The Desert of the Real

How many of you, seeing that title, passed over it without a moments reaction? I would dare say that by now, there are very few Americans who even bother paying attention to the number of men dying over there anymore. If they still read the numbers, I doubt many are impacted by them. For certain, I know far too many who consider it not to be an issue, because after all, there are less dying now than there were even a few months ago right? So we should be happy about that.

But what seems to escape the notice of so many people is that even if there are fewer dying, they are still dying. It is probably getting old to a lot of people to hear this – but supporting the troops does not mean cheering for them as they go to their deaths. Yes we should absolutely support our troops. We believe in them. Yet we also owe it to them, to their families and to their friends to ensure that the reason they go to their deaths is a very very good one. That our cause is just and right. We ought to be certain that we have a goal, and that that goal is achievable. Every day of every war we ought to weigh the cause against the cost. The value of even an ideal outcome against the value of the lives of soldiers who are dying to achieve it.

Today I read a story, and I hope that you will read it too. I am not going to quote it here, because I think it needs to be read in its entirety and there is no introduction to it I can give that will do it justice. So read it now, before finishing this post and then come back.

We must remember that our soldiers are not expendable. When we see the death toll reported those are not just numbers. They are men. Many of them good men, with mothers and fathers, wives, children, and friends. All of whom will miss them. All of whom will have their lives turned upside down and destroyed. Mothers and Fathers that will never hear their son’s laughter again, never see him around their table at Thanksgiving or Christmas. Wives who will go on in empty houses, where their now deceased husband’s voice still hangs in the air, but will never be heard again. Children who will never be tucked into bed at night again by their father. Who will not receive another piggy-back ride. Daughters whose father won’t be there when they get married to give them away.

Consider this, consider it well. Then ask yourself two questions. I don’t want to hear the answers, and no comments will be allowed on this post regardless. These are questions for you to answer honestly, to yourself, and consider in your heart.

Why?

Having considered why, I ask you

Is it worth the cost?

Not just the financial cost, that’s a whole different question. Is it worth the cost in the lives of our best and brightest? Every one of us must answer this for ourselves. And every one of us will one day be called on to give an answer for it.

Basically, no big surprise.

Despite how prideful they are about their early caucus and their high opinion of their influence on the overall primary process they are bound and determined to cement themselves as irrelevant to it. Neither Obama nor Huckabee is going to get the nod from their respective parties. So all they’ve really done is thrown both parties into disarray.

First, Huckabee. I know how he came to get his part there. The Iowa voter base is largely made up of ignorant desperate evangelicals. People smart enough to realize that they’ve been abused at the hands of the Republican party as promises have regularly been made and broken in issues that are important to them yet stupid enough to buy into Huckabee’s “I’m-just-like-you” populism. Add to this their unbelievable foolishness in believing that A) the fair tax is somehow better than the income tax we have now and B) that its implementation would actually mean an end to the income tax. Then, throw in a little promises of redistribution of wealth for farmers in the form of subsidies and you’ve got a made for Iowa candidate. He’s credible enough on abortion and on certain evangelical non-political issues that he was an easy pick for those people. Sad that they couldn’t look past that to see his lack of integrity and utter ignorance on foreign policy. That’s without going into his immigration issues, pardoning of felons, and of course his rabid statist views. None of that matters because according to the AFA, God has annointed him so that’s where we vote right?

I’m not that upset about Ron being in 5th. He was within a few percentage points of third at 10%. Given that every poll in Iowa but two were putting him at 4%, and one of the remaining two only had him at 7% that’s pretty good. All of that in the face of concerted media effort to avoid talking about him, and his not doing hardly anything in that state. Plus it feels good to skunk Rudy, even if the victory is a little hollow since he wasn’t really putting any effort in there.

Romney coming in second and netting only around 25% of the vote to show for the tidy sum (six million I believe?) he spent in Iowa is good too. It hurts his ‘electable’ argument pretty badly going into NH. This is going to hurt his early primary strategy and leave him netting smaller numbers making Rudy’s strategy look pretty smart on the front end. Time will tell.

Huckabee won’t repeat this performance – though he may hit some high numbers in other states awash with historically and politically ignorant evangelicals. Romney won’t be riding any tidal waves of success either. This means every state’s primaries will be important this year, and frankly there’s only one man right now with sufficient funds and support to make that happen.

As for the democrats – well – basically the same thing. I don’t see Obama getting sufficient national support to take the nomination. Edwards has been in Iowa so much over the last year he might be able to file for residency, and he still only managed to take second. He’s definitely not going anywhere. Hillary is the easy and obvious choice for the democrats here, but this might be a sign of some backlash against the idea of her coronation. She may have to fight, but I’m pretty sure in the end she’s going to get it. If nothing else, Iowa strongly suggests this is going to be a three-way race for the Democrats.

Whatever else happens, this is definitely going to be one of the more interesting election years.

For my fellow patriots supporting Ron Paul, and fighting for the cause of liberty in the face of such odds, do not be discouraged. Remember the words of Thomas Pain,

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

One other (at least) has already said it well in the comments for Randy’s post. But I want to add my voice, ignored though it will likely be.

The values voters debate was a setup. The people commenting after the debate (one of whom you quoted) were clearly already set on Mike from the beginning as God’s annointed candidate.

The question and answer period was structured in a way to prevent any sort of rational discussion by reducing it to yes and no answers.

The easy thing here would be to answer the way you know everyone wants you to in that audience. It would’ve been so easy for Ron to tell people what they want to hear. Like some of those other men did. Instead he held fast to his principles even though he knew they’d be misinterpreted by people like you.

People who take no time to actually understand the political ramifications of an idea or decision before weighing in on it. Evangelicals are largely political morons. There is zero appreciation for the double-edged sword that is the use of government power. Zero understanding of the law of unintended consequences.

No, we swing that sword for all its worth with no heed to who is going to be hurt by it, including ourselves. Imagine a three year old with a fully automatic handgun. That’s the typical evangelical in the political arena.

We have a system of government that separates powers. It does so for a reason – a recognition that man is depraved and cannot be trusted with power. It must be divided and set against itself or it will be abused.

Some of us, like me, Ron, and hundreds of others I now know thanks to Ron’s campaign, understand that the national government has a very specific and LIMITED set of powers and responsibilities. Yes Jefferson made that statement, but if you actually bother to read his writings instead of a quote you read on the web somewhere or in someone’s email signature you’ll find that he CLEARLY did not believe it was the responsibility of the national government to intervene in the life of the individual to accomplish that.

The federal government has that job as a priority in the specific areas that it is responsible for. It is the job of the pastor to shepherd the flock. Not for him to shepherd EVERY flock, but the flock he was given. Likewise the federal government has a responsibility to protect life in its management of our national and international affairs. In part that means not sending our people to die in unjust wars.

If Ron were running for governor and was taking those positions I think we’d have a much more interesting debate. However, the fact is that he was running for president of the United States, and he was dead right on every single one of those questions and everyone else was wrong.

This includes the issue of forcing laws on the Iraqi government. We have no place to impose laws on other nations. Instead we ought to lead by example and encourage that result that we want. I am truly horrified by what happens to Christians in Islamic nations. It’s awful. However, it is also being used of God for the benefit of that Church. One of the biggest problems the American church has is that it is not persecuted enough. How about if we follow our constitution and bring this particular problem before God in prayer instead. The utter hypocrisy here amazes me. One of the main reasons most Christians oppose Islam is because of its law and that laws opposition to and attempted suppression of Christianity. (Sadly enough, they’d likely be fine with it otherwise, much like GWB). Then they want to turn around and impose their own law on Islamic nations.

Further, I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are fundamental issues with Islam that many people don’t appreciate. However, there is this seeming belief among many that the majority of muslims are consistent, accurate muslims. That somehow the Islamic world is not possessed of the weaknesses that possesses every other world religion.

But that’s not the case. There simply aren’t that many militant muslims. Or there weren’t before we started bombing them regularly. Most people are not even aware of the regular bombing runs we did leading up to 9/11. And of course, we can’t possibly give any credence to the idea that might make people angry. Maybe even angry enough to join a militant organization to strike back at the US.

Not when we can look at their religion and find reasons there. Surely that explains everything. Why should I be forced to actually think about cause and effect. Why should we possibly ever possibly entertain the thought that maybe we might need to repent of what our nation has done in the past?

What really gets me is that most of that was Clinton era actions. Christians are even defending HIS policies and their consequences. It’s not even typical “republicans can do no wrong.”

Our pride is killing us.

If we put a man like Mike in the office, he will continue to expand the size of government. Sure, he’s a social conservative – mostly. But that’s as far as it goes. He might even lower taxes. But that is meaningless.

This is not a question of whether he can do enough to appear conservative. This is a question of his worldview. Of his ideology. What is his overall approach to government. It’s not conservative. Not in any historical or meaningful sense of the word.

Further, he will do nothing to repair the great damage done by President Bush. Speaking specifically of his moves in regard to Martial law, his repealing of the Posse Comitatus act, his willingness to declare US citizens as enemy combatants and the subsequent stripping of their rights, the warrantless searches, or the patriot act. In particular on that last point, the power granted to the federal eforcement arm to write their own search warrants and then prevent you from telling anyone – even your lawyer – about it.

As a result, if he wins, and that’s a big if, then in 4 years or 8 years or 16 years when the democrats come to power they will have all of that power and they will employ it in ways that will hurt everyone.

And you will be responsible.

Unbelievable! This is definitely the debate everyone should see!

I’m only a part of the way through and I’ve been skipping through it and I’ve heard the most incredible things already. I’ll have more detail and exact quotes later, but so far I’ve heard McCain actually suggest that Ron should read The Wealth of Nations! Yet quite clearly McCain has never read it, nor any of the economic theory that sprang from it. (Or, if he did, he didn’t understand it. Kinda like Otto in A Fish Called Wanda:
Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy!
Wanda: Yes, they do Otto. They just don’t understand it.
Allow me to correct a few things things for you:
     Aristotle was not Belgian.
     The central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself.
     The London Underground is not a political movement.
Those are all mistakes.)

Then, you had Romney saying he wouldn’t consult congress before he went to war, he’d ask his lawyers. And Ron rightly lays the smack down on the whole group on the issue. Directly following this, Mike Huckabee clearly states that if he asked congress to go to war and they said no, then he’d do it anyway.

That’s without even getting into the exchange between Romney and Rudy that was so surreal I thought I’d stepped into the twilight zone. I mean really, listening to two fakes arguing over who is better at re-interpreting their past to fit their new conservative persona is just bizarre. This must be what it feels like to be on mind-altering drugs.

Given the general tenor of posts on this blog, I couldn’t resist posting some great news. Richard Paeye has received a full pardon! This is incredible! Frankly, I had lost hope that there was enough enough sense left within our government on these issues to even commute his sentence. Giving him a full pardon just wasn’t even within the bounds of my imagination. What wonderful news for him and for his family.

I wish I could say that I’m encouraged by the things said in this article regarding the obvious problems in the legal system as it pertains to the drug war. Unfortunately, past history shows it’s unlikely anything will be done. Very little is even being done in Alabama, and an elderly woman was murdered.

USA Today has a story out about ISI’s study of test results for a quiz they give to college students over History and Civics.

You can take the quiz yourself. (My results below)
(more…)

Last night I watched the Values Voters debate. Most people talking today think it went well, but I on the other hand think it was an absolutely disgusting display. Person after person came forward, asking if presidential candidates would take action as president on behalf of their moral cause. Would he limit free speech in the way we want? (Prosecute pornographers) Would he remove limits on free speech we want to have (repeal hate crimes legislation). Would he make Iraq follow their constitution? Would he invade the Sudan and end slavery? Would he invade Saudi Arabia on behalf of Christians there? Would he impose tariffs on Chinese goods to raise their prices? Would he legislate against immoral behavior?
(more…)

I don’t know a lot about this judge, beyond his being a big supporter of the PATRIOT Act. That shouldn’t surprise us though, he is a Bush appointee. What really scares me is the pictures of Bush shaking has with Chuck Schumer. Anything those two men can agree on has got to spell disaster for the United States. I’m pretty sure it’s one of the bowls of revelation in dispensationalist teaching.

Someone asked me about my comments about marriage while live blogging the debate offline (since I forgot to enable comments, which I have now done). Many Christians are in favor of a ‘defense of marriage’ act. The lesson is the same one Christians have never learned through centuries of history. Lets use a very clear example here. In the middle ages, the English government fluctuated back and forth between Roman Catholic and Protestant. When each was in power, they used that power against each other. By doing so, there was implicit acknowledgment of the government’s power to do this. So when the other side was in power, they took their turn. That’s what will happen if we pass a defense of marriage act as well. Eventually, there could be enough votes to overturn this act, and pass one declaring that marriage is between any two people, and then they’ll try to use that to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals. And we won’t have a leg to stand on in challenging the law, because we implicitly stated that the government had a right to define marriage and to legislate it.

This is the way of things. When the protestants came here, they had learned their lesson. There was no authority granted to the central government to establish religion. In the same vein, we were all protected from the dangers of the “church” (obviously not the true church) coming to power. (Bad for the church and for the people). However, we have forgotten that lesson. Over time the visible church (here forward the ‘church’) has begun to see the federal government as a convenient way of making people behave the way they want them to.

Yet that is not our call. There is not one place in scripture that calls the church to impose a veneer of propriety and morality on an unregenerate society. Paul lived in the time of debauched Rome, and nowhere did he call on the government to outlaw the excesses of the populace. Paul realized, as we should, that the only way to change men is from the inside out. Outside of God’s work of grace in the heart of a believer no amount of overbearing government action is going to make them “behave”.

This is all just an outworking of the roles of our governments as set down in the constitution. The federal government has a very specific purpose. It handles tasks that cannot be relegated to the states specifically related to our interaction with foreign nations. We cannot have individual states negotiating treaties and such with foreign nations, or fighting wars all on their own. As a result, the federal government manages those things. All domestic responsibilities are reserved to the states.

Now, at the state level, there is nothing legally preventing them from establishing such a view. Or, alternately, establishing one allowing same-sex marriage. Yet I would fight against it. I do so because I believe that marriage is, at its core, a private contract issue. Obviously, as a Christian I see it as significantly more than that on the whole, but at its core it is a contract between two people. As a Christian, I see it as a contract and a pledge made before God, with deep and permanent commitments—but a contract nonetheless. I think it is absolutely critical that we see it this way as well. This is an area where we have fallen into superstition as Christians. We believe that a wedding is not properly done unless there is a minister officiating. Yet there is absolutely nothing magical about a pastor or elder officiating a ceremony. Anyone could do it, or you could do away with the ceremony altogether and you would be just as married if you have made the commitment to each other. I would argue it should be a public commitment for various reasons I won’t go into here, but that is the crux of the issue. And maybe you want to seal it with a signed document between the two of you stating your commitment to each other. (Not a prenum, a literal marriage contract). That’s all great.

Unfortunately, because the government now gives varying preferences based on your marital state (particularly in regards to taxes, inheritance, etc) they have opted to require certain sorts of people to sign off on a marriage. AFAIK, not just anyone can perform the ceremony and sign the document, they have to be authorized by the state. (I specifically did not want our pastor to say ‘power invested in me by the state of blah’ in my own wedding, because I do not recognize its power or its influence in terms of my wedding—and that was 15 years ago.)

Now, you might think I’m crazy on this point, but I’ll tell you I’m in good company. I was researching something else last week, and I stumbled across some commentary on this by Charles Spurgeon. Now, I won’t go so far as to say he agrees with everything I said here, but as far as his agreement goes, I think it is enough as Christians to give us pause in allowing the State to re-enforce such superstition.

Upon the same spirit as it crops up in reference to marriages and burials we need not remark. Neither of these things are in themselves our work, although, as they furnish us with excellent occasions for doing good, it is well for us to attend to them. At the same time here are two threads for the syrup of superstition to crystallize upon, and it will do so if not prevented.

The ignorant evidently attach some importance to reading or speaking over a corpse at a funeral, and do not regard the service as meant wholly for themselves, but as having some sort of relation to the departed. To have a gracious exhortation and prayer at home, and then lay the dear remains in the tomb in solemn silence, would be regarded as barbarity by many, and yet it would be no unseemly thing. To give the minister liberty to keep to the word of God and prayer, and release him from serving sepulchers, is according to apostolic precedent, and yet our churches would be grieved if it were carried out.
...
By what process have these things come to be an integral part of our ministry? Are they really the business of the ministers of Christ? It is not meet that we should needlessly grieve any by refusing to attend upon either of these occasions, but we must take heed that we do not feed the sickly sentimentalism which makes the preacher necessary to them. We must all have seen how soon a superstition springs up, and therefore we must be on our guard not to water the ill weed.