Seek the Welfare of the City

This is a follow up post to yesterday’s article Are All Politics Local, in which we examined the Power of the Majority Party in the US Congress and noted several characteristics of Worldly and Godly Leaders.

Today, I’d like to discuss the application of Jeremiah 29 for the modern day Christian. In particular, we’ll address how God’s command in verse 7 for his people to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile” should apply to true believers in our earthly countries.

As our regular readers know, we must first look at what the verse meant to the original audience before we can begin applying it to ourselves. As I’ve said many times (I’m certainly not the first to say this), the three top rules for interpreting scripture are “Context, Context, and Context”. We know from verses 1-3 that the majority of the chapter contains a letter that the Prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the Jewish exiles that had been taken into exile to Babylon. So, looking at the immediate context, the letter begins:

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (Jer 29:4-7)

At first glance, Jeremiah appears to be telling the people that their main objective is to become good citizens of Babylon. But looking at the entire chapter, along with the prevailing themes of the Book of Jeremiah as a whole, we find the narrative to be a bit more complicated.

Let’s begin with the bigger picture. The primary themes of the book are that a Holy God must punish His people for their constant disobedience to His covenant, but the Prophet also speaks of hope for the future. Thus, even though the people are currently in exile as punishment, they will later be restored to their homeland. In addition, there is also a running battle between Jeremiah the true prophet, and various false prophets who are constantly attempting to damage Jeremiah’s credibility among the people.

Continuing in verse 8, we read:

For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, declares the LORD.

“For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.

(Jer 29:8-14)

The false prophets were telling the people to resist rather than to serve the King of Babylon; that they would only be there for a short time. Jeremiah however, accurately informed the people that their captivity would last seventy years. Furthermore, this was God’s righteous judgment so any rebellion would also be against God.

So Jeremiah was basically telling the people to be good citizens in their temporary home for seventy years, but cautioning them not to get so comfortable that they would refuse to return to their homeland when it was time to leave. In addition, the command to multiply also looked forward to the end of captivity since it would primarily be the sons and daughters whose families would return.

Thus, the parallel we can draw for Christians in our modern day is that, while we’re here on this earth, we should likewise be good citizens, but we should not get so comfortable as to want to stay here forever. The Psalmist writes, The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away (Ps 90:10).

As the old saying goes, “We should be in the world, but not of the world” as we look forwward to our permanent home in Heaven.

Prologue

Since this article is a follow-up to yesterday’s political post, I thought I’d address the meaning of the word “welfare” in our main verse. “Seek the welfare of the city” does not mean that we should vote for Socialist Democrats just because they’re attempting to turn the country into a welfare state (at least until they run out of everyone else’s money).

The word for welfare is translated “peace and prosperity”, “well-being”, or “the good” in various other Bible translations. It is the Hebrew word shalom that is most often translated “peace”, but also “welfare”, “safety” etc. Think of it as seeking the common good.

Are all Politics Local?

The saying “All politics are local” is typically attributed to Tip O’Neill, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives in the 1970s and 1980s. This saying is still partially true, even with the vast amount of donations that pour in nationally for some state races, but the locals still do the voting (if you don’t count those who are bused in from out of state to vote multiple times). The out-of-state funding of local candidates has become the norm over the past few decades, but this strategy is now being extended to many local races

In the last few years, we’ve even seen George Soros backed funds buy many prosecutor races in targeted cities and counties. In just one example, a liberal prosecutor in North Carolina running on the platform of abolishing bail and refusing to prosecute most crimes received about $1.5 million dollars. In previous years by comparison, each candidate typically received only about $15 thousand. This strategy has led to an epidemic of increased crime and unrest across the country due to the Soros-backed prosecuters refusing to prosecute even serious crimes.

Power of the Majority Party

With the upcoming 2020 elections just around the bend and many voters have already begun to cast their ballots, we like to offer some brief thoughts about the importance of your vote, because you are voting for more than just a candidate. One of the single most misunderstood facts about voting is that when a person casts his or her vote, it is not just for a candidate, but for an entire party, and in the bigger picture, for an entire worldview.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain is to look at the 2108 mid-term elections. Prior to the election, the Republicans held a majority in the House and Senate. We should note that this fact doesn’t necessarily mean the Republicans had a solid majority, since as most people know, all Democrats are solid Democrats, but many Republicans are Republicans in Name Only (RINOs). A prime example was during the Republican’s attempt to repeal the expensive, one-size-fits-all Obamacare disaster and replace it with an individualized, more economical plan, RINO John McCain single-handly dealt one final blow to conservatism with his last vote in the Senate.

Be that as it may, the Democrats won the majority by running candidates proclaiming themselves to be “moderates” in over 30 precincts that had been carried by President Trump in 2016. Videos surfaced of aides to some of these candidates telling prospective voters that, “Our candidate is very liberal, but has to pretend otherwise due to the number of moderate voters in the district”. The “mainstream” media spiked the stories, and the candidates won by promising not to support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House, and to be an independent voice for their constituents.

Regarding the first of these promises, Ms Pelosi was able to win over enough of these new members by cutting individual special deals to be re-elected as Speaker of the House, and place herself third in line for the Presidency. Regarding the new candidate’s promise of being an independent voice, all but one voted the impeach the President over non-criminal, policy disagreements between Trump and the unelected deep-state bureaucrats.

We’ll come back to these “moderates”, but we first must understand the power of the majority party, or more accurately, the power of their leader(s). The leader of the majority party has enormous power, even if that party has only a one-member majority. First, he or she appoints the chairman for each committee and sub-committees. The majority party also holds a majority of members on each committee. Since any legislation must pass several procedural obstacles in the committees to even get to the legislative body, these committee heads also have tremendous authority. The minority party can’t even bring a bill to the floor without getting an agreement with a sufficient number of members from the other party. It’s not surprising that most legislation never makes it to the body for a vote.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that many of the new “moderates” were sincere in their promises to vote independently, they would still have no control over which legislation the committees and Speaker will bring to a vote. Even if a bill makes it out of committee and they decide to break with the leaders on a vote, they will typically be threatened to either vote the party line, or have the party back an opponent against them in the next primary election. Thus, once they compromised on their “No to Pelosi” pledge, they were basically powerless to keep their promise to their local voters, even if that had been their intention.

So, before you cast a ballot, please consider the entire ramification of your vote. We mentioned that when we cast our ballot, we’re also electing a worldview. Although specifics can vary somewhat by candidates, one party generally believes in natural law (from God), freedom of religion, state and local rights, free-market economics, the right to life, security, free speech and other liberties guaranteed by the constitution; while the other typically believes in federal government autonomous control (socially, economically and otherwise), judicial activism, the right to kill babies, and globalism.

Worldly and Godly Leaders

In 1998, pastor and teacher John MacArthur preached a sermon entitled Characteristics of an Effective Leader in which he painted a picture of an effective leader according to the two prevailing worldviews. The secular world typically prefers a leader with the following qualities. “Visionary – that is looking to the future and, in some degree or another, being able to forecast the future and plan ahead for the future. Action oriented – that is more than just someone who muses about things, more than someone who comes up with ideas and schemes, somebody who can make things happen… So, you have this typical picture of a leader: visionary, action oriented, courageous, energetic, objective oriented, paternalistic, egocentric, intolerant of incompetence in others, and indispensible.” Meanwhile, from a Christian worldview, he states, “What makes an effective leader? He’s respected/trusted, takes initiative, uses good judgment, speaks with authority, strengthens others, is enthusiastic and optimistic about triumph, never compromises absolutes, focuses on objectives not obstacles, and leads by example.” We need more candidates fitting Pastor MacArthur’s description of a leader in all levels of government today.

If I could add a personal observance, worldly leaders tend to be life-long politicians, while Godly leaders often serve for a few years, then return to the private sector. There are many exceptions of course, but as a rule, I believe this is often because worldly leaders often attempt to raise government to the level of diety. Witness Barack Obama’s infamous “You didn’t build that” statement implying that private citizens or corporations are basically powerless without government. One other example is the recent mandates closing houses of worship, mostly in the blue states. While liquor stores and marijuana selers are considered “essential” businesses, churches are considered as “non-essential”. In Pastor MacArthur’s state of California, churches are facing tens of thousands dollars in fines hold holding services.

Loud Dogma

This coming Monday, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to begin confirmation hearings. In her previous hearing, in which she was confirmed to the US Seventh Court of Appeals, Diane Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, attached her for her faith with the now infamous statement, “The dogma lives loudly within you”. Of course, what went, and continues to go unsaid, is that the dogma also lives loudly within Sen Feinstein, albeit a completely different dogma. Still, a secular faith is just as much a dogma as is a religious one, even though it is not recognized as such by most people. Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution states “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States”. The Constitution, as Obama once noted, can be a real inconvenience.

Finally, as the percentage of authentic Christians continues to drop in our country, we encourage all remaining believers to exercise their right and privilege to vote.

Spiritual State of the Union 2015

We recently witnessed B Hussein Obama’s State of the Union speech. For those who missed it, we’ll provide a brief paraphrase of what he said (and didn’t say):

The economy is booming and unemployment continues to drop (since we no longer consider those who’ve given up finding work, or who’ve taken part time jobs as unemployed – not to mention the fact that we have a record 92 million not in the workforce). I promise to veto any legislation that would cut Obamacare and thus deprive anyone of insurance coverage (even though Obamacare itself resulted in millions of people losing their insurance coverage with which they were well pleased). The deficit is shrinking (pay no attention to that pesky 18 trillion debt thingy, or the fact that I’ve added more debt than all other presidents combined). Russia and Al Qaeda are no longer a threat and we’ve stopped the (non-Islamic) Islamic State (even though IS has doubled their territory since US airstrikes began). In short, everything is rainbows and unicorns (are you going to believe what you see in the real world, or what I tell you?).

This post however, is not about the make-believe world in BHO’s imagination, but about the spiritual state of our union. As we move into 2015, we could acknowledge the erosion of morality in many areas but for the sake of brevity, we’ll only mention three.

Decreased freedom of religion - Never before in our history has the federal government taken such an active role in attacking the God-given rights of people of faith. Many, including those serving as chaplains in our military, are denied the right to pray in the name of Jesus. In some public organizations, God's name can't even be mentioned, unless it's used as an expression of profanity. Doctors and nurses are being forced to assist in abortions or risk losing their jobs. Religious organizations are being threatened with fines for not providing abortion-inducing drugs to their employees. Barriers that protect children from pornography are being systematically removed, but the children are “protected” from bringing a Bible to school. Parents rights are being stripped away by those who believe instilling them with Christian values is equivalent to child abuse.

Cheapening of Human Life - Approximately 4000 babies continue to be murdered each day while Planned Parenthood receives over 500 million dollars a year in government grants, almost half of its overall revenue. We’re now seeing a renewed push for assisted suicide or “death with dignity” as promoted by the media.

As the population continues to age and with over 62 million potential workers killed by abortionists, the ratio of workers to retirees has shrunk from 34-1 to about 2-1. So, something must be done about these old folks that will be increasing seen as a drain on society. This is where the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) comes in. I detailed this board three years ago in one of our most-read articles called ObamaCare Death Panels Coming in 2014. The IPAB will determine which patients will get (or not get) certain medical treatments based upon their estimate of the patient’s value to society. If the needed treatment is more expensive than the board's estimate of the patient’s worth (never mind the patient’s worth to his or her family or friends), the patient is out of luck. Members of the panel will be appointed by Obama, not elected, and I can pretty much guarantee that it will be comprised of accountants and lawyers instead of doctors since all decisions will be based strictly on monetary issues; although in swing states, whether or not the patient is a regular supporter of the democratic party could also be a determining factor. There is no oversight or appeals, so any IPAB decision is final.

Finally, and most importantly, we come to

Compromise in the Church - A few weeks ago, I heard the story of a church that was going up in flames. The townsfolk were running with their buckets of water in an attempt to extinguish the flames. It seemed like the entire town pitched in, including several known atheists. As they ran toward the church with their water buckets, one of the church deacons couldn't resist yelling at the group, “Wow, I’ve never seen atheists running to church before”. One of the atheists yelled back without breaking stride, “I’ve never seen a church on fire before”.

The lesson in the story is that, when a church is on fire spiritually, outsiders take notice. Now, there are some local churches across the country that are on fire, but for the most part, the Church as a whole has lost much of her influence over society in America. Call it weariness, discouragement, lack of faith, apathy or a host of other factors, but our modern culture has infiltrated and compromised the church rather than the church transforming the culture by boldly proclaiming the truth and fulfilling the great commission to make disciples.

We’re quick to blame the organizer-in-chief currently occupying the Oval Office for much of the nation’s spiritual problems. Granted, the current president and his administration are one of the most anti-biblical and anti-Christian in our history. BHO still refuses to acknowledge any terrorism committed by radical Muslims; yet at the Nation Prayer Breakfast last week, he was quick to assert that the Crusades, Inquisition, Jim Crow laws and slavery were all carried out “in the name of Christ”, failing to mention the minor detail that much of the Crusades were to defend Christian lands against Islamic aggression.

Still, we should not expect anything different from non-Christians. In Scripture, we constantly read of God taking vengeance on godless nations who were practicing similar abominations that are regularly occurring in America today, but when it came to judging His people of Israel, He often began in the sanctuary (Ez 9, 1Pe 4:17). Even so, He has also given us the promise that, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land (2Chr 7:14). Notice that this verse doesn’t say that “if the politicians”, or “if Hollywood”, or “if the abortionists” will get right with God, but “if my people”. So, God is looking to the Church House rather than the White House for leadership on spiritual issues. The spiritual state of the Church will determine the spiritual state of the union.

As believers, we know that God is sovereign over both humans (Ac 17:25-26) and the nations (Job 12:23, Ps 66:7, Jer 27:1-11, Ezk 29:13-16 and many more). In addition, we have been given a prophetic view of things to come in the Scriptures. We have assurances for our future and know that our Lord’s power and grace is the same yesterday, today and forever. Therefore, the church has no excuse for her impotence. With much prayer for revival, we must awaken and confidently go about doing His work until He returns.

Mid-Year 2012 Review

We had planned to post a series of reviews of the first six months of 2012, featuring the talents and wits of many gifted and talented artists. We were to begin this series with a brief summary or overture of many of the events and issues, followed by additional posts on the various subjects over the next few weeks. After getting swamped on other projects, we decided to do a review of the full year instead. So, we're posting a preview at this time, and will be add the others toward the end of the year.

As we view these posts, we who are Christians should bear in mind that, even though we have the right to express our opinions, we should also pray for our government leaders and keep these issues in perspective. The Psalmist writes “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing. Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them -- the Lord, who remains faithful forever.” (Ps 146:3-6)

We should also remember that, our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:12). Finally, we should not forget that it is only the grace of God that separates us from the unbelievers. The apostle Paul addresses believers: As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:1-7)

That said, enjoy the cartoons.

No, this is not all of the toons. In order to to post a greater number without interrupting the flow of the main blog pages, we are now loading our toons on a separate page. So, please see our Mid-year Toon Review page for additional toons on the economy, election year, religious freedom, Israel, foreign policy, right to life, jobs, healthcare, military, the media, energy and other topics.

Fall 2011 Review

Our fall 2011 cartoon review includes Israel. OWS, Thanksgiving, the beginning of election season, and more.

Our toons have been archived at End-year 2011 Toon Review. Enjoy and continue praying for our nation.

Obamacare and the SuperCommittee

We haven't done a toon update in a few months, so we're uploading one tomorrow, but I wanted to load this separately while it was on my mind. Most of us remember all the promises made by BHO, his supporters and media apologists regarding this takeover of the health-care industry by the federal government. We were told of all the money that would be saved, both in premiums for individuals and in reduction of the national deficit. Those that currently had health coverage was promised that we would be able to keep our same policies and doctors.

Of course, only those drinking the Obama Kool-aid actually believed any of the claims about the policy. Most reputable economists predict that ObamaCare will greatly increase the deficit at a time when the feds are already broke.

On a personal note, we finally received our insurance options for the coming year. The policy we had previously carried was discontinued due to increased costs brought on by Obamacare. The policy that we were forced to settle on featured a higher monthly premium, much higher deductibles instead of a low co-pay, and less coverage. I have not yet verified whether or not our doctor will accept the new policy. I have a request for BHO and his comrades. Please stop helping us. We can't afford it.

So, now the issue of whether the feds can force us into the program will be decided by the "un-biased" Supreme Court. Why doesn't this make us feel any more confident?

Another subject related to the fed's out of control spending is that of the creation of a so-called Super Committee to come up with some budget cuts. In picking the toons for the Fall update, I had to wade through hundreds portraying the committee as being a deadlocked failure. I chose to exclude all other than the one below because I consider this to be the biggest non-story of the year. Only those who believed the promises from BHO regarding Obamacare would be naive enough to believe anything good could come from this idea. By including such members as John Kerry and Patty Murray, Harry Reid guaranteed that the committee would either be deadlocked, or deliver a "partisan solution" that would consist primarily of tax increases and defense cuts.

Many people complain about the gridlock in congress, but I actually prefer it to the alternative. Compromise would normally be preferred, but there are so many Socialists and Marxists currently masquerading as Democrats (or we should say Democrats of a generation ago), that the situation can only be fixed by an election purge. We must vote for candidates who will stand up for the constitution and traditional values, not for candidates who will compromise with those attempting to destroy our country.

July 2011 Review

I’m getting a little break in schedule at work, so here’s a brief review of major events from July.

Our toons this month include the economy, jobs, debt deal and more. See the archive at July 2011 Toon Review. Enjoy and continue praying for our nation.

June 2011 Review

As the month of June comes to an end, we offer this review of some of the month's events. Enjoy.

The first is actually a holdover from May that didn’t make it into our 2011 Memorial Day Tribute.

Moving to June, the tolerance police continue to run wild, insisting on tolerance for everything except Christianity.

Our toons this month include the Fast and Furious, the economy, and others. See June 2011 Toon Review for the archive. Enjoy and God Bless.

May 2011 Toons

Here’s a collection of cartoons from the first half of May. The big news of the month was the killing of Osama Bin Laden. According to media reports, this was single-handedly planned and carried out by BHO, although the Navy Seals may have contributed in some minor capacity.

See the archive at May 2011 Toon Review. Enjoy and continue praying for our brave troops.

Toon Update March 2011

After getting busy and not posting for a few weeks, I often do an update on what we’ve missed. In this case, we’ll use the “a picture is worth a thousand words” strategy. It’s also a lot more fun. It would be even more fun if not so true. Hope you enjoy.

See the archive at March 2011 Toon Review. This month focuses primarily on the UN and foreign policy.

Are You Smarter than an Elected Official?

Remember the uproar a week or so ago from the liberal Dems and their friends in the media when the Republicans opened the 112th Congress by (gasps and horrors!) actually reading the US Constitution. Most condemned the idea as a publicity stunt and a waste of time. After all, what does the Constitution have to do with governing? As Nancy Pelosi said during the healthcare debate, “we need to stop worrying about rules and procedures and get this thing done”.

This is actually a defining difference between liberals and conservatives. Some of my liberal friends (yes, I have several good friends that are politically liberal) charge that the term “liberal” is a meaningless label that is constantly overused. Ignoring the fact that the media rarely uses it as opposed to constantly overdosing on the “C-word” (conservative), we know that the word liberal comes from a Latin word that means "to not be bound by". Thus a liberal politician believes that we are not bound by the Constitution, just as a liberal theologian believes that we are not bound by the Bible. Therefore, to a liberal, why read something that is perceived to possess no authority. The Constitution is merely a "living document" to be interpreted however it suits them at the time.

Many conservatives even joked that the opening of the congressional session might be the first time that many Dems had actually been exposed to the Constitution. Now, our good friend Dee alerted us to an article that appears to confirm that it may not be a joke.

Richard Brake, co-chairman of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's National Civic Literacy Board writes in AOL News, Elected Officials Flunk Constitution Quiz:

When the Republican House leadership decided to start the 112th Congress with a reading of the U.S. Constitution, the decision raised complaints in some quarters that it was little more than a political stunt. The New York Times even called it a "presumptuous and self-righteous act."

That might be true, if you could be sure that elected officials actually know something about the Constitution. But it turns out that many don't. In fact, elected officials tend to know even less about key provisions of the Constitution than the general public.

For five years now, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute has been conducting a national survey to gauge the quality of civic education in the country. We've surveyed more than 30,000 Americans… Included in the adult sample was a small subset of Americans (165 in all) who, when asked, identified themselves as having been "successfully elected to government office at least once in their life" which can include federal, state or local offices.

The survey asks 33 basic civics questions, many taken from other nationally recognized instruments like the U.S. Citizenship Exam. It also asks 10 questions related to the U.S. Constitution. So what did we find? Well, to put it simply, the results are not pretty.

Elected officials at many levels of government, not just the federal government, swear an oath to "uphold and protect" the U.S. Constitution. But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question.

Examples:

• Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
• Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war -- 54 percent of the general public knows that.
• Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase "wall of separation" appears in Thomas Jefferson's letters -- not in the U.S. Constitution -- compared with 19 percent of the general public.
• And only 57 percent of those who've held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for "training those aspiring for higher political office.")
• Overall, our sample of elected officials averaged a failing 44 percent on the entire 33-question test, 5 percentage points lower than the national average of 49 percent.

The fact that our elected representatives know even less about America's history and institutions than the typical citizen (who doesn't know much either) is troubling indeed, but perhaps helps explain the lack of constitutional discipline often displayed by our political class at every level of our system. Given this dismal performance, it would seem that last week's House reading of the Constitution shouldn't be described "presumptuous and self-righteous," but as a necessary national tutorial for all elected officials.

In fact, we can only hope that this trend of Constitution reading will continue to sweep the nation and states. After all, there are 50 state constitutions as well. When elected officials take an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution," shouldn't they know what they are swearing to?

You may follow the article link above to take the test for yourself.

Mr Obama’s Veterans Day

Who says that Mr Obama doesn’t love his country and honor our veterans? Just the week, Mr Obama paid tribute to those "who have sacrificed on behalf of this great country”. Oh wait… my bad. He was actually addressing the veterans and country of Indonesia.

Per an article in the NY Post – Bam AWOL on Veterans Day:

Today is Veterans Day. Do you know where your president is?

With his feeble flame of "hope" thoroughly doused here in the United States by last week's elections, President Obama has set out around the globe in search of throngs still enthralled by his flowery rhetoric. He found them, of course, in Indonesia this week by telling them about how Americans must stop mistrusting Islam.

So that is why your president is halfway around the world instead of being here in the United States to celebrate the sacrifices American soldiers, sailors and airmen have made around the world to keep the real, still-burning flame of freedom alive.

Obama honored our veterans from afar by laying a wreath during a ceremony at an Army base in South Korea last night. That is a distance from here matched only by the chasm that has opened up between him and the voters who elected him two years ago. This aloofness of his really is becoming a problem.

Not that Obama doesn't appreciate the sacrifices of veterans. He absolutely does. Just ask the Indonesians. He was in Jakarta for their Heroes Day this week to honor their veterans "who have sacrificed on behalf of this great country."

"This great country" of course, being Indonesia. "When my stepfather was a boy, he watched his own father and older brother leave home to fight and die in the struggle for Indonesian independence," Obama told the audience. And the White House wonders why so many people think there is something foreign about this guy.

In the same speech, Obama gave voice to a harsh criticism he has heard about freely elected governments. "Today, we sometimes hear that democracy stands in the way of economic progress" he said.

The shocking statement raises the question: Where has Obama heard this fatuous claim and with whom has he been talking politics? Thankfully, your president tepidly disputed this calumny against democracy, but the alarming questions remain. He went on to tell the Indonesians, "Democracy is messy".

"Not everyone likes the results of every election. You go through ups and downs," he said. At least it sounds like Obama is starting to get the message voters sent him last week.

Yet, despite the lack of support for the liberal politicians, and outright hostility from the (out of the) mainstream media, our brave veterans continue to do their job better than anywhere else in the world. And for that, we are very grateful. Please thank a veteran for your freedoms today, and any other day.

The Value of Newspaper Endorsements

As if we didn’t have enough reasons for supporting Rick Perry’s re-election effort for Texas Governor, here’s one more. The AP recently reported that Mr Perry is shunning major newspaper endorsements:

Candidates for high political office usually grovel for newspaper endorsements. Not Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Breaking from a decades-old tradition, the governor isn't even bothering to meet with editorial writers, much less ask for their blessing.

The way Perry sees it, newspapers are old news and have lost much of their influence. In a rapidly changing media climate, Perry said he decided before the March primaries that seeking their endorsements was a waste of time… "The most prized resource that you have is the candidate's time, and what is the best return on your investment that you can get with a candidate's time," Perry told The Associated Press. "It was a calculated decision, but you know the world is really changing, I mean, the way people get their information, who they listen to, etc. Put it all on the balance beam and the balance was toward not doing the editorial boards."

Newspaper editorialists have responded to Perry's snub with fury, accusing him of doing a disservice to voters by refusing to submit to unscripted questioning. The staunchly conservative Tyler Morning Telegraph, which Perry once called his "favorite" paper, slapped the longest-serving Texas governor with a blistering front-page editorial on Sunday.

"Your position to not visit with the editorial boards of Texas newspapers may be astute politically, but it demonstrates a disregard for newspaper readers and voters across the state, who deserve to hear substance rather than silence," the editorial said.

Perry also drew an unusual rebuke from the National Conference of Editorial Writers, which called him "disingenuous" for saying he didn't have time to take questions from its members when he spoke to their annual conference last month in Dallas. "If the governor can't take questions from the editorial board, from the press, on behalf of the public, it makes you wonder if they're fit for office," said Tom Waseleski of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, former president of the conference. "To out and out refuse to meet with editorial boards is cowardly and reprehensible."

The statements from the media heads attempt to give us the impression that by avoiding the newspaper editors, Mr Perry is snubbing the people. The Tyler editorial mentions that the voters “deserve to hear substance”, but isn’t Mr Perry providing real substance by avoiding the media filter and communicating directly with the people. Therein lies the real objection to Mr Perry’s strategy. It minimizes the amount of liberal spin the media can put on his message. If Mr Perry allowed the media to deliver his message, it would be unrecognizable by the time it got to the people.

As an example of newspaper “substance”, the far-left Austin American Statesman (known as the “un-American Statesman” to many locals) featured a hit-piece on Mr Perry for renting a “mansion” at taxpayer expense while the Governor’s building is undergoing renovation. In this article, they applauded a gimmick by his opponent, former Houston mayor Bill White, who promised to move into a double-wide trailer if elected. Mr White gave no details on where this trailer was to be located, or how he would handle the required security that must be approved by Homeland Security. A friend of mine remarked that, ”if Mr White does for Texas what he did for Houston, we’ll all be living in trailers within a sanctuary state”. Also absent from the article was the fact that Mr White, a multi-millionaire portrayed as a regular guy, left a $17 billion deficit in the general fund when he left office, and the fact that Mr Perry could have already moved back into the governor’s quarters had it not been torched during the Democratic state convention.

We must disagree however, with those who say that newspaper endorsements are irrelevant. On the contrary, an endorsement by a major newspaper can be very valuable to the voter. For the voter who doesn’t have time to check out the background of all the candidates, especially since the media minimizes or downright purges the liberal candidate’s stance on the issues, its endorsement can reveal a wealth of important information. For example, we know that most major metropolitan newspapers lean to the far left (with a few exceptions such as the Washington Times), so if a candidate receives the endorsement of several major papers, we can be reasonably sure that the candidate is soft on terrorism, pro-death, favors higher taxes, and more entitlement spending. The endorsed candidate will generally have a low view of the constitution, and be either hostile toward religion or friendly to all but Christianity. They will also have voted for nationalized healthcare and bailouts or will support them if a new candidate. It is certainly no coincidence that most major newspapers endorsed Mr Obama.

So, we can see great value in a newspaper’s endorsement. If voters will simply pick up a New York Times, a Houston Chronicle, or almost any other major city newspaper and vote against all those who are endorsed, our country would see vast improvements in a very short time.

Bring Back the Ditch

As the November election draws nearer, most people’s top concern remains the economy. Indeed, other than the spiritual condition of our nation, its economy ranks as one of the most important problems facing our country. Our weak economy even poses a serious threat to our national security. For this reason, we’ll be posting several articles over the next couple of months pertaining to the Biblical view of economics.

In this post, I’d like to address a few myths that have been circulating the past couple of years. Let first examine the rhetoric surrounding the battle over extending the Bush tax-cuts. With unemployment continuing to climb, businesses are very hesitant to hire workers because of the huge tax increases that they will incur should the extensions fail to pass by the end of this year. Mr Obama and his liberal friends continue to oppose extending the tax cuts to those who create the most jobs, continually insisting that the “rich” need to pay their fair share. The latest data released by the IRS however, reveals that the top 1% of earners already pay 40% of all federal income taxes, and the top 5% pay 60%. Almost half of all wage earners pay no tax at all, and many receive "refunds" as earned income credit. We'll discuss the topics of redistribution of wealth and charity in an upcoming post.

A second argument is that we can’t afford to extend the tax cuts because it would drive up the deficit, citing the Bush administration as an example. This argument is also false, since tax revenues actually went up about 40% after the tax cuts were enacted. How can this be? Due to the lower tax rates, businesses hired more workers and paid out more in salaries, thus the increased workforce paid more total taxes even at the lower rates. Similarly, liberals always want to raise federal revenue by increasing taxes on large corporations, but the feds lose money because the workforce shrinks. The deficits during the Bush years were due to increased spending, not decreased taxation. Mr Bush was not exactly a fiscal conservative, although he would certainly be considered one when compared to the current administration. Mr Obama and company have incurred more debt in his brief time that all other presidents combined.

Mr Obama frequently blames the slow economy on former President Bush, and his lapdogs in the media dutifully and gladly echo these accusations. His favorite line is that the Republicans drove the economy into a ditch and he’s working hard to get it out. Never mind that many top economists have maintained that we would already be out of this crisis had the government not felt obligated to fix it. Unfortunately, socialists trust in the government rather than free enterprise to grow the economy.

Another common claim is that Mr Bush took eight years to get us into this mess, so it is argued that we should allow Mr Obama a similar amount of time to repair the damage. After all, he’s only in his second year in office. This assumes that Mr Bush actually caused the recession, and it also ignores that fact that the Democrats took control of congress in January of 2007. Thus, Mr Obama, Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid have controlled the purse strings for almost four years (only congress can pass legislation authorizing spending). Many indicators of the economic downturn can be directly traced to the takeover by the socialist Democratic Party (see the attached charts for a couple of examples).

For the sake of argument however, let’s assume that Mr Bush and the Republicans drove us into a ditch by the time that they lost control of congress (January 2007). Revisiting Mr Bush’s ditch, we find the National unemployment rate at 4.5% (December 2006), an average GDP growth of 3.4% (2006), and an average annual deficit of about $105 billion (during Republican controlled congress, 1994-2006). The DJIA was almost 13,000 and the federal debt was about 65% of the GDP.

In contrast, looking at Mr Obama’s highway, we see an unemployment rate that has more than doubled at 9.6% (~17% including those who have given up looking for work), a GDP finally inching up to 2% and an annual deficit of about $1.5 trillion. In addition, the national debt is approaching $14 trillion at a rate of about 3.5 billion dollars a day, and has now exceeded 90% of the GDP.

As if this wasn't enough, we also have the vast amount of eroding wealth under the Dem's watch. According to the Wall Street Journal, total residential real estate values lost $4 trillion from the beginning of the Dem takeover through March 2009 (WSJ-8-20-09), and net worth of US households dropped 18% or over $11 trillion in 2008 alone, the biggest loss since the Federal Reserve began tracking shortly after WWII (WSJ3-13-09). An estimated 20% (about $2 trillion) vanished from our retirement plans from August 2007 to October 2008 (WSJ 8-20-09). In 2009, the first year of Mr Obama's administration, the federal government ran a budget deficit for every month of the year, the first time this has happened in almost 30 years of record keeping. In fact, as of May 2010, the government's record deficit string had reached 19 consecutive months (Reuters 5-12-2010). We could also mention the many large institutions that failed or was "bailed out" by the government, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who contributed heavily to the Dems, most notably House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd.

Facing the facts, it’s no wonder that the Dems and their media friends are talking about everything except the issues. A study released earlier this week by the Wesleyan Media Project at Weslayan University found that both Repubs and Dems ran negative ads at about the same rate, but the majority of Republican ads focused on the issues while the majority of Democratic ads were personal attacks, often involving events or quotes (many from anonymous sources) from up to 30 years ago. It’s also worth mentioning that any ad that mentioned the facts about a Dem’s voting record is considered a negative or attack ad.

Rather than take responsibility for their failures, the liberal Democrats continue to blame everyone but themselves. The latest strategy appears to be blaming the potential voters. The American people are told that we’re just too dumb to realize and appreciate all that the Dems have done for us. According to the liberals, if we were better informed, we would realize that runaway spending and entitlements, higher taxes, government takeovers of private industry, and flushing the constitution is all done for our benefit.

Mr Obama, Mr Biden, John Kerry (D-Ma) and others have complained that the lack of their popularity is due to the fact that voters are not paying attention. While idealism can sound good for awhile, sooner or later, one must live in reality. The truth is, the inattentive voter is what got Mr Obama elected in the first place. Rather than checking his record, many were caught up in the media's worship and in “making history”. Now that Mr Obama’s disastrous policies have gotten the voter’s attention however, most folks are realizing that they were a lot better off in the Bush ditch than on the Obama superhighway. When comparing the results of Mr Obama’s socialism, many are longing to “Bring back the Ditch”.

Update: A special thank you to our friend Doug Ross for linking to this article.

Economics, Evolution and the Great Depression

At a recent press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the economic recovery “is going to take an enormous amount of time.” When I read this statement, I couldn’t help but make a couple of comparisons and observations.

In 1859, English naturalist Charles Darwin claimed that something could come from nothing, life from non-life, personality from non-personality, and man from non-man. He also imagined that a series of pure random processes would result in continuously increased complexity. Now, Mr Darwin didn’t allow the fact that his theories contradicted the laws of physics, the laws of reason, and the laws of science dissuade him. He simply announced that it was possible if the process was given enough time, namely billions of years.

Likewise, the Obama administration believes that higher taxes, runaway government spending (leading to higher inflation), re-distribution of wealth, and other job-killing policies will produce economic growth if given enough time. To his credit, Mr Gibbs did not theorize that it would take billions of years, but when asked to clarify what he meant, he said, “it’s going to take several years.”

Fortunately, we can reasonably hope that, unlike macro-evolution, free enterprise can eventually overcome these devastating policies. Unfortunately, judging by past history, the more a liberal government interjects itself in an attempt to fix the problem, the longer the problem lasts. Mr Obama, Ms Pelosi, Mr Reid and associates urge us to look to the future, but their ideology is firmly rooted in the past, from the “manufactured crisis” design of German philosopher GWF Hegel (18-19th century) to the economic concepts of 19th century German philosopher Karl Marx. Even Cuban dictator Fidel Castro recently admitted that socialism is an absolute failure as an economic system. Yet Mr Obama and friends persist in pushing these disastrous policies.

Mr Obama, Ms Pelosi, and Mr Reid constantly proclaim that the stimulus and other measures have saved two, three and even five million jobs (whatever number happens to pop into their heads at the moment). While these numbers can’t be verified (a primary reason why they continually float them), we can certainly look at some historical examples.

Nationally syndicated writer Larry Elder, in his Listen, dummies: Obama's stimulus 'clearly helped' article, contrasts the approach of Ronald Reagan to that of Franklin Roosevelt:

President Reagan, in the early '80s, inherited an economy with 13.5 percent inflation, 21 percent prime interest rates, and an unemployment rate that reached 10.8 percent. He addressed this by doing the opposite of what Obama has done. Reagan sharply lowered taxes, dropping the top marginal rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. He slowed the rate of domestic spending. And he continued the deregulation policies of President Carter. Interest rates fell, inflation declined and unemployment, after nearly two years, started dropping.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, during the Great Depression, continued the tax-hiking policies of his predecessor. Federal spending soared. The result? Unemployment during the Depression reached 25 percent and remained stuck in the teens until World War II. The subsequent destruction of foreign economies, which America helped rebuild, sparked a domestic boom. The dismantling of ill-advised worldwide trade barriers also helped.

FDR's secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, who served from 1934 to 1945, wrote in 1939: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!”

We’ll have more on the Great Depression in upcoming posts, but we’ll offer one more piece of the puzzle here. FDR is widely credited with leading a government intervention that lifted the country out of this depression, but let’s look at the facts.

Even after the stock market crash of October 1929, at no time during the following twelve months did unemployment reach double digits. Two months after the crash, unemployment peaked at about 9 percent, and then began trending downward over the next six months, finally reaching 6.3 percent by June 1930. At this point, the federal government decided to step in to fix the imaginary crisis and proceeded to create a real crisis.

So, if history teaches us anything about economics, it is that the federal government should get out of the way and allow the free enterprise system to work.

Why Christians must be Politically Active

In the previous post about our latest struggle to find the right balance between evangelism and engaging the culture, we rejected the opinion of those who advocate that we should completely ignore cultural issues in favor of spreading the Gospel. We'll emphasize here that evangelism is of ultimate importance, since it is only through faith in Jesus Christ that our culture will be truly transformed. At the same time, as God's representatives, we must also oppose those things that He hates.

After writing this article, I ran across an article on the subject written by an author that I highly admire, Star Parker, the founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal & Education. The article called Why Christians must be Politically Active was written about 18 months ago, but remains just as relevant today, if not even more so.

Christians face an ongoing paradox regarding engagement in political life in our country. Christian Man, so to speak, sees the world through different eyes than Political Man. Christian Man sees the world through a lens of responsibility. Political Man, or if you will, Secular Man, sees the world through a lens of “rights.”

Because of these very different attitudes about how to approach life, Christians have a natural inclination to not see politics of central importance to their lives and, as result, to not be engaged. Christians see the quality of their lives as a natural outcome of their relationship with God and how they assume the responsibilities that He asks of them. This then reflects on how they manage their relationships with their families, business colleagues and customers, neighbors, and communities. Political, or Secular, Man sees the quality of life as a political outcome. They see their life and property as secure not because of admonitions to not kill and not steal, but because they believe these are rights and that government will protect them.

Over the years, political/secular consciousness has, sadly, advanced in our country and increasing numbers of Americans believe that our prosperity and our success reflect political decisions rather than religious/moral decisions.

We can see the results of this tangibly just by taking a look at the growth of government. The more materialistic Americans have become in their attitudes, the more they believe that what is most important is their rights rather than their responsibilities, the more we have turned our lives over to government control and solutions. A hundred years ago, government - federal and local - took less than ten percent of our income. Today, it is more than one third. If things continue on their current path, by mid-century it will be one half.

Why should Christians care? We need to care because the pretense that life is a political rather than a religious/moral challenge and problem amounts to a departure from the Truth. And a departure from Truth must inevitably lead to failure.

We’re already seeing it. The government programs, all designed in the last century to “solve” our problems for health care and retirement, are failing. I’m talking about Social Security and Medicare.

Our public schools that are educating the majority of America’s children have been increasingly secularized and politicized and the quality of education that these children are getting is dropping. Public education in our urban areas is in severe crisis. Children, largely black and Latino, coming from communities and families that have been broken by the welfare state, another major symptom of the secularization of the country, get little education in these schools, and at least half never graduate. The result is a growing American underclass that is becoming locked in a cycle of poverty and crime from which there is less and less hope of exit.

The paradox facing Christians that I mentioned in my opening is that, because Christians naturally relate to life through personal responsibility rather than politics, they are more inclined to not be politically active and engaged. On the other hand, secular Americans, for whom life is all politics, are more likely to be active and engaged.

The result is that secular Americans have had a disproportionate impact on our country over recent years. It is imperative that Christians look outward into our public spaces and get involved in the political process.

By this I mean more than just registering and voting. Christians must actively scrutinize public policy in the country and inject our values into what America is doing. Christians must take back America. The political greatness of our country is that it is free. But it is up to citizens to decide what to do with that freedom.

We are in a crisis because the wrong people have been making the wrong decisions for too many years. As result, the very freedom that permitted all this is being eroded, and erosion of our prosperity will soon follow. Christians need to step up and get our values for the preservation of life, for the protection of family, and for personal responsibility rather than political materialism, to define again the fabric of America.

This will restore American greatness and get us back on the path for which we are destined.

Have We Learned Anything in 9 Years?

On this anniversary of 911, after posting a retrospect column by Michelle Malkin, we offer a must read from one of my favorite and most respected contemporary columnists, Joseph Farah, the founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily. Today, he has written a very important article which asks the question, Have we learned anything in 9 years? In the process, Mr Farah goes beyond the usual political rhetoric and identifies the actual underlying spiritual issues, so we take the rare step of reproducing his article in its entirety.

What have we learned in the nine years since history's most devastating attack on America by Islamic terrorists?

Not much.

We're still involved in two seemingly endless wars half-way around the world that doesn’t seem to have any coherent objectives or definitions of victory. Meanwhile, back home where the attack took place, we're planning to allow a Muslim Brotherhood front group to build a victory mosque.

The attack of Sept. 11, 2001, remains a dark cloud in America's history with no silver lining – no awakening to the dangers we face from future subversion by the enemy responsible. It is as if Americans have a collective case of Stockholm Syndrome. Too many of us have become sympathetic to our enemy, the one that killed 3,000 of us and made the rest of us weep.

Who would have believed that only seven years after that attack Americans would elect a president raised abroad as a Muslim, bearing a Muslim name and apparently in love with all things Islamic? It would have been inconceivable. Only when he bankrupted and humiliated the country did Americans begin to wise up.

The mosque at Ground Zero represents the tip of the iceberg in terms of a long-term threat to the security of this nation. New mosques are springing up all over America – most of them funded by foreign money and controlled by the hideous ideology that form the basis for the attack of 9/11.

We're all still screened at airports to prevent yesterday's attack – often by Muslims wearing burkas!

Islam is now taught as a religion of peace in our schools, despite 1,300 years of history to the contrary.

Our media are full of accounts of an imaginary bigotry called Islamophobia.

When Muslims go on the rampage in mass-murder attacks like the one at Fort Hood, members of the media class wring their hands about reporting their names and government officials deny they are examples of terrorism despite the fact that they share the same motivation as the 9/11 hijackers. Muslim Brotherhood front groups parade across our television screens on a regular basis condemning Americans for biases they don't show.

Who could have imagined this would be the paralyzing result of that devastating attack? This is insanity. It's a mental illness. There is no other explanation for it. America is deeper in denial today about the threat Islam poses to our security than it was prior to the attack nine years ago.

Like it or not, Islam is not a friend to Americans, Christians or Jews – no matter how it is soft-pedaled in certain politically correct circles today.

There will be those who try to portray this column as an anti-Muslim screed. It is not. I do not condemn all Muslims. In fact, I have sympathy and compassion for those trapped in their 7th century worldview. I do, however, have a beef with all who subscribe to Saudi-style Shariah law. Muslims in the U.S., who subscribe to Shariah law, have a duty and obligation to place that ideology ahead of any allegiance they might have to the U.S. Constitution. That effectively makes them unworthy of U.S. citizenship.

But, then again, we have a president who wipes his feet contemptuously on the Constitution. So I don't expect even a new class of leadership in Congress to require any loyalty test for new citizens.

There is, however, something we can do – and must do. For those who recognize the truth in what I am saying, particularly evangelical Christians, let me propose a new strategy in line with what Jesus would command us.

Jesus told us to love our enemies. We best express that love by sharing the good news Jesus brought the world.

It's time for American Christians to realize what a fertile missions field we have right here in the United States with an expanding Muslim population and many new gathering places they are building.

If they have the religious freedom to build these mosques all over America, we have the Christian duty to evangelize them, to persuade them they are worshiping a false god and revering a false prophet – one who, by the way, has no record of making even one prophecy!

Since we're all learning more about Islam every day, let's put that knowledge to good use. Let's all vow to make new Muslim friends – and bring them to the saving grace of the one true God of the universe.

Spitting on Their Graves

On the anniversary of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on America, we ran across an article written by Michelle Malkin in 2003 on the second anniversary of the attacks called Spitting on Their Graves. We were amazed that most of the article could have been written today. Here are some excerpts. The more things change…

Across the nation, public officials will strike somber poses and shed television-friendly tears and bow their blow-dried heads in memory of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

They'll hold hands, light candles, and pass around a plateful of platitudes: "Never forget," they'll intone. "Let's roll," they'll thunder. "God bless America," they'll warble in perfect harmony.

They'll assure us that they are committed to fighting terror and securing our borders and doing whatever it takes to protect the homeland from another horrific mass murder at the hands of freedom-hating fanatics. And then?

And then, from Washington State to Washington, D.C., they'll go back to work, roll up their sleeves, and spit on the graves of the 9/11 dead.

Your pious city councilwoman will return to the office to draft a resolution condemning the common-sense detention and deportation of Middle Eastern illegal aliens suspected of terrorism.

We're omitting the next few paragraphs that were correct at the time the article was written during the Bush administration. They speak of politically correct police chiefs, mayors and local officials refusing to cooperate with federal authorities in the investigation of illegal aliens, and supporting “insecure foreign-issued identification cards and driver's licenses for undocumented workers”. While many “sanctuary cities” (and the state of California) still exist, the roles have now been reversed in many parts of the country. At present, many state and local officials would like to see enforcement of existing security laws, but are being prevented from doing so by the Obama administration. Later in the article:

Your race card-fearing congressman will court Arab and Muslim special interest groups and donors who have coddled Islamists on college campuses, in prisons, and in the U.S. military in the name of "diversity."

Your grandstanding senator will block funding for long-delayed homeland defense measures even as he whines about the need for more money to ensure our safety.

Your incompetent Transportation Security Administration will stonewall pilots who want training to be armed, squander tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on lucrative contracts for weapons-detection equipment that doesn't work or get used, and continue to ban racial profiling.

Your indifferent Interior Department will look the other way as underequipped and understaffed park rangers along the southwestern border remain vulnerable to drug smugglers and terrorists.

Your bloated Homeland Security Department will keep Clinton-era holdovers in pivotal positions, reduce routine inspections at seaports in the name of efficiency, and continue to shortchange interior enforcement against deportation fugitives and asylum con artists in favor of duct tape tipsheets and cosmetic color-coded alerts.

Your corrupted State Department will appease Saudi terror-backers, reward butt-covering managers, assuage European travel industry tycoons, and continue to defend lax visa screening policies.

Your Democratic presidential candidates will unanimously endorse the very kind of amnesty policies that allowed several al Qaeda operatives to infiltrate this country and hatch terrorist plots.

And your Republican Party elites will continue to spurn immigration reformers within their own ranks for fear of alienating ethnic constituencies that will never vote for them anyway.

To those who lost their lives on September 11 because their government failed to enforce its borders, laws, and sovereignty, the politicians and bureaucrats and civic leaders will ostentatiously offer one day a year of dedication in rhetoric - and 364 days of desecration in deed.

USS Cole Bomber Trial Cancelled Again

On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole (DDG 67) was attacked by al-Qaeda jihadists while docked at a port in Yemen. A boat loaded with explosives ripped a huge hole in the side of the ship, killing 17 sailors and wounded dozens of others. The Clinton administration, as with previous attacks by terrorist organizations, refused to classify the attack as the act of war it was, portraying it instead as a criminal act by isolated individuals (sound familiar?). Mr Clinton vowed that the perpetrators would be brought to justice, but did nothing except to launch a few missiles, usually timed to deflect media coverage of certain developments in the Monica Lewinski case.

George Bush ignored the incident after taking office until the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC. He did try one suspect at Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay) and retaliated against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Unfortunately, in seeking the cooperation of the corrupt President Saleh of Yemen, Mr Bush allowed him to reduce sentences or issue outright pardons on the captured terrorist, all of whom have now been released or allowed to escape to re-join al-Qaeda. In June 2008, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind being held at Gitmo, was charged with planning and conducting the Cole attack, with the US Military planning to seek the death penalty.

Unfortunately, before al-Nashiri was brought to military trial, B Hussein Obama became president and took Mr Clinton’s “Thank you sir, may I have another?” policy of dealing with the terrorists to a new level. Upon assuming office, he immediately rewarded his far left base by issuing an executive order halting all proceeding in the US Military Commissions:

The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.

When the supervising judge over the al-Nashiri trial, Army Col James Pohl refused Mr Obama’s order, calling it “not reasonable” and “not in the interests of justice”, Susan Crawford, the convening authority for the commission, withdrew the charges against al-Nashiri. This saved Mr Obama, who was preparing to order the Commission to drop the charges, from the publicity of a clash with Col Pohl. The charges were withdrawn without prejudice, which meant that they could be reinstated at a later date in a military commission or pursued in a civilian court., but no charges have been re-filed to date

Now, as we approach the tenth anniversary of the attack, the Obama administration has once again halted the planned persecution of al-Nashiri as reported by the Washington Post.

With the 10th anniversary of the Cole bombing approaching on Oct. 12, relatives of those killed in the attack expressed deep frustration with the delay. "After 10 years, it seems like nobody really cares," said Gloria Clodfelter, whose 21-year-old son, Kenneth, was killed on the Cole.

Military prosecutors allege that Nashiri, a Saudi national, was a senior al-Qaeda operative and close associate of Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the suicide attack on the Cole. Nashiri was scheduled to be arraigned in February 2009 but the new administration instructed military prosecutors to suspend legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay. The charges against Nashiri were withdrawn.

In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future."

The statement, tucked into a motion to dismiss a petition by Nashiri's attorneys, suggests that the prospect of further military trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has all but ground to a halt, much as the administration's plan to try the accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in federal court has stalled.

So, Mr Obama, who upon dropping the charges in February 2009, promised family members of the slain troops that the terror suspects would be prosecuted and brought “to a swift and certain justice”, still refuses to deliver upon this promise. There are many different theories as to why the process continues to stall. Almost all of them are political, so we won’t debate the lack of merits of each at this time.

We must wonder however, why the families of the victims can’t be given the same consideration that continues to be given to the murderers of their loved ones? This administration continues to worry about the rights and comforts of terrorists while disregarding those of our brave men and women putting their lives on the line for our protection and liberties. The victims of the Cole terrorist attacks deserve better than to be thought of as an inconvenient asterisk to be swept under the rug of political correctness and misguided tolerance.

Before we end this article, I’d like to mention that the father of fireman Gary Swenchonis Jr, one of the brave sailors killed in the attacks, has an excellent blog called Terrorism: Politicians and Victims. This highly recommended site contains many great articles relating to the USS Cole and other terrorist activity, along with excellent analysis of the political aspects.

Finally, we ask our readers to continue to pray for the families, friends and fellow sailors of the brave victims who paid the ultimate price in serving our country. Their pictures are below. May they not be forgotten.

First Row (L to R)
Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter, Hull Maintenance Technician Third Class, Mechanicsville, Virginia
Richard Costelow, Chief Petty Officer, Morrisville, Pennsylvania
Lakeina Monique Francis, 19, Mess Management Specialist Seaman, Woodleaf, North Carolina
Timothy Lee Gauna, 21, Information Systems Technician Seaman, Rice, Texas
Cheron Luis Gunn, 22, Signalman Seaman Recruit, Rex, Georgia
James Rodrick McDaniels, Seaman, Norfolk, Virginia

Second Row (L to R)
Mark Ian Nieto, Engineman 2nd Class, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
Ronald Scott Owens, Electronics Warfare Technician Third Class, Vero Beach, Florida
Lakiba Nicole Palmer, Seaman Recruit, San Diego, California
Joshua Langdon Parlett, Engineman Fireman, Churchville, Maryland
Patrick Howard Roy, Fireman Apprentice, Keedysville, Maryland
Kevin Shawn Rux, Electronics Warfare Technician 2nd Class, Portland, North Dakota

Third Row (L to R)
Ronchester Mananga Santiago, Mess Management Specialist Third Class, Kingsville, Texas
Timothy Lamont Saunders, Operations Specialist Second Class, Ringgold, Virginia
Gary Graham Swenchonis Jr, Fireman, Rockport, Texas
Andrew Triplett, 30, Ensign, Macon, Mississippi
Craig Bryan Wibberley, Seaman Apprentice, Williamsport, Maryland
USS COLE Memorial, Naval Station Norfolk Virginia

I Want Your Money Trailer

This movie trailer was sent by our good friend Larry from the great state of Arizona. The film maker explains:

Set against the backdrop of today's headline - 67% of Americans don't approve of Obama's economic policies, the film takes a provocative look at our deeply depressed economy using the words and actions of Presidents Reagan and Obama and shows the marked contrast between Reaganomics and Obamanomics. The film contrasts two views of the role that the federal government should play in our daily lives using the words and actions of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Two versions of the American dream now stand in sharp contrast. One views the money you earned as yours and best allocated by you; the other believes that the elite in Washington know how to best allocate your wealth. One champions the traditional American dream, which has played out millions of times through generations of Americans, of improving one's lot in life and even daring to dream and build big. The other holds that there is no end to the "good" the government can do by taking and spending other peoples' money in an ever-burgeoning list of programs. The documentary film I Want Your Money exposes the high cost in lost freedom and in lost opportunity to support a Leviathan-like bureaucratic state.