powerful.” After all, his family’s power came in quite handy after the Chappaquiddick incident. But, that’s another story.

The point I wanted to make about Sen. Kennedy’s quote is that the businesses that hire low-wage workers, usually small businesses, are not “powerful.” Small business owners are not fabulously wealthy. They don’t live in big houses and drive big cars. You won’t find them at the country club. In fact, they can usually be found at their place of business doing the same work their employees are doing: serving customers, cleaning tables, taking out the trash.

You may be wondering why they are doing such low work when they are running the show. This is because they can’t afford to hire people to do the work. Even at $5.15 an hour, they can’t afford to hire more employees. So, they have to do the work themselves. If they can’t afford to fully staff their business at $5.15 an hour, what happens when they are suddenly forced to pay their employees $7.25 an hour? More than likely, they’ll have to lay off a few workers and do even more of the work themselves. How is this benefitting anyone? The business owner wants to hire more people, but he can’t afford it. The worker wants to get a job and provide for his family, but no one is hiring.

Liberals complain about the declining middle class. They say the middle class is getting squeezed. Well, they’re right. Small business owners make up a large portion of the middle class, and silly, ignorant policies like this are squeezing them. A tax cut would bring much needed relief to an already overburdened middle class. But, Sen. Kennedy, a privileged son of a wealthy family who has never had to work for himself, thinks that such tax cuts would be nothing more than “giveaways for the powerful.”

So, my question to all of you who voted Democratic last year is, does it seem to you that the Democrats are really on your side?

–J.E. Heath per-fidem.org

Amsterdam to Honor Prostitutes with Statue

2007-01-22T23:13:00.000-06:00

Reuters reports that Amsterdam, that modern day Gomorrah that makes Las Vegas look quaint, will soon have a statue honoring the prostitutes of the world. Reuters quotes Mariska Majoor, who commissioned the statue, as saying,

In many countries, prostitutes struggle and people have no respect for them whatsoever. The statue is meant to give all those men and women strength.

Uh . . . yeah. I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that. See, in many countries, prostitutes are forced into prostitution, either because they have been sold into slavery, or because of drug abuse, or because there is simply no other way for a single woman to earn enough money to survive. Prostitution is certainly not something to be honored or respected. Prostitutes are not a persecuted minority. They are people who need help, and this statue is not helping. It only legitimizes the evil that has forced these women – these girls – into a life of despair and disease.

Will the little Indian girl who was raised in a brothel and will grow up to become a prostitute like her mother and grandmother because she has no education and she knows of no other choice, no other life, look upon this statue and feel proud about her position? No. When this little girl loses her virginity to the man who offered the highest price, will she look upon this statue and gather strength? No.

Prostitution is not wrong simply because some uptight Christians say it is. It’s wrong because people are actually getting hurt by it. People are actually dying because of it. It’s wrong because it steals from these girls their God-given dignity. It is wrong because it turns our fellow humans, our fellow bearers of the Image of God, into hopeless, defiled shells – mere objects of lust and greed.

God save us from our ignorance of Your Justice.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

This fatwa was brought to you by the letter X

2007-01-19T00:13:00.000-06:00

Continuing Islamic efforts to criminalize (rather than respond to) any and all criticisms of Islam, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the “moderate” Islamic nation, has taken a first step to banning the letter X because it too closely resembles a cross, which is also banned.

In a fatwa issued by the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, senior Saudi clerics denied a businessman’s request to trademark the English word “Explorer” because the word contains the letter X. The New York Sun writes:

In a kingdom where Friday preachers routinely refer to Christians as pigs and infidel crusaders, even a twisted cross ranks as an abomination.

Of course, the Saudis may have point. The letter X is also the Greek letter Chi which is the first letter in Christ. In fact, the letter has been used as a Christian symbol since ancient times. Many churches today still decorate their walls with the Chi-Rho.

That said, this Saudi decision is simply ridiculous. Are Muslims really so insecure about their faith that they have to go this far to protect it? As an outsider looking in, I wonder just how much of the Truth can be found in Islam when Muslims choose to ban criticism instead of respond to it. But on the other hand, it is understandable that some Muslims may choose to shun any mention of Christ (John 3:19-21).

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Iraq Needs More Than Troops

2007-01-12T01:18:00.000-06:00

I was asked today by a friend if I felt President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq to quell the violence there would actually do any good. The quick answer is “yes.” The harder answer is “no.”

An influx of troops to provide more security for the new Iraqi government will certainly help. The task of ridding Iraq of insurgents and militias is too great for the Iraqi army and police. More American troops in Iraq will provide the Iraqis with a little bit of breathing room which would allow them to prepare for such a difficult task.

But, that’s a rather simplistic way of looking at the situation. So, my answer was, “what they need over there is an Iraqi Martin Luther King. Someone who can bring the two sides together.” There is more going on in Iraq than just fighting. The disputes between the Shiites and the Sunni in Iraq are deep. There are only two solutions to such deep-rooted hatred: the ruthless domination of one side over the other (such as during the Hussein era), or mutual reconciliation. The first solution is obviously out of the question (we didn’t invade Iraq to trade one tyrant for another). So, the solution is mutual reconciliation, and since we are foreigners in Iraq, we cannot provide that solution. The solution must come from the Iraqis themselves.

But, we can provide some guidance. America has a history of interracial violence, but that is something that we have, for the most part, overcome. Through the leadership of men like Martin Luther King, Jr., Americans have (with only a very small minority as an exception) overcome the racism of their past. Today, we embrace and celebrate our shared culture. Why were we able to get to this point? Because white Americans were willing to move beyond the racism of their ancestors, and black Americans refused to hold a grudge against the whites. The Shiites and Sunni in Iraq must understand this and resolve their differences, or their differences will be resolved for them with the rise of yet another Saddam.

But, there is more to it than simply, “Iraq needs a Martin King.” Martin Luther King was successful not simply because of his actions. Sit-ins and bus boycotts alone did not change America. King also preached the Gospel of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation: Christ’s Gospel. It is a Gospel that transcends race and culture. It is an ideal that both sides could look up to. Is there such a gospel in Iraqi culture? I’m not so sure there is. History, at least, has not given a clue to its existence. So, with that understanding, I’d have to say that what Iraq needs more than American soldiers, more than Martin Luther King, more than anything, is Christ. Only Christ can change the heart of a man from selfish greed to selfless love. For, “if someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar.” Because if you do not love your brother, you cannot love God. Love is perfected in us by Christ, and Christ is too often ignored in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Abbas’ big, huge mistake

2006-12-16T11:46:00.000-06:00

First of all, allow me to apologize to our reader(s). Mr. Lytle and I have been busy for the last few weeks, and while we have wanted to post on various news items, our schedules and obligations have prevented us from doing so.

But, now we’re back, and we promise to endeavor to bring you the kind of intelligent analysis you have come to expect from Texian Weblog.

The AP reports that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has decided to call for early presidential and parliamentary elections. He believes that this move will resolve the power struggle between the Hamas government and his “more moderate” Fatah party. An election date has not yet been set, but it is expected to be sometime in March.

Abbas is right, the election will resolve the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah, but not in the way he expects. I know it is hard to believe, but the Palestinian people agree more with Hamas than Fatah, which is why they elected Hamas just 11 months ago. Another election will only allow Hamas to solidify its power. I’m not going to go as far as to say that the Palestinian people want to institute a new Holocaust, but I will say that if they were given the choice between living with Israel or fighting with Israel, between Ehud Olmert or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it would come as no surprise to me which side they would choose. If peace is to prevail in the Middle East, something must be done to change the attitude and opinion of the Palestinian people. So far, that something has not occurred, and it is unlikely to happen before March.

But, I pray that it does because, “with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

–J.E. Heath

Cartoonist ego & and he keeps telling us we're losing!

2006-12-15T20:22:00.000-06:00

Pat Oliphant's cartoon from Monday of this week stands out to me. Now, Oliphant usually completely misses the boat on political issues, but this particular one had the single worst assessment of our loss in the Vietnam war I have ever seen. To quote, we lost because of "Presidential ego &# and he kept telling us we were winning."

First of all, I truly hope Oliphant is not falling into the modern Liberal trap of declaring Vietnam to be "Nixon's War" rather than Johnson's, or even Kennedy's, but I'm willing to bet he is. The fact remains that Kennedy got us started and Johnson did most of the escalating and got us into all the problems. Nixon inherited the mess and eventually got us out of it. What do you bet that the previous eight years before Nixon are being ignored here?

To an extent "Presidential ego" is right in that the war was mismanaged. But what is sad here is that the war in Iraq could really benefit from a close look at Vietnam, but Liberals like Oliphant can't keep their noses out of the White House long enough to see that.

The problem of the media is one thing the wars have in common. The media report one thing when the trend suggests the opposite. The reports that are coming out of the military in Iraq are vastly different than what the imbedded reporters are claiming (the reporters who keep smearing dirt on their faces and messing up their hair right before a report for effect). The media are trying to lose this war for ratings, which was the basic strategy in Vietnam. In both wars, based on numbers alone, America was winning while the television kept claiming disaster. There is a great difference, of course. In Vietnam the American casualty count actually was high, while in this war the media just claim it is high when it is really quite low.

Strategy problems? Both times America was unwilling to fight the war to the degree it needed to be fought. We lost more in Vietnam trying to play nice than if we had just used our men and resources to their full capacity. Just as the use of the atomic bomb actually saved lives in World War II, so it is that our restraint and fear of loss of American lives are actually making this war worse than it has to be. A little aggressive use of bombs (and we are not necessarily talking about atomic weapons here) would go a long way right now in Iraq.

But we do not only have a fear of losing the American soldier, but also the civilian, which is something we inherited from Vietnam as well. Imagine if we had fought WWII like that! Well, we'd be all speaking German for one. The enemy knows this and hides amongst the crowds. If an American tries to protect himself and makes a mistake, he gets put on trial.

Oliphant would better help the cause by bringing all of these problems to the attention of the public. But instead, like so many Liberals today, he is so intent on bashing Bush (and Nixon, even though the guy is dead) that he would rather attack the president than help fix the problem.

-Paul Lytle Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

End PBS!

2006-11-26T10:27:00.000-06:00

So, I’m flipping through the channels this morning and the local PBS station is showing a lecture by Dr. Wayne Dyer, the author of The Power of Intention. I have never really paid much attention to him before, so I decided to stop and watch the program to see what he’s all about.

Wayne Dyer is a self-help guru in the same vein as Deepak Chopra. He preaches his own gospel with a religious flavor (he quotes from the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita) that appears to be based on the New Thought movement. This on its own is not offensive. What is offensive is that it is being broadcast on PBS, which is, despite Conservative efforts, primarily supported by government funding. So, here’s a religious teacher delivering a sermon that is being funded by public dollars. My question is, where are the atheists complaining about a lack of separation of church and state?

And then, to top it all off, the lecture is interrupted for a pledge drive that Dr. Dyer participates in. I am literally told by Dr. Dyer during this pledge drive that by giving money to PBS I would not only be helping to keep this wonderful program on the air, but I would also be taking a step toward improving my life. I will become a happier person, I am told, simply by giving to PBS. And, if I act now and pledge at least $365, I will receive two books by Dr. Dyer, and a DVD of his lecture. In other words, they stop in the middle of a religious program to ask me for money and claim that by giving my money to them I would receive blessings (from whom I’m not sure), which is the same thing that televangelists from Jimmy Swaggert to Pat Robertson have done. For this Sunday morning at least, PBS has become nothing more than a non-Christian version of the Trinity Broadcasting Network. As offensive as I find TBN to be, at least my money isn’t being used to fund it. But, my tax money is being used to fund PBS.

So, my question again is where are all the atheists complaining about a lack of separation of church and state? Or, is it that the atheists are only concerned about a lack of separation of Christianity and state?

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Who says politics are dull?

2006-11-26T06:56:00.000-06:00

So Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, having won the special election to represent District 22 but losing the regular election, has gone up to Washington to represent me for, oh, about two months. A good chunk of that two months is Thanksgiving and Christmas break, so we're really looking at like six weeks. So that she can go to Washington and sit at the desk for six weeks, Houston is going to have to spend millions on a special election to replace her on the city council. You know, Shelley, maybe you should have just stayed home.

But it gets better. Apparently, she has been so hard on DeLay's former staffers that they all just walked out. And these are DeLay's people, so you know they're used to criticism.

So Shelley decides they need a congressional investigation against those people who left, since she says they deleted records off the computers.

This is my favorite quote from her:

"As public servants, they have harmed the 22nd Congressional District and they have brought shame to this office."

I know of someone else who fits that description pretty well, don't you?

Is anyone else glad she lost the regular election? Personally, I'm ready for her to just go home.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

What to do next?

2006-11-22T06:49:00.000-06:00

Jerry Holbert's cartoon is particularly apt this week. You know, it has been more than two weeks since the people sent a rough message to the Republicans, but has anything changed? Rumsfeld's gone, but that seems to be the only things the GOP is going to do. Is that what they think? Do they believe that they lost the election because of Rumsfeld?

There are only two possible reasons for a Republican loss this year (well, three, but we'll assume that there was no hanky-panky with the ballots). The first is that the people agree with the Democrats. Since they had no message at all this year, I doubt that. The other is that the Republicans abandoned its base. Considering how many Conservative issues won, such as bans on gay marriage, this is likely the reason.

But either option requires a change if the Republicans want to keep the seats that have remaining. I do not mean in core values (abandoning those was probably the problem from the start), but how do they reconnect? How do they regain the base?

It's not simply by firing Rumsfeld.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Neither Party gets it, but Newt does

2006-11-15T00:06:00.000-06:00

It appears that neither party got the message from last Tuesday’s election. The Democrats are acting like they have been given a mandate by the people to enact a Liberal agenda. As proof of this Nancy Pelosi, who is in line to be the next Speaker of the House, wants John Murtha as Majority Leader and her right hand man. Murtha, of course, is the man who is advocating a withdraw from Iraq. While the election seems to indicate that the American people want a change of direction in Iraq, I don’t think they want a retreat.

According to an AP report, Democrats seem to be split on the nomination of Murtha. That means nothing since they are united behind Pelosi as Speaker. The Democrats are not debating on should they be centrist or liberal, but how liberal they should be.

Meanwhile, the Republicans appear to be happy with their leadership (if you can call it that). Robert Novak writes that Conservative, reform-minded candidates for Republican leadership positions are fighting an uphill battle. Novak writes,

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called "the stupid party."

It is obvious from polls that the voters were not voting for the Democrats but against the Republicans. The AP reports that a recent poll shows most Americans think that Iraq should be the Congress’ top priority, but most Americans don’t think the Democrats have a plan for Iraq. They are right in that assessment.

Of course, the AP would have to find something positive to say about the Democrat win,

Though uncertain about the Democrats' plan for Iraq, many Americans are upbeat about Democratic control of Congress. For every 10 adults surveyed, four said the country will be better off, three said it would not make much difference and two said the country will be worse off. Most Democrats shared that optimism. Republicans tended to be pessimistic or anticipated no discernible change.

Upbeat? 40% say the country will be better off with Democrats in power. 50% said there would be no improvement in America’s situation. I wouldn’t consider that “upbeat,” would you? The recent election results indicate that Americans want improvement. They want to win the War in Iraq, they want to end corruption and scandal in Congress, and they want an end pork-barrel spending. But half of Americans don’t think the Democrats will bring about the kind of changes they want. And they have good reason to think that. Speaker-apparent Pelosi outlined the Democrats’ agenda for the new Congress. Along with promising a change in direction in Iraq (but which direction?), and declaring that the Democratic Congress will be “the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history,” (because previous Democratic Congresses were populated by boy scouts, right?) Pelosi said Democrats will:

• Make America safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
• Make our economy fairer by raising the minimum wage and ending taxpayer subsidies for sending jobs overseas.
• Make college more affordable by cutting the interest rates on student loans.
• Improve healthcare by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices and promoting stem-cell research.
• Achieve energy independence within 10 years by investing America's energy dollars in the Midwest instead of the Middle East.
• Guarantee a dignified retirement by improving Medicare, protecting Social Security, and making it easier to save for retirement.

With the possible exception of the energy plank, were any of these issues on your mind when you went to vote? Didn’t think so. And regarding the claim that Democrats will be “honest, ethical, and open,” I have to ask how Rep. Murtha fits into this picture. The AP story on the Democrats’ leadership contest says he,

has fought charges for years of using his senior status on the defense appropriations subcommittee to award favors to campaign contributors. He voted against a Democratic package of ethics reforms earlier this year and was touched by but never charged in the Abscam bribery scandal a quarter-century ago.

Sounds like the same old tax-and-spend, screw-them-while-you-can policies we have come to expect from Democrats.

To be fair, the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that Republicans actually voted for a tax cut once.

But in all of this, there is that lone voice crying in the wilderness. Newt Gingrich writes,

When it comes to the lessons of the 2006 elections, it's very important to set the record straight. I traveled throughout the country this election year. I met with Americans in all the key states. And what I now understand is this: Republicans lost, but conservatism didn't.

Finally, someone gets it! He continues,

Republicans, in two short years, gave up the advantages on taxes, balancing the budget and controlling spending that they had spent three generations earning.
On Katrina, controlling the border and Iraq, Republicans gave up the advantage as the party of management that could get things done -- an advantage they had held since the 1950s.

And because I couldn’t say it any better, I quote again,

Today, some Republican leaders will advocate that we steer a different course. They will insist that we find a way to be appealing to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They will be wrong.
We should appeal to the Blue Dog Democrats who claim to be conservative. We should appeal to their voters and their supporters back home. Even more, we should appeal to the majority of the American people by returning the Republican Party, once again, to the party of reform, ideas, solutions and common-sense conservatism.

Amen, brother!

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

With men this is impossible...

2006-11-12T22:48:00.000-06:00

While discussing the problem of slavery in America in his book Democracy in America (published in 1835), Alexis de Tocqueville says that slavery will continue to cause Americans trouble even after it is abolished. This is because slavery in America was based on race, so the racial differences will always remind the two races of slavery. He writes,

I do not imagine that the white and black races will ever live in any country upon an equal footing. But I believe the difficulty to be still greater in the United States than elsewhere. An isolated individual may surmount the prejudices of religion, of his country, or of his race, and if this individual is a king he may effect surprising changes in society; but a whole people cannot rise, as it were, above itself. A despot who should subject the Americans and their former slaves to the same yoke, might perhaps succeed in commingling their races; but as long as the American democracy remains at the head of affairs, no one will undertake so difficult a task; and it may be foreseen that the freer the white population of the United States becomes, the more isolated will it remain. –Volume I, Chapter 18, section 3

That is a very bleak view of the future of America. It has also been proven to be wrong. It has been a difficult road, and the journey is not yet completed, but the two races do live on an equal footing in America. Mind you, prejudice is still being combated in America, but much progress has been made. And it has been made without the edicts of a despot. In our efforts to fulfill our goal of “liberty and justice for all,” we Americans have been able to rise above ourselves and our prejudices.

But, how has this been possible? de Tocqueville’s prediction makes logical sense. How can two races peacefully coexist when one has oppressed the other for hundreds of years?

I contend that this reconciliation between the races has not occurred by the power and will of mankind. It is human nature to conquer, oppress, and resent. But, here we see that human nature has been overcome.

Christianity was, and is, the common faith among the two races, and it is from Christianity where we get our idea of justice. Christianity proclaims, without reservation, the equality and brotherhood of mankind.

It is the light of Christianity that exposed the error of slavery and prejudice. Even de Tocqueville recognized this a few pages after the quote above when he said slavery was a dying institution which is “attacked by Christianity as unjust.” Prejudice and segregation are not compatible with the Christian ethic. It should come as no surprise that Abraham Lincoln attacked slavery from a Christian perspective. It should also not be surprising that Martin Luther King, Jr., the man who did the most to bring the two races together, was a minister of the Gospel. Both men were able to see the evils of their society because of the light of Christ, and both were able to attack those errors with the Christian ethic. They were inspired to rise above the sin of their culture and were able to encourage others to rise above as well.

This could not have happened by the reason of men, but only by the law of the Gospel. The Gospel will continue to guide us to justice and righteousness. de Tocqueville was wrong. It does not take a despot to force a people to rise above themselves. It takes a Lord.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

More Election Fallout

2006-11-11T01:37:00.000-06:00

Pat Toomey confirms on NRO that the Republicans lost this past Tuesday because they are no longer seen as the party of limited government. He cites poll results to back up his claim.

We asked which party is doing a better job “eliminating wasteful spending.” The Democrats led 39 percent to 25 percent. Which party is “the party of big government?” The Republicans, by an 11 point margin.
All of this is a big part of the reason the Republican party lost. Republicans squandered one of the very few valuable brands it established in voters’ minds over many years. And voters care about fiscal discipline and lower taxes.

The poll asked respondents if they preferred a candidate that promised to cut spending or a candidate that promised to bring more federal dollars home. The results,

By more than 2 to 1, voters preferred the candidate who would cut spending. And keep in mind, these were swing districts in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans. Who says earmarks are the ticket to re-election?

The poll conducted by National Review also showed that voters wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, keep low capital gains and dividend rates, and eliminate the death tax.

So, obviously the American people are still conservative. To drill the point home even more, The Master notes in his latest column,

In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58-42. Seven out of eight anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions passed. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government's power of eminent domain.

The one state that did not pass a gay marriage amendment was Arizona. This result has been highly touted by the Liberals. But, it is worth noting that Arizona already has a state law that prohibits gay marriage. Also, Tuesday’s results brings the number of states that have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage to 27. That’s a majority that you won’t hear the MSM celebrating much.

The Master also points out that since many of the Republicans that lost on Tuesday were moderates, and many of the incoming Democrats are social Conservatives (like Heath Shuler), both parties will become more Conservative. Texian Weblog also made that claim earlier this week.

So, if the American people are so strongly Conservative, why did the Republicans stray away from their Conservative roots? Complacency. Through the Clinton years, the Republicans never strayed away from Conservatism. The results were balanced budgets, competent leadership, and honest members. But, when the Republicans won the White House in 2000, and again in 2004, when they saw their power in Congress grow in 2002 and 2004, they became complacent. They began to talk of “permanent majorities,” and that is when discipline fell out of style. As long as there was a threat that Liberal policies might be enacted if they let their guard down, the Republicans were true blue Conservatives. As soon as that threat subsided, there was no longer a need to practice strict Conservatism. Reaganomics gave way to Compassionate Conservatism which soon gave way to campaign finance reform, earmarks, entitlements, and scandals.

And now the threat of Liberalism has risen once again, forcing the Republicans back into the arms of Conservatism. Even Sen. John McCain is preaching the Conservative Gospel once again. By the way, he has already started working on a 2008 Presidential bid. Jim McIntyre of Real Clear Politics says we can expect him to start talking more like a Conservative and the MSM to start being more critical of him. McIntyre says,

McCain's record on spending and national security issues is very much in the Goldwater-Reagan mold, and if he can reassure conservatives on judges he will become the heavy favorite for the GOP nomination.

It is true that when you take out campaign finance reform and his moderate stand on Bush’s judicial nominations, McCain is very conservative. To be honest, I’d rather have McCain-Feingold and a balanced budget, than McCain-Feingold and out of control spending, which is what we have gotten from the current administration.

What’s going to happen over the next two years? Nothing. In the meantime, the Republicans will return to Conservatism, which will give them a better chance at winning in 2008. Also, with Democratic majorities in Congress, the electorate’s desire for a divided government will give Republicans another big boost going into 2008. So, to look on the bright side, this election was actually a blessing for the Republicans.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Election aftermath

2006-11-08T07:05:00.000-06:00

We woke this morning to a change in power, but it is one that leaves me wondering, Did the country change, or did the Republicans. Of course, if you have been reading my posts on the Conservative Revolution, you know my answer, and I cannot be more pleased to have the Republicans out of power. Maybe next time, the Party will realize that the Conservatives will not just blindly pull the lever for Republicans every time. No, from now on we want Conservatives.

A few days ago I lamented that some of the Conservative leaders were abandoning the Revolution. Happily, the people did not go along with it. True Conservatives, like Dan Patrick, usually won by great margins. Michelle Malkin points out that Conservative issues on the ballots won also. But we refused to vote Liberal simply because that Liberal had an "R" beside his name.

Take note, Republicans. Let's have some true Conservatives next time, because I, for one, will not vote against my core values.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Election Results

2006-11-08T00:28:00.000-06:00

It is about 30 minutes before midnight here, and the election results so far show Democrats gaining control of the U.S. House and control of the Senate has yet to be decided. Already Democrats are claiming that this means that Americans agree with them. That would be quite a feat, since I don’t think the Democrats themselves even know what they believe.

The problem here is not that the electorate has shifted to the left, but that the Republicans have shifted to the left. I saw Sen. McCain on FOX News explain that Republicans are losing because they have abandoned Conservative values. He said, and this is a paraphrase, that Republicans came into Washington promising to reform government, but instead they have become government. They have prized power over principle. They have not restrained spending, they have not secured the border, and they have not shown the competence and integrity Conservatives have expected from them. That’s John McCain saying that.

Their failure in the integrity department is obvious, but their failure in the competence department might need some explaining. Iraq, of course, is an issue. While I have been a supporter of the war (my recent post explains why), I have to admit that it has not been conducted very effectively lately. I believe we should be putting more pressure on the Iraqi government to secure their country. I don’t think that we should set a time table for moving out, but I also don’t think we have made it clear enough to the Iraqi government that we won’t be there forever. There does not seem to be a sense of urgency in Iraq.

Another problem is the House seat formerly held by Tom DeLay. The Republicans have royally screwed this one up. We at Texian Weblog have been very supportive of Rep. DeLay, but his decision to drop out of the race after winning the Republican primary was a huge mistake. It created legal challenges and voter frustration that appears to have resulted in a Democrat landslide victory in a solidly Conservative district.

Republicans have lost this election because of their incompetence and their abandonment of Conservative principles, not because the Democrats simply had better ideas. Because, let’s face it, the Democrats don’t have ideas, they have criticisms. They just happen to be the lucky beneficiaries of a Republican meltdown – a meltdown I expect to be corrected in the next election.

The end result of this election will be a more conservative Republican party, including a President that will actually veto (if you can believe it) a spending bill. Even the Democrats will likely become more conservative. Notice that many of these freshmen Democrats are conservative Democrats. For example, Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who has won the seat for District 11, is a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Kelo, secure-border, Evangelical Christian. So, don’t expect a radical change in policy, but do expect to see Republicans sitting rather uneasily thanks to the swift kick in the rear that the voters gave them today.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Christianity and Mr. Echo

2006-11-07T18:08:00.000-06:00

Those who know me know that I am a faithful fan of Lost. I am intrigued by the plot, but most of all interested in the characters. The fact that the show has had frank and honest discussions of faith impresses me, and the fact that there is a Catholic Priest there impresses me even more, since television usually avoids all spirituality, and especially Christianity. Certainly, I would rather have a Baptist there, but I'll take what I can get.

But I am greatly disappointed in last week's episode. Our Priest, Mr. Echo, is going to find his brother to confess his sins and prepare for death. We are also seeing scenes from his past, where he murdered, smuggled drugs and such, lied, and stole. We knew that about him already, and the transformation he has undergone has been an inspiring on.

But when he does come to confess, he says (and I don't remember this exactly), "I do not confess, because I have not sinned." He explains that everything he did, he did in order to survive.

I am disappointed because the only Christian I can think of on a network in prime time has just rejected Christianity. And why? Survival? I will not lose my soul to merely survive on this temporal world. If the price of Heaven is death here, then give me death, for we are dead eternally without Christ.

Mark 8:36 says, "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?" The whole world does not have wealth enough to pay for that, but Echo has given over his soul for just a small piece of this world, and a very short part, since he will (and did) die anyway.

Even your very body is not worth that price, for Matthew 18:9 says, "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell."

It is better to starve than to betray God in sin. It is better to perish than to lose part of your soul over to murder or thievery. You may say to me, "Would it not be better to take a loaf of bread than starve," but I would reply, Man is not made for bread alone. It is far better to trade your life here for eternal life than to damn your soul in order to gain a few more years here.

Scripture confirms for us "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), but "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). When Mr. Echo declares that he has not sinned, he calls God a liar. When he says that he has not sinned, he declares that Christ died needlessly. "If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21). In other words, if our actions are "good enough," then why did Jesus need to die?

We want to feel sorry for this character, for all he has been through, and we should pity him because he was so near, and yet failed to look to Christ. But to say that adverse conditions exempts you from morality, then you do not understand why Christ died.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

On scandals and redemption

2006-11-07T17:46:00.000-06:00

I don't want to speak too much on Ted Haggard, mainly because it is not my place to judge him. It is for his congregation to judge if he committed a sin against the congregation (Matthew 18:15-17), the judicial system to judge whether he committed crimes against the nation's laws (Romans 13:4), and God to judge him ultimately and completely (Romans 12:19). I will not give recommendations or comments on the matter.

But the whole matter makes me think of something Derek Webb said on The House Show.

"The Christian life is not about hiding. . . . I'm telling you, the best thing that could ever happen to anybody in this room, the best thing, is that your sin would be literally exposed on the five o'clock news. . . . In order that I would have nothing but Jesus to grasp on to, 'cause that's all I've got anyway."

Blessed is Haggard to have this all dragged out into the open. How wonderful if this causes him to fall into the waiting arms of the Lord. I celebrate that part of his ordeal, because it is at our lowest that Christ will take us up.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Ted Haggard is a Mirror on Ourselves

2006-11-05T23:51:00.000-06:00

Here’s the thing I don’t understand. Homosexuality is supposed to be a legitimate life choice, right? So, what’s the big deal over Ted Haggard having a homosexual relationship? Is it because he is a hypocrite for denouncing homosexuality while having gay sex? That’s easily fixed with a renunciation of one or the other and an apology. Haggard has already done that. He said in a letter which was read to his congregation today,

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring about it for my entire life.

Obviously, he recognizes his error and is attempting to get one side of his life in line with the other. And we should not be so critical of him. After all, we are all human, all prone to error, and we are all hypocrites in one way or another.

So, what’s the problem here? If there is nothing wrong with gay sex, and hypocrisy is common to all, then he is only guilty of adultery (which is itself a hypocritical act). But, the Clinton legacy has taught us that adultery should not be a problem for the rest of us if the spouse forgives the adulterer. Mrs. Haggard has already said that she has forgiven her husband. She said,

I love my husband, Ted Haggard, with all my heart . . . I am committed to death do us part . . . My test has begun. Watch me. I will try to prove myself faithful.

So again, what’s the problem here? Are we judging a pastor by a higher moral standard than we judge ourselves? Is that fair to him? Is that fair to us? Are we saying, then, that he is better than we are?

The fact is the morally vacant, “if it feels good, do it” culture we have created for ourselves is obviously insufficient. There is such a thing as sin. Ted Haggard has sinned. We all have sinned. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion no different than adultery, polygamy, or even pedophilia. If one is socially acceptable, then logically the other three should also be social acceptable. But, there is a moral standard by which we are all judged. It is not rooted in reason or nature, which are both corrupt. It is rooted in the divine, eternal Law of God. If we loose sight of this, we loose our direction. We quickly degenerate into selfish, greedy animals. If you don’t believe me, just look around. I shouldn’t have to point it out to you. It should be clear as day.

It should be clear as day. That is why this Haggard ordeal matters. That is why we are, and should be, making a big deal over it. By a human standard, Ted Haggard’s actions can be reasoned away until no fault is found in him. But by a divine standard, there is no gray area. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Ted Haggard is a sinner in need of salvation. I am a sinner in need of salvation. We all are sinners in need of salvation.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Hussein Verdict

2006-11-05T14:02:00.000-06:00

As you should already know, Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to hang. His sentence is automatically appealed to a panel of nine judges which will review the case. Upon their approval, the sentence must be carried out within 30 days.

To those who wonder what we’re doing in Iraq, why have we invaded that country, why are our troops dying there, this is the reason. We are there to rid the world of an evil, brutal dictator. Even Democrats are saying that this verdict is a good thing. But then they go back to saying that going into Iraq was a bad idea. In their zeal to blame every bad event on the President, they seem to have forgotten that it is often, strike that, always necessary to put up with set backs and bad things to achieve a greater goal. If we had not gone into Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, still murdering the Iraqi people, still threatening to destabilize the region, and still trying to amass weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons). Instead, he is facing a death sentence.

True, there are other things in the world that require our attention. For one thing, Iran and North Korea are trying to gain nuclear weapons. North Korea has probably already built a nuclear weapon. Democrats complain that this has happened because the President has been distracted by the War in Iraq. But once again they fail to see that these problems started long before the Iraq War, and they would have still happened even if we had not ousted Saddam Hussein. In fact, the situation would be even more complicated and dangerous if Hussein were still in power. Imagine an Iran and Iraq, both ruled by evil regimes, both armed with weapons of mass destruction, living side by side, and hating America and each other. Now I ask you, is that a better picture than what we see now? I cannot see how anyone can make the argument that the world is not better off with one fewer tyrant in power.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Texas Border Watch

2006-11-04T06:46:00.000-06:00

The State of Texas has launched a new website that allows citizens to view webcams placed in strategic locations along the Texas/Mexico border. The website also includes a link to email authorities if you happen to see any suspicious activity. The State warns that the website is in its testing phase right now, so it may not always be possible to get a picture from some of the webcams.

An AP report on the program is rather critical of the State for these technical issues. Though, the photo that the AP is running with this story is of angry Russians protesting a march of an untranationalist group in Russia. What that photo has to do with a border security website in Texas isn’t very clear. Perhaps the AP should work out some of their own “technical” problems.

You will be asked to create an account to view the images. They only ask for an email address and your city and state. They will email a password to you. Apparently, you don’t have to be a Texan to use this service. After all, border security is an issue for the entire nation, not just border states. Despite the technical issues that I’m sure will be worked out soon, this is a very good idea (but perhaps not as good as Mr. Lytle’s idea of building a wall along the border lined with statues of the Alamo defenders). According to the AP story, the State plans to add more webcams in the future. In the meantime, I will enjoy watching the sunrise over the Rio Grande Valley.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Our Soldiers' Response to Senator Kerry

2006-11-02T20:40:00.000-06:00

Here's our guy's response to Sen. Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment.

Of course, it really doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to make fun of John Kerry.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

On Halloween, All Saints’ Day, and the Christianization of Pagan Holidays

2006-11-01T00:00:00.000-06:00

This time of year is usually a confusing one for Christians. I, too, often have mixed feelings about Halloween. The apparent celebration of the occult and paganism is, and should be, a concern for many Christians. That is why I would like to share with you a couple of articles that may help to ease your mind.

First, we all know that Halloween began as a pagan holiday, and that when the Church conquered the old pagan religions many of the pagan holidays were “Christianized.” They were given Christian meanings. Halloween is among these holidays, as is Christmas. To the pagans, this day was a frightening time when the underworld opened up and ghosts and demons roamed the streets. But, Harold Myra reminds us that Christians changed the day into a celebration of the lives of departed believers. This day became known as All Saints’ Day. Myra encourages us to revive that celebration. He defends the practice of Christianizing pagan holidays, arguing that it is just as appropriate to Christianize the pagan holiday as it is to Christianize the pagan.

Myra argues that we should use All Saints’ Day (which is today, by the way) as an opportunity to remember the lives and faith of believers who have passed away. He writes,

Here is a unique opportunity for our churches. At the first news of a death, and during the first weeks of grief, the bereaved receive much attention. But how many widows ever hear their husband's name mentioned years later by fellow Christians? Persons who were once a major part of a church's life are forgotten—though not by their loved ones. A child who dies may be mourned by the church, but a year later that child is seldom mentioned or thought of—except by parents and siblings.
In every congregation sit people who have a great desire to speak of those in their families who loved Christ and them. Remembering such people both publicly and privately is what All Saints' Day is about. Perhaps the pastor could give vignettes of numerous departed saints from the congregation, pointing out specific characteristics of faith worth emulating.

I like that idea, provided the opportunity will be used to remember with joy the lives of fellow Christians and not simply to mourn their deaths. It can be healthy and comforting to take time to remember our loved ones after the grieving period is over.

But, while this gives us a Christian alternative to Halloween, it does not offer a way to celebrate, in a Christian manner, Halloween traditions such as dressing up in costumes and telling spooky stories.

Refusing to allow his favorite childhood holiday to be snatched away by neo-pagans, Anderson Rearick III says,

What would a reclaimed Halloween express? In our culture, Halloween traditionally has allowed us to look at what frightens us—to experience it, to laugh at it, and to come through it. So at the end of October, we are visited by cute Caspers, laughing pumpkin heads, and goofy ghouls.
Should the forces of evil be mocked? Should Satan be laughed at? He most certainly should be. At the beginning of The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis includes two telling quotations, the first from Martin Luther: "The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."
The second comes from Thomas More: "The devil … the proud spirit cannot endure to be mocked."

As Christians, servants of a Lord who has conquered evil and death, we have nothing to fear of Satan, demons, ghosts, and the occult. What better way to proclaim the victory of God than by mocking Satan? When we dress as ghosts and goblins on Halloween, we tell Satan that his antics will not frighten us out of our faith.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Here's hoping they don't know what I actually believe!

2006-10-30T15:37:00.000-06:00

Rick Perry is running away from his voting record again. This radio ad has the following line: "Only you, Chris Bell, could vote for higher taxes ten times in Congress, and despite our record state surplus, run for governor on a platform of raising taxes."

Wait a minute, Rick. I mean fair's fair. Bell may want to raise taxes, but you actually invented a new tax amidst a record state surplus. And now that the property tax bills are going out, people are really beginning to see that your "tax cut" was anything but!

If Bell's position is too Liberal for Texas, I think I know where your position falls too, Rick.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Why does everyone get upset over the funny ads?

2006-10-28T07:55:00.000-05:00

The Republicans are running the following ad against Harold Ford in Tennessee:

The Democrat response is that the ad is racist. Come on! If you want to counter the ad, then let's do it on the issues. Race is never brought up in the ad, and nor is it implied. It is Ford's ideology that is in question here, not his color.

Have the Dems just completely given up on real debate in this country? Have you just decided that you can't win, and therefore you're going to throw a hissy fit until the country gives up and gives you back your toys?

Hat tip: Real Clear Politics

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

The end of the Conservative Revolution

2006-10-24T18:03:00.000-05:00

A while back, I wrote that the Conservative Revolution may lead to a Democrat win this November. I have been greatly discouraged by the mood of our little revolution lately. I now believe that, come Election Day, the revolt will fizzle, and the Conservatives will return the Republicans (if in smaller numbers) back into power.

Great Conservatives like Dan Patrick have failed to advocate the abandonment of the party, instead saying, as they say every election, "You better shape up or we won't vote for you next time."

And the Republicans just keep assuming (apparently they are right on this too) that we're going to vote for them no matter what they do. Well, Bush has been the most Liberal President in the history of this country. This Congress has been the most Liberal in the history of this country. Rick Perry has pushed a brand new tax down our throats (I do not believe that even Ma Richards did something like this) right in the middle of a budget surplus.

For all you people, who keep saying that the Republican is bad but the Democrat worse, I have only one question: How is the Democrat worse? What could the Democrats possibly do that will be worse than what the Republicans are doing? Democrats could never get away with the gross spending and general incompetence as we are showing now. Democrats who oppose border control, for example, are getting hammered on the issue. We've been in power for a long time now, and the best Bush can do is to welcome illegal aliens and terrorists and help them become citizens.

I, for one, will not abandon my core principles. Political power is not worth enough to me that I would sell out the security of our country, our financial future, or the Constitution.

If the Republicans win this year, the revolution is over. If they lose, then this grass roots movement is moving beyond even its founders like Mr. Patrick.

If that happens, we will still look to then Senator Patrick to be our leader in Texas. I hate to mention him in such a way, since he is basically right on every other issue out there, but I will because he has been the primary architect of our movement, and now he is abandoning us because he says he can work better with Perry than a Democrat. Baloney!

Be forewarned that this voter will not accept anything less than Conservatism in elected officials. The word "Republican" no longer has any meaning to me, and it will carry no weight with me in the ballot box.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Which religion is right for you?

2006-10-23T11:24:00.000-05:00

I came across this internet quiz today. You know the type, like one that tells you what kind of swordfighter you are or which character of Serenity you are most like. Well, this particular one promises to tell you which religion is right for you. Now, I have provided the link to this particular test, but be forewarned that they won't give you your full results unless you pay them. They only told me that I am “suited to religions that value salvation from sin.” Gee, thanks! Whew! I thought I was going to have to convert from Christianity, but I guess I'm okay.

I'm being somewhat flippant about this ridiculous test, but it strikes me that this sort of mentality is exactly the problem in modern America. There are a great many people out there that are looking for God to conform with them rather than the other way around. Even the Christians out there are doing it to an extent. They seek churches that don't mention sin very often, or none at all. They prefer to have their ears tickled than to hear the Word. How strange.

I remember many students in my high school who were taking classes only because they were Honors level (this is just before AP level classes) and it was an easy A. Of course, they benefited from these classes with a higher GPA, but they didn't learn anything. Well, the GPA thing was a fleeting reward. It helped them get into college, but once that was done, a high school GPA is pretty meaningless. And then when they got to college, they were ill-prepared for the work there. Not because they were not smart enough, but because they had avoided papers and real challenges. In the end, I never regretted taking a difficult course.

This is perhaps as near an analogy as I can make to what is going on in churches. So many are seeking a religion that makes them god. They want to come into the building perfect and without flaw, completely accepted by all higher powers. Well, that will probably make you feel good, but what is the real point here? I can stay home to worship myself, thank you very much. And with today's gas prices, that may be a good idea.

When it comes to religion, our primary goal is not to seek the religion or church that is most suited to us. After all, the very fact that we are seeking religion probably means that we have admitted that we are not perfect moral leaders. Instead, we should seek to conform ourselves to God.

If I am a man of anger, I will seek a church that will press me to control that anger. If I am an alcoholic, I want a church that will make sure I do not drink again. If I am a sinner, and we all are, I want a church that will teach me how to be forgiven. Forget making me comfortable! Forget making me feel good! If it is going to hurt to get that stain off my soul, then let it hurt, because I don't want to damn over a fleeting benefit.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Debunking OPEC

2006-10-20T02:14:00.000-05:00

Do not fear the news that OPEC has decided to cut oil production by over 1 million barrels a day. And do not be further disheartened by the news that OPEC may make even more cuts later. I’ll tell you why.

In their attempts to artificially inflate the price of oil through budget cuts, the OPEC members are working against the laws of capitalism. And the laws of capitalism are as persistent as the laws of nature. You can build a dam on a river and pretend that you control it, but a dam is only temporary. Eventually the river will go over, around, or through the dam.

The same is true here. By colluding to control the price of oil, OPEC has only succeeded in destroying its power. To put it simply, overcharging your customers for your product is not good customer service. And if you don’t provide good customer service, your customers are going to take their business elsewhere.

When OPEC tries to raise the price of oil by cutting its production, it only encourages its competitors, like Russia, to increase their production to cash in on the inflated prices. These competitors are not bound by the same production quotas as the OPEC members, so there is nothing stopping them from opening their spigots as wide as they will go. They cash in on the high price and invest the profits in efforts to increase their production. And when they take their product to market, they find very wealthy clients (such as the United States) eager to buy from a supplier that won’t try to cheat them. In the process, OPEC loses its market share to its competitors.

Of course, higher prices have another effect. Price rations supply, and when prices become too high people learn to do without the product. In 1973 OPEC caused quite a bit of damage to the U.S. economy through its oil embargo, an effort to punish western nations for their support of Israel. U.S. consumers responded by conserving energy and buying cars with better fuel mileage. The U.S. government encouraged the development of domestic sources of oil. In November of that year, President Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act which cleared the way for the construction of the Alaska Oil Pipeline. Research into alternative fuels also picked up. All of these actions combined to lessen American dependence on OPEC.

The twin pressures of increased competition and decreased demand caused a panic among the OPEC members. Eventually, OPEC members refused to continue limiting their production, the oil industry experienced a dramatic bust, and OPEC’s power was greatly diminished.

So, every time the OPEC ministers decide to teach us Jew-loving infidels a lesson by hitting us in our wallets, they only end up digging their own graves. OPEC does not have the same power over the price of oil that it once held. Whenever OPEC tries to influence the price of oil, it’s power is diminished even more.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

What I have learned from this whole Mark Foley stuff

2006-10-07T21:27:00.000-05:00

Apparently, according to the Dems, it is okay to commit murder (Ted Kennedy), accept bribes (William Jefferson), be a member of the Ku Klux Klan (Robert Byrd), steal classified documents (Sandy Berger), cheat on campaign finance laws (only if you are Nancy Pelosi, but Dems can still make up these charges against Republicans), bomb aspirin factories to distract the people from the criminal investigation against you (Bill Clinton), lie under oath (Bill Clinton), commit sexual harassment (Bill Clinton), and commit rape (Bill Clinton). In fact, the only actual crime in Washington is to send inappropriate e-mails to a congressional page (unless you are Gerry Studds — oh, wait, he was only having sex with underage boys, not sending them text messages . . .).

Democrats, until you arrest Ted Kennedy and everyone else on that list above, I don’t want to hear a word out of you about any of this. You are trying to point at the speck in the eye of Republicans without removing the log in your own.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Sanctions Won’t Work on North Korea

2006-10-07T12:04:00.000-05:00

The AP reports that warning shots were fired across the Korean DMZ after five North Korean soldiers crossed the boundary.

It was unclear whether the North Korean advance was intended as a provocation, or was rather an attempt to go fishing at a nearby stream, an official at South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said on condition of anonymity, citing official policy.

The report goes on to say that only one of the five soldiers was armed. The report doesn’t say if the other soldiers were carrying fishing poles or not.

But fish aren’t the only ones that have worries about the North Koreans. North Korea has announced that it plans to test its first nuclear bomb soon. Speculation is that this will come as early as tomorrow, which is the anniversary of Kim Jong Il’s ascension to power.

Concerned nations are calling for sanctions against North Korea to punish it if it actually goes through with the nuclear test.

Sanctions, however, will not work against North Korea. The people there are already suffering horrible poverty (children are dying in the streets). The United States have already imposed sanctions on North Korea to punish it for counterfeiting U.S. currency (which is, by the way, a form of economic terrorism).

China, according to the AP report, has told the United States that North Korea will continue it’s policy of brinkmanship until the U.S. ends the sanctions. Of course, the U.S. should not ease the sanctions. That would only reward North Korea for its behavior. But, it is clear that sanctions alone are not going to work.

North Korea must be made to understand that the United States and the international community will not abide any further threats. North Korea must be made aware that swift and severe military action is imminent. This, regrettably, is the only language that North Korea will understand.

I do not mean that we should invade North Korea. Airstrikes against military targets will be enough to eliminate the North Korean menace.

Though, we should be prepared for a million North Korean soldiers pouring though the DMZ, even if they are only armed with fishing poles. But this will be far better than the alternative: a nuclear test over Tokyo, or Seattle.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

All your video are belong to us!

2006-10-04T18:17:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin is covering an effort by YouTube to take down any anti-Jihad videos from their website. Look, this is a private company and they have the right to take down anything they want, but the consumers should know about this. Check out her story on it.

In the meantime, this is a rather funny video that should be banned in the near future. It plays off a favorite phrase for us at the Texian Weblog.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

So much for UMC’s “Open Doors” policy

2006-09-26T23:17:00.000-05:00

As many of you may know, the marketing slogan for the United Methodist Church is, “Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors.”

We won’t talk about why the UMC thinks it needs a marketing slogan. A church should be content with relying on the Holy Spirit to bring people through the doors. But that’s not the purpose of this post. We’ll talk about why the UMC thinks it needs to close its doors to certain people.

Ted Olsen of Christianity Today reports on the rising number of churches that are offering sanctuary to fugitives. The idea of sanctuary, where a church shelters a fugitive from his pursuers, is ancient. Olsen says that churches in the middle ages would give sanctuary to a fugitive, not because they believed that the fugitive was fleeing from an unjust law, but in order to “save lives, show grace, and offer room for repentance,” at a time when punishment was swift and severe.

The concept is no longer widely used. But, some churches are reviving it. One church in particular, Chicago’s Adalberto United Methodist Church has given shelter to Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant who was ordered deported. But when Ted Hayes, a homeless advocate and Minuteman activist from Los Angeles, heard about this he asked the church’s pastor if he could attend a service. He received no answer from the pastor, so he decided to show up one Sunday. When he did, he received a rather cold welcome.

half a dozen men stood abreast at the entrance of Adalberto United Methodist Church blocking Ted Hayes' entry as others banged drums to drown out his shouts.
. . .
One church member stood chest-to-chest with Hayes as others rained boos upon the homeless advocate who flew from the West Coast last week to protest Arellano's defiance of a government deportation order.

So, you can expect the UMC’s doors and minds to be open, unless they don’t agree with you. Then, you can expect shouts, boos, and closed doors. How interesting, and (as Olsen points out) how very contrary to the Gospel (Matt 5:47; Rom 13:1-7).

But this should come as no surprise. Many churches (the UMC is not alone here) have tried to conform the Gospel to their political opinions. This happens on both ends of the political spectrum, and it’s a shame.

By the way, CT has a very good article from James Edwards which examines immigration policy from a biblical point of view.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

We've lost a hero

2006-09-22T17:35:00.000-05:00

Last night one of Houston's finest was shot during a routine traffic stop. The suspect was in the rear of the police car when he shot Rodney Johnson through the plastic shield between the seats. The cops found the suspect still in that back seat and arrested him.

Johnson has been on the force for 12 years, and I'm willing to bet that they haven't been easy. In that time, the American attitude toward police and soldiers has worsened. We do not support those who protect us. People who remain in those jobs under such circumstances have my respect and eternal gratitude.

I hope you will consider giving to The 100 Club. Those in Houston should at least be familiar with the bumper stickers. The organization has been set up to protect police officers and firefighters by 1) buying equipment, such as bulletproof vests, for the officers and 2) supporting the families of those who fall in the line of duty. It is one of the most efficient charities in the area, and a surprising amount of your money goes to the officers.

It's time we support these people in appreciation of how they support us.

-Paul Lytle
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Sorry, I’m still not feeling any safer

2006-09-21T23:45:00.000-05:00

David Van Biema writes in a recent article for Time magazine that the Pope’s and many Christians’ fears of Islamic kidnappers forcing their victims to convert to Islam are “forced,” and “a pretty weak tool for building an argument for generalized Islamic depravity.” Van Biema says that this fear, which prompted Benedict’s recent speech “reflects a fundamental misreading of that religion's history.”

Ok, so let’s look at that religion’s history and see if we really are misreading it.

Van Biema argues that “although Islamic law allows for the forced conversion of “unbelievers,” it explicitly forbids its use upon Christians and Jews.” Oh, well that makes it all better. If it doesn’t happen to Christians and Jews, then it isn’t worth worrying about, I guess.

Benedict quoted in his speech a Byzantine emperor who feared that the Muslim Ottoman Turks would overrun his empire and force his citizens to convert to Islam. But according to Van Biema, this fear “turned out to be unwarrented.”

Although treatment of "unbelievers"—notably those on the Indian subcontinent—could be brutal, “People of the Book,” as Christians and Jews were known, often maintained their distinct religious communities.

Van Biema explains that when the Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Ottomans, the churches were kept “up and running.” This was typical of Islamic conquest. Van Biema continues,

True, [Christians and Jews] were regarded as second class citizens and had to pay a poll tax and a land tax. It could be a demeaning life, and many converted, but others did not, as is indicated by large Christian minorities in many majority-Muslim states today.

Ok, so they weren’t forced to convert. But they were certainly pressured . . . heavily . . . to convert. And many Christians did succumb to the pressure and convert. So, how is this supposed to show that Islam is really a friendly religion that has become a victim of Christian distortion and slander?

Van Biema explains that as bad as Islam was to Christians, it was not nearly as bad as Christians were to Muslims.

The best-known forced conversion of [Byzantine Emperor] Manuel’s century or any since was not executed by Muslims, but by the Spanish Christian monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, who served Spanish Moors (and Jews) a convert-or-leave edict in 1492 and then backed it up with the Spanish Inquisition.

I would be the first to admit that many evils have been committed in the name of Christ, but that does not excuse the evils committed in the name of Islam. And, it is a poor reply to Benedict’s main point: that Islam’s lack of respect for reason enables it to excuse violence while Christianity argues, to use Benedict’s own words, “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.” The Christian God, Benedict says, is a rational God, and violence is certainly irrational. Therefore, violence has no place in Christianity.

And I would further argue that Ferdinand and Isabella’s forced exile is no where near as sinister as Islam’s coerced conversion. While the Spanish Monarchs’ plan was unchristian, at least it was obvious. But Islam was more sneaky. Even Van Biema admits to that. Van Biema explains that Benedict may have “misconstrued” what the Emperor meant when he said Islam is spread by the sword.

The ancient emperor may have been alluding not to sword's-edge conversion, but merely (if "merely" is the right word) to Islam's early intent to conquer the world, whose inhabitants would eventually come around to the true faith of their own accord.

I ask you, which is worse? Forcing nonbelievers out of your country, or actually going out and conquering their country then treating them like second class citizens until they finally agree to convert?

And this is what Islamic terrorists still seek. 9/11 did not happen because bin Laden and his crowd hate American freedoms and culture. They hate the fact that we are not Muslims. That is their goal: to force us, through terror, to convert. And what is even worse is that when we look to moderate Muslims for support against the terrorists, we get only token support, but nothing substantial. Why? Because in Islam the terrorists’ goals, and their tactics for achieving them, are justified. Islam’s history and its present certainly give us cause for fear. And we can take no comfort in the fact that as “People of the Book” we would be treated only slightly better than the rest of the infidels (who are told to convert or die).

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

How About a Nice Game of Monopoly?

2006-09-19T00:43:00.000-05:00

There’s a new Monopoly game called Here & Now. It’s an updated version (with prices and salaries updated for inflation) that has replaced the traditional properties with landmarks and locations from major U.S. cities.

Here’s the process that was used to determine which landmark would represent the city. A list of three candidate properties for each city was put up to a vote. Which ever landmark received the most votes would represent that city. The total number of votes that city received would determine its placement on the board. Times Square received the most votes out of the list of candidates to represent New York City, so it’s on the board. New York received more total votes than any other city, so its representative gets the most expensive spot on the board, traditionally Boardwalk. Here is a picture of the board.

Notice that while New York’s Times Square occupies the prestigious spot traditionally held by Boardwalk, Boston’s Fenway Park is next door where Park Place should be. As if Bostonians didn’t have enough of a inferiority complex, now New York is beating them in Monopoly, too.

Houston’s representative is the Johnson Space Center, home of NASA’s Mission Control. I’m a little surprised that it wasn’t the Astrodome, but it’s still cool. Maybe there was a licencing issue with the Astrodome. Anyway, JSC is located at the spot where you would usually find Tennessee Ave, about halfway around the board. This is very much a middle class neighborhood. Quite respectable. On the other hand, Dallas’ representative is Texas Stadium, home of the Cowboys. It’s located in Baltic Avenue’s spot – very, very low class. Also one of the least landed-on properties. I’m sure I’m not the only one who calls the owner of this property a “slum lord.” Once again, Houston beats Dallas. Houston also beat out Atlanta and St. Louis, just like the 2005 playoffs!

In case you were wondering, Houston and Dallas are the only Texas cities represented.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Muslims become violent out of anger over being called violent

2006-09-17T03:03:00.000-05:00

This is really amazing. In a speech recently, the Pope quoted a medieval Byzantine text in which the author says, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The point that Benedict was trying to make in his speech (and he made it quite well, actually) is that faith and reason go hand in hand. Neither is much good without the other.

To illustrate this point, the Pope says that Mohammed’s command to spread Islam by the sword contradicts the Koran’s command that “there is no compulsion in religion.” For a Christian, this is plainly wrong. God is a rational God. He is the logos, he is reason. Violence is certainly not rational. Therefore, violence does not conform to the nature of the Christian God. Muslims, on the other hand, emphasize God’s sovereignty and transcendence. For the Muslim, God is not limited by anything, including his own commands. The Pope then goes on,

I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God.

But, Muslims quickly became angry over the Pope’s words. Or rather, the words that the Pope had the “audacity” to quote. To show their anger over being called violent, Muslims around the world have . . . well, they have become violent. According to the article referenced above,

Palestinians attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza over the pope's remarks Tuesday in a speech to university professors in his native Germany.
An Iraqi insurgent group threatened the Vatican with a suicide attack over the pope's remarks on Islam, according to a statement posted Saturday on the Web.
"We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a Web site frequently used by militant groups. The message's authenticity could not be independently verified. The statement was addressed to "you dog of Rome" and threatens to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."

This, of course, only proves what the Byzantine text quoted by the Pope was saying: that Islam is not rational. Seriously, if someone wrongly calls you an asshole, the rational thing to do would be to show, by your actions, that you are not an asshole. But if you display your displeasure over being called an asshole by actually acting like an asshole, you have only proven your critic’s point. And after showing the whole world your assholedness, it really isn’t a good idea to demand an apology for being called an asshole. The Pope also criticized the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but you don’t see Lutherans threatening to blow up the Vatican (I actually might have more to say on that later).

And what’s really amazing about all this is this isn’t the first time we have seen this kind of Muslim reaction. Earlier this year we saw a similar reaction to the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomb in his turban. Riots erupted all over the Muslim world over that. Texian Weblog had the same reaction then as we have now, “is it really a good idea to show your displeasure at being called violent by actually being violent?”

More reaction from Muslim nations,

Morocco recalled its ambassador to the Vatican on Saturday to protest the pope's "offensive" remarks, and Afghanistan demanded the pope apologize.

Wait a minute. Afghanistan is upset over this? Isn’t this the same nation that threatened to kill a man for converting to Christianity? And they would have done it, too, if cooler, more rational heads had not prevailed.

Oh yeah, and the Palestinians are protesting. This, after Palestinian terrorists forced two FOX News journalists to convert to Islam at gunpoint. As Christianity Today’s Weblog points out, this is not an isolated incident.

“Religion of peace” my fat, white, Texan ass.

So, perhaps that Medieval Byzantine author was correct. Islam is an irrational, violent religion. And the Pope has no reason to apologize. Consider it constructive criticism. The Muslim reactions to this criticism, from fire-bombing churches to threatening to blow up the Vatican, and the general Islamic violence we see everyday only prove that such criticism is sorely needed in the Islamic world.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Teachers vote to abandon education

2006-09-15T21:39:00.000-05:00

From our favorite guest writer, Anastasia P. Lytle:

I thought that we had some problems with teachers here in Texas, but apparently Detroit, Michigan has us beat. According to this article, “teachers voted Wednesday to end their more than two-week strike and pave the way for Detroit's 130,000 students to return to their classrooms on Thursday, seven school days late.” Apparently, the teachers decided that they weren’t getting paid enough, so clearly the best way to get paid more is to not go in to work. That’s logical, right?

Unfortunately, for unionized teachers, it is. We simply don’t have the numbers to replace them, or the guts to stand up to the unions, so we let this happen, sending out the message to teachers nationwide that it’s better to walk out on your job and leave your students teacherless than to negotiate for a higher salary in a mature manner.

It seems that the school district was trying to close a 105 million deficit, so clearly the way to solve this was for all the teachers to walk out for ten days and demand raises. That will get new textbooks and buildings and lower costs. And why weren't veteran teachers paying health costs?

Now according to this article from 2004, Michigan rates second highest when it comes to paying teachers. So why are these people walking out again?

As a teacher (and one who works in a private Catholic school that pays nowhere near what these Michigan teachers are making, I promise), I am offended. According to Detroit Federation of Teachers President Janna Garrison: "We stayed united. We made great sacrifices, because we were fighting for what is right." What exactly does she mean by "right"? Because "right" would be staying in school and giving children a semi-decent education (assuming that a public school with a union is even capable of that), not walking out on your job.

My favorite line is this: "The fact that we're both unhappy shows that there was real compromise." Yep, that means the problems will go away.

Look, teachers have to do lots of work. I know that. We don't just write lesson plans — we hold vomiting children (done that), listen to our students as they pour their teenage hearts out, grade until we are nearly blind, inhale so much chalk dust that we have permanent, consumptive-sounding coughs, call to parents that think that their little one is Einstein and tell them that the kid has a twenty average, and the list goes on. We do an insane amount of work, and no, the pay isn't great, but it's also not that bad. Teachers make almost fifty thousand a year on average, which isn't bad money, come to think of it. And yet teachers in the second-highest paid state in the Union just had a ten-day walkout.

This tells us how ridiculously out of control the unions have gotten. They aren't looking out for the schools, and definitely not the students. They are too busy telling teachers that they should demand raises from a district over a million dollars in debt.

-Anastasia P. Lytle

Comments? Email us.

Well done, FBCSO!

2006-09-12T17:48:00.000-05:00

Deputy David Mirelez of the Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office discovered nearly a ton of marijuana being trafficked through our lovely county last week. He was doing a plate check on the vehicle and found that the truck had been reported stolen. Well, take a look at what he found then:

Fantastic work, Deputy Mirelez!

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

The Deafness of Reason

2006-09-10T12:57:00.000-05:00

At a mass in Germany today, the anti-Chr – oops, I mean the Pope argued that Western nations should not replace faith in God with faith in science.

Benedict said modern people suffered from "hardness of hearing" when it comes to God.
"Put simply, we are no longer able to hear God — there are too many different frequencies filling our ears," he said. "What is said about God strikes us as pre-scientific, no longer suited to our age."
"People in Asia and Africa admire our scientific and technical progress, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of rationality which totally excludes God from man's vision, as if this were the highest form of reason."

That “hardness of hearing” bit echos Cicero’s “The Dream of Scipio”, by the way.

Finally, this new Pope is saying something that I can agree with.

Yes, it is true that science requires faith. Take for example the naturalistic creation myths of the Big Bang and evolution. Of course, no one was there to actually see these events happen, so we can never know for sure what happened and how it happened. Our knowledge of the world is riddled with blanks. Those living in earlier centuries are often criticized for filling those blanks with God. Even today’s idea of Intelligent Design is criticized for the same reason.

Science, on the other hand, fills those blanks with reason. The problem is, reason is often wrong. Science once believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Reason brought us to that conclusion. Later, science believed that the universe was eternal, without a beginning. That was also wrong. Now we are supposed to believe that the universe was created spontaneously out of nothing (defying physical laws) and that men evolved from apes. How are we to know that this is not also wrong? It takes faith to accept the theories of science. We have to believe that human reasoning is not going to lead us wrong like it has so many times before. That’s a hard thing to believe.

For, in short, what debauchery, what avarice, what crime among men is there which does not owe its birth to thought and reflection, that is, to reason? For all opinion is reason: right reason, if men's thoughts are conformable to truth; wrong reason, if they are not. –Cicero De Natura Deorum Book III

But, how are we to know that our reason is conformable to truth? Reason itself cannot tell us. That would be circular logic: I’m right because I think I’m right. So, we see once again that we need a touchstone, something that is beyond ourselves that declares truth from error. We must not be deaf to that declaration.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Is it too much to ask for one movie that doesn't bash Conservatives?

2006-09-08T17:59:00.000-05:00

Conservatives are calling foul over the Democrat response to an unaired ABC miniseries on 9/11. Keep in mind that the show is admittedly fiction, not a documentary. Apparently (I have not seen it, of course, since it is unaired) a bunch of people who kept messing up during the Clinton Administration are annoyed that Bush wasn't blamed completely. The Democrats even inserted a threat against ABC in their letter:

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Look, I don't have a problem with the Dems. You know why, because I remember these same Democrats writing a letter criticizing the blatant distortions in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary rather than a dramatization. The movie did not even have to come out before they were writing letters. They were very clear that lies were not appropriate for political documentaries, especially the ones that come out right before an election, as this fictional account does. Now, Moore's film was not broadcast, but I am certain that they inserted a paragraph threatening any network who plans to air it. Give me just a second, I'm trying to find that letter on Google right now. It should come up shortly. No? Well, let me try other keywords here. Hmm.

Well, I do remember it. I am sure that the Democrats would not use the FCC in this way to forbid discussion that might support the Conservatives without doing the same on their side. Don't worry, I'll keep looking and report back when I find it.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

And the Conservative candidate is . . . the Liberal?

2006-09-06T17:48:00.000-05:00

Has anyone else noticed that Kinky Friedman seems to be getting more than more Conservative as the campaign goes on? Some may say that he is trying to appeal to the Conservative base that Rick Perry has lost, but I don’t think so. I’ve been listening to him lately, and he seems to be genuine (which is better than the other three candidates, whom we know are not genuine). Surely his positions on social issues could be better, but take a look at his core platform here:

Illegal immigration
His plans for illegal immigration include increasing the number of Texas National Guard troops on the border (from the current 1,500 to 10,000), imposing $25,000 and $50,000 fines on companies that hire illegal immigrants and requiring foreign nationals seeking employment to purchase a foreign taxpayer ID card once they have passed a criminal background check.
"Texas can no longer wait for our federal government to solve our illegal immigration problem," Friedman said. "These are steps that Texas can immediately take to help stem the tide of illegal immigrants penetrating our border."
Crime
Crime in Houston has shot up about 20 percent since it opened its doors to Katrina evacuees. About 21 percent of those crimes involved an evacuee as either a suspect or a victim.
Friedman is calling for $100 million to be allocated immediately in Houston to fight crime and increase the number of police officers on the streets. Other cities such as Dallas and the border region will also see an increase in state fund allocations based on spikes in crime rates.
Government Spending/Taxes
Under Perry’s watch, state spending and property taxes have increased at rates that far exceed population increases and inflation. Appraisals are out of control, and Texans are being taxed out of their homes.
"These economic trends are not in line with a state that’s sitting on an $11 billion to $13 billion surplus," Friedman said.
His fiscal policy would call for enacting legislation that will cap state spending, with increases adjusted for inflation, population increases and unforeseen disasters. Under Perry, the state saw an 18 percent increase in state spending from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006, with the budget jumping from $117.4 billion to $138.2 billion.
To give Texans the property tax relief they deserve, Friedman would also call for a cap on appraisals from the current 10 percent per year down to 3 percent.
"Texas is taking in more tax revenue than ever before, and we’ve got a surplus between $11 billion and $13 billion," Friedman said. "Yet the politicians want to spend your money and raise your taxes. Texans should be outraged."
Perry’s Business Tax
As governor, Friedman also vowed to abolish Perry’s business tax, which makes Texas the only state in the country with a tax on gross business income.
"Taxing small and medium businesses hurts our state’s economy and discourages new businesses from coming to Texas," Friedman said. "I will get rid of this tax, which is amounts to nothing more than a personal income tax in disguise."

This is by far the most Conservative platform of any of the candidates. In fact, each one of these issues refers to a problem that the supposed Conservative, Rick Perry, either ignored or personally cause (as in the business tax).

Furthermore, this positions line up exactly with the issues of the Conservative Revolution I outlined a week ago. Go ahead, take a look.

The outlet for the Conservative Revolution this election may just be this man.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

The Conservative Revolution and a Democrat win in November

2006-08-30T17:38:00.000-05:00

The Conservative Revolution is moving ahead at a breakneck pace, but the Republican Party refuses to come on board. Instead of capping property tax increases in Texas, they create another new tax on businesses while we have a surplus. Instead of guarding the border, they work on building shelters for day laborers. Instead of shrinking government, they make it grow faster than it ever has. This President has been one of the most Liberal this country has ever seen, and yet he is the Republican leadership during this Conservative Revolution.

My prediction for November is that our Revolution will be the single more deciding factor in the race, and that race will be won by Democrats. The Conservatives have looked at Rick Perry and the Republican state legislature and figured out that they aren't doing anything Conservative at all! In fact, there is no fundamental difference between the Republicans in office and the Democrats. So we're not going to vote for them. We're going to fire the Republicans as a message for them to get their act together or find themselves obsolete. The only way I see Rick Perry winning this race is if the Conservative vote is split too much between the other three candidates. He may squeak into office, but it'll be a tough race for him in a very Conservative state.

I know, the Democrats who win will announce that the country finally agrees with them, but they will know better. They know exactly why the Republicans are weak right now. And Dems, if you want to hold on to this power you are about to get in Texas, try not to fall off the deep end right away, huh?

The issues of the Conservative Revolution are four: 1) Property taxes, 2) Border control, 3) Controlling spending, and 4) The war on terror. The Republicans have failed the first three miserably, and the last is in serious danger of being lost. Those of you who are about to take over in Texas and in the nation should remember our demands. There's another election in two years, and we aren't going anywhere.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

New Orleans Money Issues

2006-08-26T12:58:00.000-05:00

As we approach the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the AP reports that several government entities in Louisiana are complaining that federal money to help the rebuilding effort is hard to come by.

Louisiana eventually expects to get at least $25 billion in federal money for rebuilding projects, including everything from levee repairs to homeowner assistance. Of that money, $6 billion to $8 billion will be doled out statewide to repair broken roads, schools, water pipes and countless other problems.
But to get the money, the city — and other agencies such as the Sewerage and Water Board, the Regional Transit Authority and Orleans Parish School Board — must fill out worksheets for every construction project.
The worksheets are submitted to FEMA, which determines whether the project is eligible for federal aid. If approved, the federal government releases the approved money to the state, but the local government fronts the money to have the work done. After that, the local government can submit receipts for reimbursement.
The process takes months and can be further complicated if costs surpass the original request — a particular concern in New Orleans because of shortages of materials and construction workers.

City officials say the red tape has, “kept hundreds of public buildings in disrepair, streets pocked with potholes and most parks too dirty for children to play.”

This came as quite a surprise to me, because I had heard recently that repairs were underway on the Superdome, and those in charge of the renovations expect the stadium to be ready for the Saints’ home opener this season. Perhaps I was mistaken about this. So, I searched for information on the status of the Superdome.

First, I found this story from WDSU in New Orleans.

The Louisiana Superdome is looking for hundreds of men and women to fill beer and food vendor positions during the upcoming football season.

But, apparently good beer guys are hard to find.

Superdome officials have been advertising the jobs since Jan. 5 but they’re struggling to find quality workers to fill the positions.

This might, explain why New Orleans is having trouble rebuilding. If it is this difficult to find a few hundred people who can make change and won’t steal, where are you going to find quality workers to rebuild roads, schools and hospitals?

So, the Superdome will be open for business this season, and there has been an intensive renovation process going on to get the Superdome ready. How much is this effort costing? I searched further, and found this story from The New Orleans Times-Picayune. The story is about a pipe that burst in the Superdome and flooded sections of the stadium. The Times-Picayune quotes Doug Thornton, the regional vice president of the company that runs the Superdome,

"We don't think it's going to set us back," Thornton said of the multi-phase $184.5 million construction project that has been under way at the stadium since the spring.

Well, that’s certainly good news.

Wait a minute! 184.5 million dollars? Wow! Think of all the schools and parks that could be cleaned up with that money. The City of New Orleans is complaining about not being able to get money from the federal government, and $184.5 million is being spent on the Superdome?!

The article did not explain where this money was coming from, but I would imagine it is coming from private and public investors. Surely, the City, or some government entity, is contributing to the $184.5 million. The Superdome is, after all, publicly owned.

Since the article did not detail this information, I searched again. On the Superdome’s official website, I found this .pfd. According to this update on renovation efforts released in January,

SMG [the group that manages the Superdome] & LSED [Louisiana Stadium/Expo District which owns the Superdome] officials have been working closely with FEMA, which will cover nearly 90% of the replacement costs. In addition, the LSED has begun the process of restructuring its outstanding bond debt, taking advantage of tax exempt financing as a result of the 2005 Gulf Opportunity Zone Act. The restructuring will provide capital for a portion of the repair and improvement, as well as cash savings to the annual Superdome operating budget.

So, FEMA is paying for most of this, and apparently LSED will pay the remainder. And it gets even better. This update estimated the repair costs at $140 million. It’s now up to $184.5 million, 31.7% higher than estimated. So far, anyway. There’s no telling how much higher it will go when all is said and done.

So, New Orleans has had no problem securing the $184.5 million for the Superdome. I have to ask, then, why is the City complaining so loudly that it is too hard to come up with money to clean up the parks? It seems to me that New Orleans has its priorities mixed up. I don’t ever want to hear Ray Nagin, or anyone else in New Orleans, complain that FEMA and President Bush have been dragging their feet on this.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

My latest anti-papist rant

2006-08-19T11:48:00.000-05:00

Workers at a chocolate factory in Fountain Valley, CA think this lump of chocolate looks like the Virgin Mary:

Here’s a closeup:

The resemblance is striking, right? Though to be honest I have seen things of similar size, shape and color in my cat’s litter box. I just don’t understand this Catholic obsession over Mary.

The Lutheran Church believes that the Pope is the Antichrist because he spreads false teachings across Christendom. I think they have a good point. The Pope leads people to worship a lump of chocolate or a water stain on a wall as if it were some sort of holy apparition, he declares himself infallible, he denies the scriptural doctrine of justification and uses the fear of purgatory (yet another non-scriptural invention) to maintain his power, and all the while he has the audacity to blame God for the Holocaust (nevermind that the Catholic Church refused to speak out against the evils of Nazism and Fascism). He has “exchanged the truth of God for a lie.”

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

My only word on JonBenet

2006-08-18T00:45:00.000-05:00

Building on what Mr. Lytle said in the previous post, I wonder if the media and the public were so quick to blame the Ramseys, especially the father, because we were convinced by modern feminism that all fathers are dangerous to their daughters. After all, men, we are told, are only oppressive, sex-crazed brutes.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

My only word on JonBenet

2006-08-17T17:59:00.000-05:00

I am not going to comment directly on the JonBenet Ramsey thing. I refuse to rejoin this gossipfest surrounding this death, and I will tell you why:

A coworker told me that she feels sorry for the parents since "they" were blaming those parents for the murder. Well, "they" were not blaming the parents, "we" were. The people were ready to stone those two without knowing all the facts. We were so gleeful in this media frenzy that we convicted two seemingly innocent people in public opinion. They've had to live with that for a decade.

And now we're ready to do it again. Well, here's an idea. Let's just shut up about this one. Unless you are on the jury, then let's stay out of the way and let our justice system work.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

An end to war or the promise of war?

2006-08-17T06:56:00.000-05:00

My question today is simple. Does anyone really believe that this peace between Israel and Hezbollah will last? I mean, we’re not even pretending, as the UN did with Iraq, that Hezbollah is going to disarm here. Does anyone really believe that they will stop their hatred of the Jews simply because of a cease-fire? Do you think a known terrorist organization like Hezbollah is going to start picking flowers now that the Lebanese army is there?

Okay, so we have peace now, but at what price? The next war is just around the corner because Israel did not finish the job this time. So we’re going to wait until Hezbollah gets more power and more people to fight so we can start all over again.

Taking the white flag to your enemies has never brought true peace. Peace comes when you take your flag and run over those people who want to kill you at all costs. When they are dead, then you can finally live in peace.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

The burial can wait, there are cameras around!

2006-08-10T13:21:00.000-05:00

More manipulation of the news as we learn more about "Green Helmet" — the man who keeps popping up in photographs and film from Lebanon. We have written on this man before.

The following video shows "Green Helmet" using the corpse of a small boy to direct a pro-Hizballah photo-op. They put the body into the van, but, when "Green Helmet" does not like the image he got, they pull the body out and try it again. This man is, obviously, sick:

But these images are getting out! Reuters and AP are both photographing this bozo.

Yet another reason that we don’t trust the media!

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Enough delay; let's have DeLay

2006-08-07T18:57:00.000-05:00

This is a mess, and everyone knows it. Tom DeLay and the GOP made some mistakes on getting DeLay off the ballot, and the Democrats, desperate the force a Liberal onto a Conservative district no matter what that district wants, is pouncing on the opportunity.

The GOP is appealing the case to the Supreme Court. That is their right, but I wish they wouldn't. This has gone on long enough, and we need to move on.

The reason I say so is simply that the election is too close. If the GOP wins, they do not have time to introduce a new candidate to the voters. You can only shake so many hands, and we need someone with name recognition to avoid that problem.

Second, as slimy as the Democrats have been about this, it looks like the law is on their side. No one said the law was Just, but we still abide by the rule of law. And if they are right, then we need to stop wasting time and start DeLay's campaign.

And even if the Democrats were wrong, it is not for the Supreme Court to decide!

No, seriously. I pointed out before that the Federal Government has no power over elections unless a law is passed by Congress. It's in the Constitution, Article I, Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Yes, the government may regulate these elections by law, but I know of no law that touches on this situation. Therefore, I see no standing to bring this to Federal Court.

Ultimately, it's time to start campaigning for DeLay.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Billowingwingwingwingwingwingwing clouds of smoke

2006-08-06T11:10:00.000-05:00

Yet another reason (I once numbered these, but lost count years ago) we do not believe the media. Michelle Malkin brings or attention to this obviously altered picture Reuters ran on August 5:

Notice not only the repeating patterns in the clouds, but also in the buildings!

They have since sent out the real photo:

Why do you still believe these people when they report on the “quagmire" of the war? They obviously have a bias that causes them to actively manipulate the news.

Malkin points out that there are much better real photos, including this one:

No real reason to put that one up except that I think it's cool.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

An overheard conversation

2006-08-04T06:41:00.000-05:00

"Yessir, Mr. Gibson, right this way. Oh, I'm sure you will feel right at home here. To be honest, sir, we were a little worried about you. We never thought you fit for this sort of club. No offense, Mr. Gibson, oh, may I call you Mel? Yes, Mel, well, no offense intended. We just thought you were in that other camp. You know, you've been an outspoken Conservative for a long time, and then you did that film about that man. What man? Well, we don't like to say the word around here, so lean in a little. That Jesus. Yes, yes, that film. Suffice it to say, we really didn't want anything to do with you.

"But, well, those comments you made to that cop opened our eyes. We're not wrong about people often, but we admit it when we are, and you, Mel, are our type of people. When I heard that you blamed all wars on the Jews, I just about wet my pants. Here is someone who understands the way of things! Do you want a Martini?

"I think you'll fit in well around here. We have members from all over, of course, but our hearts speak the same language. Join with us, Mr. Gibs—, er, Mel, and we will fix this world, one Jew at a time.

"Well, you are right about that, of course. We will have to get some country to nominate you, but that is only a formality. You are welcome here now, Mel. Welcome to the U.N."

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

Opinion Roundup

2006-08-02T00:34:00.000-05:00

There’s a mix of opinion coming out since the tragic events in Lebanon this past weekend. Since I can’t really make one coherent post about all of them, I’ll just comment briefly on them individually.

Blogs: Hizbullah 'milked' Qana attack - Ynetnews – The lovely Mrs. Lytle brought this to our attention. Apparently, the media is surprised to find out that Hezbollah might have been “milking” the Qana attack. Ynetnews reports that several blogs in the U.S. and Britain have questioned some inconsistencies in reports from the aftermath of the attack. One in particular, EU Referendum Blog, focuses on photos taken by several news agencies at various times after the attack, all apparently showing the same man carrying the same girl in his hands.

The website posts a series of photographs of the same man holding the child, each picture being separated by a significant time gap, before finally showing an AP photograph of the child's body in an ambulance taken at 7:21 in the morning – around nine hours before an AP photo was taken of the same child being held by the man in the green helmet.

Hezbollah trying to play up a real human tragedy for their benefit? Of course. After all, they pretty much staged the whole thing. They hide their fighters amongst civilians hoping that civilians will get caught in the crossfire so they can win PR points in the world media. What’s sad is that it’s actually working.

The World's Mel Gibson Moment - Richard Cohen – Richard Cohen compares the media’s quickness to blame Israel for the current conflict in Lebanon to Mel Gibson’s drunken claim that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars.” He’s got a good point. The only difference is that Gibson was drunk and quickly retracted and apologized for the comment. The media is supposedly stone sober and don’t see a need to apologize or retract their anti-Semitism.

Israel is Playing Us for Fools – Among the “blame Israel” crowd is Pat Buchanan. Buchanan complains that Israel’s response to Hezbollah has been disproportionate. That’s an argument that was easily defeated by the Master’s column on Friday:

When the United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it did not respond with a parallel "proportionate" attack on a Japanese naval base. It launched a four-year campaign that killed millions of Japanese, reduced Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders, and turned the Japanese home islands into rubble and ruin.
Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right -- legal and moral -- to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one's security again. That's what it took with Japan.

Actually, the Middle East Is Our Crisis Too - Charles Krauthammer – And speaking of the Master, he has a new column in Time. The Master analyzes the historical background of the War on Terror. The alliance of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas has created a new force in the Islamic world that has replaced the pan-Arabism of yesteryear. Where pan-Arabism was secular and Arab, this new alliance is Islamist and (since Iran is the big-shot here) Persian. The Master calls this new alliance “Pan-Islamism.” While pan-Arabists hated Israel because it was the lone non-Arab nation in the region, pan-Islamists hate Israel because it is the lone non-Muslim nation in the region. The Master explains,

Hamas is fighting not to create a 23rd Arab state but, as its charter explains, to recover "an Islamic Waqf." Meaning? Territory claimed under the Islamic precept that "any land the Muslims have conquered by force ... during the times of [Islamic] conquests" more than a millennium ago belongs to Muslims forever because "the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations until the Day of Judgment."

The “Islamic Waqf,” by the way, includes Spain which the Muslims lost in the 15th century, and which has been the target of terrorist attacks. The Master continues, “Like Hamas and Iran, Hizballah views the destruction of Israel as a religious obligation.”

A wrinkle in all of this is Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has seen its prominence among radical Muslims fall since the war in Afghanistan and Iran’s recent saber-rattling. This creates an even more dangerous situation because you now have two rival gangs competing for control over this Islamist ideology. Each side will try to out-do the other in an attempt to win supporters.

Our enemies in this fight are not merely stupid thugs who need to be taught a lesson. They are not brainwashed, uneducated peasants. This is a religion, the “bastard child of a real and great religion” as the Master puts it. It is a global threat, like the communist religion of the last century. The conflict in Lebanon against Hezbollah is not just Israel’s fight, it’s our fight.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

More on the Evils of Hezbollah

2006-07-31T23:31:00.000-05:00

This report from the New York Times details the evil works of Hezbollah. These people are not heroes, even the New York Times has to admit to that.

A warning: some may find the picture in the report disturbing.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Only One Bad Guy in the Lebanon Conflict

2006-07-30T19:08:00.000-05:00

The AP reports today that an Israeli airstrike killed 56 Lebanese civilians. World leaders are outraged by the attack, and Israel, apparently under pressure from the United States, has agreed to a 48 hour cease-fire.

Civilian deaths in war are tragic. However, anguish over this tragedy is turning into anger against Isreal, and the result I fear will not bring about an end to the conflict. Since the fighting began, many around the world have tried to portray Israel as the bad guy. This incident gives them one more excuse to hate Israel. According to the AP report, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said,

"We will not negotiate until the Israeli war stops shedding the blood of innocent people," he told a gathering of foreign diplomats. But he underlined that Lebanon stands by ideas for disarming Hezbollah that it put forward earlier this week and that Rice praised.
He took a tough line and hinted that any Hezbollah response to the airstrike at the village of Qana was justified.
"As long as the aggression continues there is response to be exercised," he said, praising Hezbollah's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.

So now all of a sudden Israel is the bad guy. It’s Israel’s war. Israel is killing innocent people. Hezbollah is justified to retaliate and Hesbollah’s leader should be praised for his fight against the evil Zionists.

In Beirut, some 5,000 protesters gathered in downtown Beirut, at one point attacking a U.N. building and burning American flags, shouting, "Destroy Tel Aviv, destroy Tel Aviv" and chanting for Hezbollah's ally Syria to hit Israel.

But let’s be realistic here. Israel is certainly not the aggressor. Israel does not want war. Israel only wants what everyone else, including the Lebanese Prime Minster, says they want: peace, security, and Lebanese sovereignty. The problem is not Israel. But these goals can never be achieved until Hezbollah is disarmed.

Hezbollah started this war by kidnaping Israeli soldiers.

Hezbollah aggravated the war by launching rockets (supplied by Syria) deeper and deeper into Israel.

Hezbollah is the reason Lebanon cannot exert its sovereignty in the southern regions of its country.

Hezbollah is hiding its fighters among civilians, leaving Israel no choice but to hit populated areas.

The tragedy that unfolded today is part of Hezbollah’s plan. By hiding amongst civilians, Hezbollah intentionally puts civilians in harm’s way, increasing the likelihood that such a tragedy will occur. When it does, Hezbollah immediately receives a public relations boost. Hezbollah is now the valiant defender of the innocent. The Lebanese government, twisted and confused by its anguish over these deaths, is playing right into the hands of Hezbollah.

It as if Lebanon is a house infested with disease-spreading roaches. These roaches sicken the family in the house. They hide underneath the children’s beds. But when the exterminator comes to fix the problem, the family refuses to believe there is a problem and turns the exterminator away.

The only solution to this problem is for Hezbollah to be hunted down and exterminated. It’s supporters, Syria and Iran, must be held accountable for the deaths brought on by their ally. Lebanon wants the fighting to end. Europe wants the fighting to end. The United Nations wants the fighting to end. The Arab world wants the fighting to end. The United States wants the fighting to end. Israel wants the fighting to end. The only people who want the fighting to continue are the people who started the fighting in the first place: Hezbollah. Let’s not forget that. There is only one bad guy in this conflict, and their based out of Damascus, not Tel Aviv.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Congratulations, Jon!

2006-07-29T20:54:00.000-05:00

I thought that my colleague, Mr. Heath, would have already touched on this subject. He more carefully watches developments in this particular area of study, though it has long held my interest as well.

The long and short of it is that Liz finally kissed Jon Arbuckle in yesterday's Garfield. Though we have watched in a sort of sick amusement as he tried and failed thousands of times to go on a successful date, we at the Texian Weblog are happy that Jon's streak of loneliness and heartbreak is ending (at least for a time).

Congratulations, Jon. You earned it.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

A Case for Nuclear

2006-07-29T01:18:00.000-05:00

The Dallas Morning News reports that several Texas power plants ranked high in a list of the nation’s top polluters. Texas power plants rank high in mercury and carbon dioxide emissions. To make matters worse,

Nationwide, about 120 new coal-burning units are in the works. Higher natural gas prices, plus political support from the White House, are spurring the coal boom.

In a related story, the State of California says that the recent heat wave the state experienced has possibly caused 141 deaths. The State says that many of the deaths were of elderly people who do not have air conditioners in their homes. Of course, it doesn’t help that California has a serious energy shortage. Utility companies in the state were able to avoid massive rolling blackouts by convincing customers to conserve and voluntarily go without power.

But Michael Gordon, president of ConsumerPowerline, a leading energy asset manager firm with California clients, said it may not work next time.
Gordon said the state may have leaned too heavily on companies that receive discounts for curbing their power use at high-demand times. That program has become less appealing since participating companies were asked seven days out of nine to use less power, he said.

The chief reason that California is experiencing an energy shortage is that environmental concerns have hampered construction of new power plants.

So, we have two opposites: Texas who has plenty of power, but ranks high in pollution, and California who has an energy shortage for fear of ranking high in pollution. Certainly there must be a middle way. There must be some way to produce enough electricity to keep our homes cool, while not emitting mercury and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Luckily, there is: nuclear power. Now, I know that nuclear has gotten a bad rap over the past three decades, but the fact is that nuclear power is clean and reliable. The waste generated by nuclear power plants is very toxic, but at least it doesn’t cause global warming. Unless we’re willing to do without electricity, there will always be some sort of pollution. The question we have to ask ourselves is, which is worse? A nuclear waste dump, or global warming and the dramatic climate changes that come with it? I choose nuclear.

Granted, fossil fuel technology has come a long way in reducing emissions. Gas and diesel engines are cleaner and more efficient than they were 20 years ago. The same goes for coal power plants. Nuclear has not made similar advances. But that could be because we as a nation have neglected to put nearly as much effort into nuclear.

I see no reason for state and federal governments to continue supporting fossil fuel development when there are better alternatives. Our government constantly gets in the way of entrepreneurial development of alternatives energy sources for the dumbest of reasons. No sugar cane ethanol because Iowa corn farmers don’t like it. No wind generators because people don’t want their beachfront views ruined. And no nuclear power because The Simpsons says it leads to three-eyed fish. Instead we continue to jeopardize our economy by paying high fuel prices, we jeopardize our security by buying oil from countries that want to kill us, and we jeopardize the future welfare of our nation and the world by contributing to global warming. We have it within our power to solve many of the problems we face, we just don’t seem to want to.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Nothing to Negotiate

2006-07-22T11:57:00.000-05:00

The AP reports that world opinion is turning against the United States because of their refusal to treat both sides of the current Middle East conflict equally. Many around the world would like to see the U.S. speak with Syria and Hezbollah, as well as Israel, to negotiate a peace. Former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berger is quoted,

You don't just negotiate with your friends. Sometimes you negotiate with your enemies, or at least your adversaries. We negotiated with the Soviet Union for 50 years.

But, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow retorts, “the track record [of negotiations with Syria] stinks,” which is why we have this problem now. And, of course, it has never been the policy of the United States to negotiate with terrorists.

Everyone in the world knows that Hezbollah is only able to carry out its murderous deeds because it is supported by Syria and Iran. Even the Arab League recognizes this and has issued a statement condemning Hezbollah. In his recent column, The Master explains the Arab League’s reasoning,

It is unprecedented for the Arab League to criticize any Arab party while it is actively engaged in hostilities with Israel. But the Arab states know that Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in the service of Persian Iran, is a threat not just to Lebanon but to them as well. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have openly criticized Hezbollah for starting a war on what is essentially Iran's timetable (to distract attention from Iran's pending referral to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear program). They are far more worried about Iran and its proxies than about Israel. They are therefore eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and defanged.

And that is exactly what Israel is trying to do. This, as The Master points out, is a golden opportunity to finally root out Hezbollah and return southern Lebanon back to Lebanese control, thus securing peace for Lebanon, Israel, and the rest of the region (and to the extent that any conflict in the Middle East could boil over into a global war, peace for the rest of the world as well). There is nothing to negotiate. The solution has been discovered, it only needs to be implemented.

The Arab League, the G8, and even the UN Security Council are all united in their condemnation of Hezbollah and their desire to see Lebanon’s sovereignty restored. So, I cannot see how the U.S. risks becoming “more isolated” by supporting Israel. Nor do I see how the U.S. is already isolated to any degree. U.S. support of Israel is nothing new. Heck, we’re the only ones who do support Israel. And still we are not isolated by the rest of the world. How can we? The rest of the world needs us. When North Korea began firing off missiles, did the rest of the world turn to France for help? When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, who was on the other end of the 911 call? The United States are constantly criticized for engaging in military actions around the world. U.S. foreign policy is often condemned as “imperialist” or “unilateral.” But the fact of the matter is, when peace and freedom are threatened, there is only one nation on this earth with the will and the power to come to the rescue. We have an obligation to do what’s right, even if it isn’t popular.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Veto on stem cells

2006-07-19T18:02:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush, elected President first in November 2000, first took office in January 2001. It is now July of 2006, more than five years since Bush took office. After five years, Bush has finally used the power of the veto for the first time. It was to veto a law that would allow federal funding of stem cell research.

Bush is right to veto this bill, though his reasons are incomplete. He vetoed the bill because "[i]t crosses a moral boundary." I agree with the President on this issue, but this debate has been going on forever, and I want to talk about something else.

Namely, the reason to veto the bill that Bush did not cite (I doubt he has realized this at all) is that it is unconstitutional. No where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government to fund any sort of research at all. That is a power left to the people and the states. The closest the Federal Government can come to such funding is found in Article I, Section 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Copyrights and patents and nothing more.

Why isn't someone mentioning this? The only other mention of such a fact comes from 2001 at The Future of Freedom Foundation by Sheldon Richman. Are Mr. Richman and I the only people who have read the Constitution? Certainly no one in Washington has.

But another thing that is bothering me is that this is Bush's first veto. Why? Certainly there have been bad laws passed (the education bill, the steel tariff) and plenty of unconstitutional ones (the education bill, campaign finance, the budget every single year). Why have none of these bills warranted a veto?

It's great that the President wants to defeat the terrorists abroad. But I really wish he would take a look at that pesky Constitution every once and a while when it comes to the laws of this nation.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

McLane speaks about Ken Lay

2006-07-09T00:22:00.000-05:00

Alyson Footer reports that Astros owner Drayton McLane had some kind words to say about deceased Enron founder Ken Lay. As you might remember, the Astros’ home ballpark was originally named Enron Field before the energy company collapsed. It has since been renamed Minute Maid Park. McLane recalls that Lay was instrumental in building a coalition of business and community leaders in Houston to help build the Astros’ new ballpark, and he was always the first to pledge support for any kind of charity event in the Houston area. McLane said of Lay,

I have worked in 20 or 30 fundraisers for charities in Houston and I learned early that when you called on the major businesses and individuals in town, the first question everyone's going to ask you is, 'What's Enron going to give and what's Ken Lay going to give?' I learned quickly to go see Ken Lay first, and as you worked to raise money for these good causes, he raised the level of philanthropy. I think that's the lasting legacy. Houston's a better city because of Ken Lay. I'm speaking of him as a leader and as a human being.

Some may be disturbed that McLane would speak of Lay with such kind words. After all, he’s a man who swindled thousands of Enron employees and investors out of millions of dollars and in the process became the poster boy for the corrupt corporate world. That is his legacy. But to be fair, he should also be remembered for the good things he has done for Houston. Always wanting to take the high road, this is what McLane chose to emphasize.

Allow me to wax a little philosophical. We can all find numerous reasons to condemn anyone. Nobody’s perfect, of course. Ken Lay did some very bad things, and I’m not here to defend his acts. But we should all remember that we have all done some bad things, and in the eyes of God what good deeds we have done do not outweigh the bad. Ken Lay was corrupt. But we all are. So, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

More delay for District 22

2006-07-07T14:37:00.000-05:00

I'm a little late in commenting on this, but I, quite frankly, haven't heard anyone say anything close to what I'm going to say, so I thought it may be worthwhile to toss in my two cents.

A judge recently decided that Tom DeLay lives in Texas. This is important because if he lives in Texas, then the law says that he must stay on the ballot for the District 22 seat in Congress. He won the Republican primary, so the only way for him to get off the ballot is if he is no longer a resident of Texas. Since he has, since the primary, chosen to resign from Congress, he obviously wants his spot on the ballot filled by someone else. So he moved to Virginia, except that a judge says that, since his wife still lives here and he comes here on occasion, he still lives in Texas. I did know that your official residence was decided by where your spouse lives, but so be it. Some separated couples will be surprised by this, but whatever.

First, let's not be too troubled by the Dems' frantic search for a loophole here. This whole debacle is made out of loopholes, from DeLay's move to Virginia to Nick Lampson's trying to keep him on the ballot. Both sides are trying very hard to bend the law their way. That's frustrating, but I'll have to invoke the "goose and gander" law here.

What should concern us is motivation. DeLay is trying to drop out because he wants his district to be represented by a Republican. You could say it is a power play, but on whose part? DeLay is out; what power can he gain? No, he wants a Republican there because this is his home district (I'm using the term in the true sense of the word, not the sense being argued in the courts), and he wants his home district, as I do, to be represented by a Conservative.

Lampson wants to win. There are no two ways about it. If he really wanted the people here to be represented by someone who agrees with him, then he wouldn't be trying so hard to pretend that he's not a Democrat. Everyone knows that this is about power, about the Democrats trying to get a seat from a Republican district without a fair fight.

But why shouldn't we have a fair fight here? Look, I certainly would not advocate taking Sheila Jackson-Lee's district from her through some loophole. I would like to take it, but by convincing the residents that our way is better, not by forcing a Representative onto them that doesn't agree with them! Does the Democratic Party, supposedly the voice of the "common man," really believe in taking elections through the courts rather than through the ballot box?

Well, of course they do! We saw it in 2000 in Florida. We saw it when they sued to force a Democrat-friendly district map onto Texas, even though most of Texas is Conservative. They do not want the voice of the people heard around here, because that voice does not agree with them.

For all their talk about how we try to "force" our views onto people by having prayer in school or the ten commandments at the court house, they seem pretty active in trying to force themselves into government despite what the people think.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

North Korean Missile Launch

2006-07-05T01:56:00.000-05:00

North Korea launched several missiles today, including one that is believed to be capable of reaching the United States. This has been expected for some time and there has been a great deal of speculation over how the administration should respond.

One suggestion that received plenty of attention came from William Perry, former Secretary of Defense under Clinton, and Ashton Carter, also of the Clinton defense department. Their suggestion was a preemptive strike against the North Korean missile facility. They believed the U.S. should destroy the missile before the North Koreans even have a chance to launch it. They argued,

if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched.

The Bush administration did not take this advise, and wisely so. A preemptive attack is exactly what North Korea wants. They are trying to pick a war. President Bush and the international community are wise to remain patient. Consider the source of this advise. The Clinton administration certainly did not have the best of luck with preemptive strikes, or need I remind you of their failed attack on a medicine factory in Sudan?

The Bush administration suggested that they might try to shoot down the missile in flight. However, the missile defense system that the Bush administration has championed is still in the development stage. It could have been fully operational by now, but it never received the necessary support and funding until recently. Again, it was the Clinton administration’s failure to support the program that has left us in such a bind. Yet another reason to not accept their advise.

I don’t believe that Bush was ever very serious about trying to shoot down the missile. There was a very good chance that the attempt would fail, causing a great deal of embarrassment for the United States. I believe the administration saw another way out of this problem.

About 35 seconds after lifting off, the Taepodong 2 missile exploded. The test was a failure. I believe that the administration saw this coming. North Korean technology is rudimentary by our standards, and successfully launching an intercontinental ballistic missile is no easy task. Even the United States had numerous failures when we were making our fist attempts. North Korea also has a failing economy and a society on the brink of starvation, two serious disadvantages with which the United States did not have to contend in the early stages of our missile program. I’m sure the administration was prepared to try to shoot down the missile if the launch was successful, but that was Plan B. Plan A was to simply wait for the missile launch to fail and then rally the international community to put more pressure on North Korea after this provocative act.

That said, something must be done about North Korea, and it must be done quickly. Eventually they will figure out how to shoot of this missile. The missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and it is safe to assume that North Korea is far along on a nuclear program as well. Thanks again to the Clinton administration who provided North Korea with nuclear materials. (Wow! They really screwed this one up!)

The prevailing hope is that the North Korean regime will collapse. But in my opinion, that’s like a Baseball manager waiting for the three run homer to win the game when he should be trying to manufacture runs. Oppressive regimes rarely collapse through popular uprisings because they are oppressive. Take, for example, China, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iraq under Hussein, and Nazi Germany. There needs to be some sort of outside pressure to help bring these regimes down. Even American independence might not have been achieved without help from the French.

After these missile launches, the international community will be galvanized against North Korea’s belligerent government. If North Korea still refuses to abide by our demands, an attack against military targets in North Korea will be warranted. But if these attacks are to be successful, we will need the support of the other major players in the region: Japan and South Korea (both of whom are already strongly behind us), as well as China and Russia. Without their support, U.S. action against North Korea will only escalate the problem rather than resolve it (resolution being the collapse of the Communist government and unification with South Korea, made possible through economic support from the U.S. and Japan).

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

A Work in Progress

2006-07-03T00:08:00.000-05:00

As we approach the 230th anniversary of the birth of America, we reflect on exactly what it is that makes America a great nation. And as we do, many of us find no reason to be proud. We see a nation whose history is scarred by slavery, intolerance and injustice. We see a nation divided by contentious issues such as abortion, immigration and war. We see elected representatives who are corrupted by power and money. We see a growing divide between the average American and the extremely wealthy (not because the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, but the rich are getting richer much faster than the rest of us). And we see a citizenry that seems unwilling to live up to its obligations and is only interested in the lowest forms of entertainment. A citizenry that is pacified by bread and circuses.

But what makes America great is not her wealth and prosperity, and certainly not her politicians. It is not what she was or what she is, but what she will become. America was founded on an ideal: that all men are created equal with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have not always been able to live up to that ideal. At times, we have failed miserably. But our history alone is not what makes America great. Unlike any other nation on earth, America has a goal.

We seek to create a polity, rule by the many for the benefit of all. Political Science, the study of how to create that polity, is an American invention. Many mistakenly believe that democracy is our goal. It is not. Democracy is a means to the end, not the end itself. Democracy does not always make us proud. It divides us. It creates enemies out of fellow citizens. But, a vigorous debate for the future of our nation is the best way to achieve our goal. And the goal is what is important.

The biggest problem we face today is not too much debate, but too little. Politics is no longer the genuine and earnest contest to improve America. It is merely an industry focused only on the expansion of profit. More and more, Americans see their nation as simply a place to live, not the embodiment of a philosophy that promises liberty to all mankind.

But, nothing is perfect. That is why it is so important to never lose sight of our goal, and never become content with our past accomplishments or current comfort. American history is filled with examples of intolerance and injustice, but it is also a story of the triumph of right over wrong and freedom over oppression. It is a story that continues.

When we celebrate Independence Day, we celebrate these triumphs and triumphs that are yet to come. We reaffirm our commitment to the goal of achieving a society in which the rights of all people are respected and protected. Let us not become wistful over our failures, but rather let us rejoice in the founding principle of our republic and overcome those failures as we create a more perfect union.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

Maybe it would be better if we read articles from the bottom up . . .

2006-06-30T17:55:00.000-05:00

A quick compare-and-contrast on two AP articles. One is about Republicans (even a Republican — Tom DeLay), and the second is about a Democrat — Al Gore.

First the headlines. On DeLay: "Court nixes part of Texas political map." On Gore: "Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy."

What are your impressions so far? It looks like the Supreme Court just tore up DeLay’s redistricting map while scientists loves Al Gore’s film. That’s certainly what the lead paragraphs seem to say. Here’s the problems:

DeLay: It takes a great deal of time for the AP to admit that the court said that only one of thirty-two districts broke the law. One. They also try to cover the fact that the Court also sided with the Republicans in saying that states can redistrict at any time, not just after the census, which was the whole basis for the Democrats’ case! Except for one district, it was a massive victory for the Republicans, but the story reads like the Republicans were trying to do something illegal.

Gore: After a while, you realize that the "nation's top climate scientists," supposedly interviewed for the report, only numbered 19. The AP does not say whether they believed the claims of global warming beforehand or not. And then, they did not give it "five stars for accuracy," as the lead paragraph claims, but instead said he "mostly got the science right." In fact, the bottom half of the article is dedicated to the stuff the scientists say he got wrong! It is minor stuff, admittedly, but again, are these impartial scientists or are they on a side? Did any of them believe global warming to be a much of hogwash before going in? Who are they?

So there it is. When the Court sides with the Republicans and mostly holds up their map, it is described that the "Court nixes part of Texas political map." When 19 (probably biased) scientists say that Al Gore’s movie "mostly got the science right," with some exceptions, it is suddenly "five stars for accuracy."

Let’s see if you can guess how many stars I give the AP for accuracy?

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

The Special Circumstances of Texas Redistricting

2006-06-30T01:01:00.000-05:00

In a post on the RCP Blog, Ryan Sager discusses the possibility of Democrats taking advantage of the recent Supreme Court decision that declared the Texas Legislature’s mid-decade redistricting constitutional. According to ABC’s The Note, Rahm Emanuel, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, says that Democrats in several states may feel empowered to redraw congressional districts. Emanuel listed Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, New Mexico, and North Carolina as examples.

There are several caveats though. Some of these were brought up by The Note.

First, it would seem rather hypocritical for Democrats, who complained loudly about Tom DeLay’s attempt to redraw Texas’ district lines, to turn around and do the same thing. To this argument Emanuel replied, “Well, given hypocrisy is how we earn our living around here, I don’t think it’s a problem.” Ah! The last holdout has conceded, so it can finally be announced that all Democrats are hypocrites.

Second, many Democrats are strongly opposed to gerrymandering, including Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic candidate for New York Governor.

Third, in order to improve their chances to win certain seats, Democrats may have to divide black voters into separate districts. Black leaders like having black voters grouped into a district since that improves the chances of a black candidate winning. But, those precious Democratic votes might be needed do dilute the GOP voters in a neighboring district. RCP Blog says, “Distributing these black voters differently might lead to more Democrats being elected, but fewer African Americans.” Black leaders won’t like that.

There are a few more issues that haven’t been discussed. The Democrats speak about the Texas redistricting plan as if it were a run-of-the-mill power grab. But, what is often ignored is that Texas was a special case. The problem began with the 1990 census. At the time, the Democratic Party held power in the Texas Legislature, and so they drew the congressional lines in their favor. The Court’s opinion describes these congressional lines as “incredibly convoluted” (pg. 4). Democratic Congressman Martin Frost was the architect of this plan. So, Democratic complaints that the 2003 redistricting was wrong because it was orchestrated by Tom DeLay are hypocritical. But then again, “hypocrisy is how we earn our living around here.”

Over the next decade, the Republican Party became the dominant party in the state. When the results of the 2000 census were sent to the states, the Texas Legislature was required by the Constitution to redraw the congressional district lines. However, the political situation in the State Capitol at the time prevented the Legislature from agreeing to a plan. So, the job fell to the federal courts. Not wanting to get any more involved in politics than they already were, the district court decided to make only minor modifications to the previous map. This left Texas, a strongly Republican state, with a district map that generated a congressional delegation with a Democratic majority. Even the courts saw this as out of line with Texas’ political culture (pg. 5). The new map fixes this problem (pg. 13).

The situation might be different if the Texas Legislature had been able to agree to a district map in the first session after the census and then, after winning control of both houses, the Republicans scrapped that map and drew new lines more to their liking. But this is not the case. The district court had to draw the map for the legislature, which the Court’s opinion describes as an “unwelcome obligation” (pg. 9). The Court declares that, “a lawful, legislatively enacted plan should be preferable to one drawn by the courts.” The state legislature has the right to replace a court-drawn map with one of its own. That is what the Texas Legislature did.

So, the Texas Legislature’s actions corrected two wrongs: the Democratic gerrymandering that was out of sync with the political culture of the state, and the undemocratic court-drawn plan that perpetuated that gerrymandering. The Republicans did not redraw the congressional lines simply because they had the opportunity. The Republicans had good reason to change the map. Democrats should keep this in mind if they attempt to enact a new map in other states. The Texas case was unique, and that is part of the reason it was approved by the Supreme Court.

ABC’s The Note can be found here, however you will have to scroll down quite a bit to find the part about Emanuel and the Court’s ruling.

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

So, where’s the good news?

2006-06-28T01:23:00.000-05:00

I was told today that there was good news and bad news coming out of the Middle East. The good news: that the Palestinians have agreed to a document that calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Sounds too good to be true, right? Right. Mentioned almost as an aside in the AP article comes this:

It also calls on militants to limit attacks to areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast War and calls on the parties to work toward forming a Palestinian unity government.

We’re expected to celebrate this?! The document accepts Israel’s right to exist, but only after Israel is pushed back to the pre-1967 Auschwitz borders. It wants a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state, but only a Jewish state that is vulnerable to attack. And, it authorizes terrorism to achieve that goal.

Of course, what isn’t told in this article is that the Palestinians were offered exactly what they say they want (an independent state comprised of Gaza and nearly all of the West Bank with its capital in Jerusalem) at Bill Clinton’s Camp David summit. But the Palestinians rejected the offer and launched the second intifada. Now they say they will stop terrorist attacks as long as Israel withdraws to the pre-1967 borders. Yeah, right. A withdrawal back to those borders wasn’t enough for the Palestinians at Camp David. Why should we believe they would be satisfied with it now? Recent terrorist attacks inside those borders tell us they won’t be satisfied.

I’m not even sure the Palestinians know what they’re fighting for. It seems to me that they’re just looking for an excuse, any excuse, to kill Israelis.

The bad news: that Israel has launched a ground offensive into Gaza in an effort to free a kidnaped Israeli soldier. This is bad news, but it could have been avoided if the Palestinians simply stop the terrorist attacks. Violence has its consequences. You can’t send terrorists into Israel, kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers, and not expect some sort of retaliation. Israel has a right to defend its territory and its citizens.

One of the consequences for the Palestinian’s support for terrorists is the West’s refusal to send aid to the Palestinian Authority. The United States and other western nations have said they will not send aid to support the Hamas controlled government. When asked if the Palestinian’s offer to recognize Israel will result in a lifting of that boycott, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said,

Once again, we can all recite from memory now: recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terror, and abide by all past agreements. Those are the preconditions.

The Palestinians have refused to renounce terror, so they will continue to suffer the consequences.

For the life of me I can’t see what’s so difficult about this. In my view, it’s simple: stop the terrorist attacks and you won’t have to worry about Israeli tanks rolling through your streets. For as long as you send terrorists to kill Israelis, the Israelis will send tanks to kill the terrorists. I can’t see why the Palestinians don’t understand this.

Sha-alu Shalom Yerushalayim
Psalm 122:6

–J.E. Heath
per-fidem.org

No, I don't know how to say "mulch" in Spanish

2006-06-25T18:54:00.000-05:00

Okay, enough of this already. Today I was shopping at a certain mega-corporation based out of Arkansas. I was checking out in the garden department when I overheard the cashier in the lane beside me. She didn't seem to speak two words of English. In fact, the poor guy trying to check out had to translate "Four bags of mulch" for her. And he was white!

And this wasn't even a Hispanic area of town. It was, in fact, a heavily-Asian part of Sugar Land. And she worked in the garden department. What kind of moron hired someone who only speaks Spanish for a store in an Asian part of town and doesn't even teach her what mulch is?

I'm tired of this. Look, if I owed a store around here, I would probably try to hire some bilingual cashiers. I don't like that people don't speak English, but I don't want to run off customers. But come on now! This is America, and if the damn cashier at the damn store in Sugar Land doesn't speak English, then it's time for the damn Government to start demanding that they learn it. If they won't give me an inch in my own country, then why should I give them one?

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.

The minimum wage rears its ugly head again

2006-06-20T20:14:00.000-05:00

The ignorance most Americans have about the minimum wage astounds me. First, this letter compares the Congressional pay hike to the minimum wage, which is absurd. I am opposed to any pay increase for elected officials, but let's get some perspective here.

First of all, the Constitution requires us to pay Congress. It's all there in Article I, Section 6:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

On the other hand, a minimum wage is nowhere to be found in the same Constitution. In Article I, Section 8, the powers of Congress are outlined in great detail. The ability to set a minimum wage is not even suggested here, much less spelled out. Because it is not listed, the Federal Government is forbidden, according to the Constitution, from setting one. That law is spelled out in the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Secondly, there are 535 members of Congress. A pay raise of $3,300 a year costs us less than two million a year. Again, I am opposed to spending such money, but that is a terribly small portion of the budget.

Now, let's forget for a second that a Federal minimum wage is illegal. Mr. Alpert here makes the mistaken assumption that people are supporting families on a minimum wage:

[T]he reality is that for most working American families, pay has not risen nearly as much as their costs have, if at all. For example, the minimum wage has not been raised since 1996.

I'm sure someone out there does lead a family on a minimum wage, but most people who get paid a minimum wage are teenagers who work at the mall over the summer. And what happens when the minimum wage is raised? There is a sharp decrease in jobs available to teenagers. It happens every time.

And why wouldn't there be this decrease? If a kid is earning the company $7 an hour, and suddenly the Government tells the company they have to pay the kid $7.25, then the company would lose money if they kept him.

The problem is not the money we make, but what we spend. I have written before that the Government makes considerably more on a gallon of gas than the oil company. Where's the problem here? Are we not making enough money, or is the Government taking too much of it? Government is not the solution here; it is the problem.

-Paul Lytle,
Primum Mobile Magazine

Comments? Email us.