I know that many of you don't regularly read The American Spectator, so I will continue to bring you highlights of some their better articles. Personally, I prefer TAS in many ways to TH because it is more compact and covers a bit broader array of topics.  Also, they generally tend to be more conservative there than TH...which seems more like a forum for the GOP many times, rather than a forum for conservatives. So I have taken the liberty of pointing you in the direction of some pretty good articles in TAS which can be found at the site today.

For those who continue to doubt Mike Huckabee, Jeffrey Lord has a nice article about Huck's love of BIG G. It is about how Huck is dropping lines about the BIG G needing to do something about the pay of corporate CEO's and how Progressive such a stance is. It really gets interesting when Mr. Lord brings abortion into the conversation as well; it is a rather unique take on things that makes perfect sense.

There is also an article by John Samples that delves into John McCain and his shooting war with the Madisonian view of limited government. The article takes a look at McCain's thoughts about what the BIG G should be involved in and makes you wonder about what effect a McCain presidency would have on the Constitution. Well worth the read, IMO.

Finally, there is an article by Brooke M. Goldstein that explores the new Islamic practice of "lawfare" to stifle anyone who dares speak out against Islam. The Muslims are taking a play from the Liberal/Progressive playbook that you wouldn't believe! It is something that we see every day, but I never considered that the Muslims would be taking the same tactic as their own. This one is a must read!

Recently my younger brother and I were talking and the subject of movies came up, and we began talking about movies. Naturally, for us, we got onto the subject of which was the worst movie ever…or at least we have seen. So I decided to devote a special blog posting for the express purpose of listing 5 of the worst movies I have ever seen. Feel free to add your comments or additions to the list, since there have to be some stinkers that I have (mercifully) missed out on. Enjoy!

Fifth Place: (tie) Batman & Robin and Cat Woman. I understand that many people do not like movies based on comics and these two turkeys are the reason why. From the dark, brooding Dark Knight as portrayed by Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer the Batman series devolved into a bad comic on the silver screen in the pic starring George Clooney (?), Chris O’Donnell, Alicia Silverstone, The Governator, and Uma Thurman. Plenty of colors, but a terrible plot and even worse acting nearly killed the Caped Crusader for good. Thank goodness for Christian Bale and the film Batman Begins or we would have been left with this garbage as a testament to what Batman movies were supposed to be. As for Cat Woman, Halle Berry was beautiful as usual, but that was the only good thing about this movie. The script sucked, the plot was weak, and the only saving grace was plenty of Halle Berry in the cat suit…MEOWWW indeed!

Fourth Place: Red Dawn*. What would have happened to the US of A during the Reagan years if the Soviets and Cubans had decided to invade America? According to this flick, the US armed forces would have been overwhelmed and the Soviet-Cuban partnership would have taken over the Midwest, leaving America’s fate in the hands of a plucky band of high school kids led by Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, and Jennifer Grey. Somehow we are supposed to believe that a bunch of kids on horseback and rifles could take down an army that had successfully invaded and occupied America? Sorry, but there is not that much “suspension of disbelief” in the world!

Third Place: Showgirls. Elizabeth Berkley graduated form Bayside High and went to Vegas to become a showgirl without Zack, Kelly, Lisa, or even Screech to help her. Well she should have stuck with what she was good at: being a cute girl. This was probably the worst acted movie, and worst written, that I have seen. The only thing that is keeping it out of the top two spots is that it didn’t have some “bankable” star stinking out the joint; this was a vehicle meant to help Ms. Berkley cut her teeth in feature films. Too bad it nearly ruined her career before it could get started; and if an agent ever deserved to be fired it was the one who recommended this to his client!

Second Place: Menace II Society. In an “era” of movies that purported to paint the grim picture of life in South Central Los Angeles, this was probably the worst of the lot. My brother wanted me to include *Boyz-N-The Hood here, but it was at least watchable. This movie was almost uniformly terrible, with stilted dialogue, a script that was as weak as water, and actors that looked like they had never taken one acting lesson in their lives. While there was a good @ss stomping scene and Larenz Tate played the role of psychotic “O-Dog” well that was the extent of good things that can honestly be said about this crappy picture. A pure waste of celluloid if I ever saw one!

First Place: You would think that a movie that featured Sharon Stone, Leo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, and Gene Hackman would have some serious power, but in this case you would be W-R-O-N-G! The minute that someone had the idea to make Sharon Stone a six-gun slinging, stone cold gun fighting heroine in a western, this movie was doomed. And the premise that a town would be having some dad-gummed “gun fighting tournament” is so lame as to be laughable. Yet that is the very premise that writers and producers wanted us to swallow when they made the worst western, and the worst movie I have ever seen…The Quick and the Dead. Such a great title for such a horrendous movie! And if you think I’m kidding, take a peek at it on one of the 6 million showings that it gets on American Movie Classics (channel 254 on your Direct TV dial). How they could have this travesty on the same channel, and usually the same night, as Open Range is a mystery to me. But the biggest mystery is why anyone even made this movie!

 

Dishonorable mention: Kangaroo Jack, School Daze, Waterworld, Free Willy, Beethoven ,K-9 Cop, Angels in the Outfield, Roots: The Gift, Exorcist sequels, Poetic Justice, New Jack City*

*Some of these movies I like, but they’re still bad!

I have long had a real problem with the out-sized importance that is placed on the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries. I have long wondered what it is about the opinions of these two states, other than they are among the first to hold primaries or caucuses, that makes them so very important in the process. It just seemed fishy to me that every four years the media and political pundits descend on these places and act as though the decisions of the voters and caucus goers there are like a word from the ancient Oracle at Delphi.

Then it came to me that it is because they are like the Oracle at Delphi that the pundits and media act that way. You see, the Oracle at Delphi never really told anyone anything of significance. The Oracle knew no more of the future than the person seeking wisdom, yet there was always just enough given to the seeker that allowed them to find what they wanted to hear in the mutterings of the Oracle.

And so it is with the media when the subjects are the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries; the media takes what little information they get there and turn the results in the voting into earth shaking news when it really isn't. Hillary Clinton has a poor showing in Iowa and every conservative pundit out there is dancing a jig about the demise of the Clinton machine, and on the other side Mike Huckabee wins in Iowa and he is basically being handed the GOP nomination. My question to that is: Why are those types of conclusions being drawn, and what does the chattering class get from advancing those ideas?

I happen to believe that all of the attention given to the results in these two states allows the Fourth Estate to exercise undue influence on the political process, and it allows them to attempt to select their preferred candidates for the nominations. Think back to the 2000 election cycle on the GOP side: poor showings by George W. Bush in Iowa and New Hampshire had the media declaring the Bush candidacy DOA and John McCain, their boy, as the clear front runner. To the eternal chagrin of the media, however, Bush made a serious push in South Carolina and the rest is history...for good or ill.

The media is trying to do the same thing now, and it serves as a way to influence the entire election process. By focusing on the results in Iowa, where only a handful of the state's voters actually get to be involved with the caucus process and New Hampshire, where independent voters are allowed to vote in party primaries, the media is able to create a narrative that fits their wishes. Thus, you have stories of McCain's "comeback" and of Obama's newfound strength that are backed up by the results or projected results of voters in these two states.

But don't be fooled people! As hard as the media may try to influence the process by over-inflating the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire, we know that they are not the "be-all-end-all" the media would make them out to be. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, 34...that's right 34...states will hold caucuses or primaries on or before February 5 this year. That leaves a lot of delegates to be won and a lot of campaigning to be done, and it destroys the media driven idea that the Iowa and New Hampshire results are somehow the determining factors in figuring out the nominees.

Just be careful not to believe that media hype or fall for their god-like political pronouncements, because in the end the voters will make their own decisions. WE will deny the media the undue influence they seek to exercise on the nomination process.

In this campaign cycle the GOP has been split by competing ideas of what conservatism is, with some proclaiming that Reaganism is dead in the Party, some claiming that they are Reaganites, and others trying to simply redefine the very meaning of conservatism. I found an article today at the American Spectator by Jeffrey Lord that gives a great explanation of Reagan conservatism. Check it out and let me know what you think.

When did it all go so wrong for us? When did we become a nation that is so selfish that we cannot even see that there are things that are greater than our own selfish wants and desires? Where have all the patriots gone?

There was a time that public figures in America were unabashedly patriotic, proud of their American identity, and willing to do whatever it took to demonstrate their patriotism. In stark contrast to today’s popular culture figures, the biggest stars of previous times never thought to be anything other than patriotic. It was expected of them to be patriots, to support the government, and to love their nation.

Take the story of Carole Lombard, for instance. Carole Lombard was an actress of some renown in the “Golden Age” of Hollywood in the 1930s and 40s, a major star, and the wife of Clark Gable. Ms. Lombard was tragically killed in a plane crash in 1942 on her way back home to Los Angeles after helping to raise over a million dollars selling war bonds. It was not something that her publicists told her to do, or her studio pressured her to do for good publicity but something that she chose to do…because she felt she was doing the right thing to serve her country. After her death, her husband joined the Army and flew combat missions in Europe to honor her memory…and to help protect his nation. Can you imagine any star of today dropping his career plans to defend America from her enemies?

Or take the example of Ted Williams, one of the greatest baseball players of all time. In his career “Teddy Ballgame” was the last man to hit .400 in a season, and hit a homerun in his last major league at bat, all of which would fit nicely in a movie script. But what is more amazing is that in the prime years of his career, Ted Williams gave up his baseball career to serve his nation as a pilot in World War 2! Can any of us imagining Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, or even Curt Schilling giving up his career to fight a war? Yet this man did just that, without reservation simply because it was right.

It is a sad state of affairs that so few of us today can imagine any “famous” person that would be willing to make this type of sacrifice in the service of our nation, Pat Tillman notwithstanding. And what is even sadder is the idea that so many of our popular culture figures have that real patriotism somehow consists of publicly ridiculing our President in a time of war, characterizing our military as ignorant dupes at best, and bloodthirsty murderers at worst.

How did the “Greatest Generation” give birth to what can only be called the “Selfish Generation?” I suppose it is up to us now to rediscover those attributes that made that generation great and impart them to our children, so that we do not drown as a nation in our own selfishness.

 

 

Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee for President and Rudy Giuliani is going to be the Republican candidate in the 2008 presidential election. There is no changing that, it is fated, it undeniable, it is inevitable. Or so the mainstream media and political pundits have been telling us seemingly forever.

The thing is, it’s not so. Nothing in life, and especially in politics, is inevitable. There is always a wild card in the game, be it an unexpected challenger, a faux pas by the presumptive nominee, or as is most often the case, the will of the voting public.

That is why the seemingly safe candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are facing some serious challenges as we stand mere months from choosing our nominees and eventually a new Commander in Chief. Both of these candidates are finding out that what the media says doesn’t matter, what your spin doctors say doesn’t mean a thing, and why what pundits say can’t be taken as gospel.

Take the “Smartest Woman in the World” for example. Since Hillary won a seat in the Senate from New York just as she and Mr. Clinton were defacing public property on the way out of the White House, we have been treated to endless stories on how she is fated to be the first female President of the United States. The media and the Democratic Party waited with bated breath for Mrs. Clinton to acknowledge what they all knew was going to happen, and when the glorious moment came they were in complete awe of Mrs. Clinton and her political prowess. Her announcement meant that the Democratic Party, the country, hell the entire world was about to be saved from the evil clutches of the Republican Party by the Great Lady. Hillary of Ark(ansas) was going to lead the Democratic Party back to complete power again, and vanquish the forces of Republican EEEVVILLL!! All that was needed was the proper coronation of Queen Hillary the First during the Democratic primaries, and finding a fitting second banana to Her Highness.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Queen’s coronation…the people let it be known that they were not quite so taken with the once and future Queen as the media led people to believe. And before you know it, people sick of the idea of yet another Clinton co-presidency began to cast their wandering eyes to a relative unknown freshman Senator from Illinois. Barak “The Magic Negro” Obama decided that he had as much right to a Presidential nomination as the Queen, and let it be known that he would be actually running for the nomination…not just acting as a placeholder on the Democratic side of the ticket. He has run a pretty good campaign, and while his message is the basic Democrat/Liberal/Progressive boilerplate message of larger government, more taxes, and class warfare…mixed with the usual platitudes about the “rights” of all sorts of special interest groups…he has managed to do more than gain traction. Barak Obama has become just what the subjects of the Queen did not want; he became a voice that has drawn intense interest from all of the Democrat’s various constituencies, and has garnered some seriously high profile supporters. Let’s just be honest, getting Oprah Winfrey to stump for you, when she has generally been loathe to inject herself publicly into politics is nothing to shake a stick at! Suddenly, the Queen’s ascension to the throne is in serious jeopardy, all because those pesky voters wanted to hear a new voice…even if it is saying the same old things.

On the GOP side, we have been told since before the race began that Rudy Giuliani was the only hope for the GOP to retain the White House. We were told that he was this great leader, that he had the foreign policy ideas we need in this new world we are facing, and that above all he was the only Republican out there who could beat Hillary Clinton in a Presidential race. Therefore, he was touted and pushed as the frontrunner for the Democrat…er, REPUBLICAN nomination.

But when conservatives within the GOP began to look at Rudy and his policy stances, the natives got very restless. There was a serious reconsideration of the inevitability of Rudy as the nominee, and it became obvious that most of Rudy’s “qualifications” were not that great; yes, he was a stabilizing influence after 9/11, and yes he did great things with cleaning up NYC’s crime problems while he was in office. However, a closer inspection showed that beyond those narrow circumstances, Rudy was the living embodiment of what we used to call RINOs. This was a man who backed some of the most openly liberal activist judges in the country for spots on the bench in NYC, who decreed that NYC was to be a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, who barred the police from even inquiring about the immigration status of criminals, who supported gun control laws that basically invalidated the 2^nd Amendment for NYC residents, who used public funds to protect his mistress while he was screwing around with her, who is a vocal supporter of the gay rights movement, and who supported people like Mario Cuomo and Michael Bloomberg in their political aspirations.

It seems that the only real reason that so many supported him in the first place, and continue to support him (Sean Hannity) is because they feel that he is “electable” in a race with Hillary Clinton. Imagine that: Rudy was seen as the inevitable GOP candidate for President based on the supposed inevitability of Queen Hillary gaining the Democrat nomination!

The problem for Rudy is that conservatives have put the word out on him, and it is costing him dearly. Voters are starting to look at Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as more viable candidates for President than Rudy, because even with the obvious flaws and weaknesses of Mitt & Mike they have more in common with the voters than Rudy! The dreaded voters strike again!

One of these days the power brokers of the Democratic Party and the GOP will start to realize that standing around in their echo chambers aren’t profiting them anything. They listen to their insider buddies tell them what they want to hear, and then stand in shock as a Romney, Huckabee, or Obama steals the thunder of their anointed nominee. If they would just get out and talk to actual voters…and listen to what they are saying, both parties would be in much better positions. If they did that the GOP would realize how much their base despises them for trying to be Democrat Junior, and the Democrats would realize that they are bleeding support the more they turn their fringe elements into their base.

Those are all presumably smart people working in the higher reaches of the parties, and if they don’t quickly figure out what their constituents really want they will continue to run both parties into the ground.

And that much I’m willing to say is inevitable.

                                                              

The following are what I consider to be the highlights of an interview that Justice Clarence Thomas gave during his time promoting his book My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir. Having had a similar relationship with my grandfather, I feel that I have more in common with Justice Thomas that just a shared ethnicity and political views. I hope you all enjoy!

 

The following excerpted interview is reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of

Hillsdale College.

Q: If you were talking to a group of college students and you were to give them the most important lesson that you learned from your grandfather, what would it be?

CT: There may be a disconnect between my world and yours, because when my grandfather was raising me, people didn’t talk about their rights so much. They talked about civil rights, yes, but they didn’t simply talk about rights and freedom. They talked more about the responsibilities that came with freedom—about the fact that if you were to have freedom, you had to be responsible for it. What my grandfather believed was that people have their responsibilities and that if they are left alone to fulfill their responsibilities, that is freedom. Honesty and responsibility, those are the things he taught.

It’s the same thing in civil society. We’re too focused on the benefits of a civil society and we think too little about the obligations we have—the obligations to be civil, to learn about out history and our government, to conduct ourselves in a disciplined way, to help others, to take care of our homes. Too many conversations today have to do with rights and wants. There is not enough talk about responsibilities and duties.

Q: How do you think people in today’s generation can learn that kind of philosophy with such different upbringings and such a different culture?

CT: We all make choices…We have free will. We always have a choice between just doing whatever we feel like doing and doing what we are obligated to do. I’ve got a strong libertarian streak, but a good lesson I’ve learned is this: You can’t choose right and wrong, you’ve got to choose between right and wrong…Modern nihilists and relativists think that we can decide or make up right and wrong. People like my grandfather understood that there was right and wrong, as certain as that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. And they made their choices between the two. I think anyone today can do the same thing.

Q: There seems to be a lot of negativity toward you in books and the media. Is that lonely? And if so, how do you deal with it?

CT: When people used to criticize my grandfather, he’d say: “Well then, dammit, they’ve got a lifetime to get pleased.” That was it. He never spent any more time on it. Have you ever read the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson from 1896? That’s the case that upheld the idea of “separate but equal.” There was one dissent in that case, the dissent by Justice Harlan, who argued that the Constitution is colorblind. How lonely do you think he was after he wrote that? Do you think he was popular? It doesn’t mean he wasn’t right. I never set out to be unpopular, but popularity isn’t of high value to me. I set out to do my best to be right. I am who I am.

Q: What is your purpose in writing your opinions?

CT: What I try to do first in my opinions is to apply the Constitution. But also, I look on the Constitution as the people’s Constitution. And so I try to make the Constitution accessible again to people who didn’t go to Harvard Law School. Of course, some of it gets involved because you have to deal with a lot of case law. But I want people to understand what the cases are about…My job is to apply the Constitution. And here’s a useful lesson: You hear people talk all the time about the Bill of Rights. But you should always keep in mind that the Bill of Rights was an afterthought. That’s why it’s made up of what are called amendments. It was not in the original Constitution. The rights in the Bill of Rights were originally assumed as natural rights, and some people at the time thought that writing them into the Constitution was redundant. Read the Declaration of Independence. We should always start, when we read the Constitution, by reading the Declaration, because it gives us the reasons why the structure of the constitution was designed the way it was. And with the Constitution, it was the structure of the government that was supposed to protect our liberty. And what has happened through the years is that the protections afforded by that structure have been dissipated. So my opinions are often about the undermining of those structural protections.

Q: I read a quote where you said that you don’t argue ideas with brutes. Who were you referring to?

CT: Can a diehard Packers fan have a civil conversation with a diehard Bears fan right after a close game? That’s what I’m talking about. There are some people now who are so wrapped up in their interests that that’s all they care about. They don’t even read the opinions that I write. It is their interests that govern them, not the thought processes or the Constitution. They’ve got to have their way or they’ll kill you—not physically, necessarily, but certainly with calumnies. There are people today who seem to be unable to transcend their interests to the point necessary to have a civil discourse.

Q: Where do you think that you find the courage to make the unpopular stands that you do?

CT: I take my clerks to Gettysburg every year. They go over to stand where Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. Do you know that speech? He left it for us, the living, to finish the business. I take that very seriously. And my clerks get the point. We are here to further the business that Lincoln was talking about. And then you think also about the people who lost their lives there. Was that in vain? Will we allow the people who have fought our wars for our liberty to have died in vain? In recent years I’ve had some wounded vets here in my office, young kids who have come back from Iraq missing limbs, blinded, in wheelchairs. And people say that I take hits? Do I look wounded to you? These kids have given a lot more. What a price people have paid for us to be right here. I think of them like I think of my grandparents. One of the things I’m always trying to do is make sure that everything they did was worth it—if they appeared right now they would say, “You’ve made our sacrifices worth it.” That’s all I want.

                 

Mitt Romney’s run for the presidency of the United States has brought forth once more the question of what role religion has in the political process, especially in judging the qualifications of a candidate. Many have put forth the idea that we are not electing the Clergyman in Chief, but are electing a Commander in Chief, and furthermore the Constitution holds that there can be no religious test applied to a candidate for office. A person can be of any faith or no faith at all and still run for office in this country…just see Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim to be elected to the Congress of the United States. And I agree with those sentiments, but they have a flaw in them from where I sit.

As stated in a post at Town Hall yesterday, those are all legal arguments but should have no influence in how individuals decide whom they will support. I even wrote about it here a while back, and I stand by that to this day. What you believe shapes who you are, and if your faith is genuine it will influence everything that you do in your life. Faith is not a part of a person that can be put on the back burner for certain periods of time, if that faith is honestly a part of you.

Which brings me to the question of having qualms about supporting a Mormon candidate because of his religious faith; many have a fundamental misunderstanding of just why Christians are so opposed to the Mormon faith. Many Christians, in fact have been deluded into thinking that because Mormons are family oriented, patriotic, and generally conservative that they are just another Christian denomination. They hear the words “Jesus Christ” in the official name of the church, they see the past alliance of the LDS Church with groups like the Moral Majority, and assume that LDS are just a different ‘brand’ of Christians. But nothing could be further from the truth; bear with me and I will give just a few reasons why Christians should not be fooled by the claims of Mormons that “we are Christians too!”

As I have stated elsewhere, the major belief factor in determining if a person or group is honestly Christian is what they teach about who Christ is, and in this area the LDS church proves itself to be anything but Christians. The Bible teaches, and every Christian denomination…Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran…accepts that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, born of a virgin who never knew a man until after the birth of the Christ, that He is eternal, and that He is very God, and the savior of all mankind. John 1:1-3 states that The Word (Christ) was God, was with God, and through Him were all things made. John 4:42 says that Christ is the savior of the world, and Acts 5:30-32 states “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.” (NKJV)

In stark contrast, the LDS church teaches that Jesus is the begotten son of a “God” who had sexual relations with Mary, and that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer. In fact, Jesus only became Savior of this world by presenting a better plan of salvation to “God” than Lucifer, thus being chosen to save the world. This is nothing like a biblical understanding of the nature of whom and what Christ is; further it lowers Christ from his rightful position as God to the status of just another man. And it begs one interesting question: How can Mormons claim, with a straight face, that this “Jesus-brother-of Lucifer” is the same Jesus of the Bible, when he could not be? The Jesus of the Bible cannot be Lucifer’s brother because He is the Creator of all that was made…including the fallen angel Lucifer!

Another concern that Christians should have about the LDS religion is its stance on salvation. The Bible teaches that salvation is a free gift, bought and paid for by the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary; we can do nothing on our own to earn it or merit it…we can simply choose to accept it or not. The Bible in John 3:14-18 tells us that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to die in our place, so that we might be saved. Acts 16:30-31 tells us that belief in Christ is enough to save us, and Ephesians 2:8-10 tells us that it is by grace that we are saved and not by our own hands, so that we do not become boastful.

But Mormonism teaches a different standard for salvation, mainly that it is works driven. The sacrifice of Christ is apparently not sufficient, and if we are to be saved then we have to do it ourselves through works and obedience to all of Mormonism’s commandments. Former Prophet, Seer, and Revelator Spencer W. Kimball stated it best when he said, “This progress towards eternal life is a matter of achieving perfection. Living of all the commandments [of Mormonism] guarantees total forgiveness of sin and assures one of exaltation through that perfection which comes by complying with the formula the Lord gave us” (taken from Commandments and Promises of God by Bernard P. Brockbank, published by Deseret Book Co. 1983, p. 208. Italics mine).

That teaching is in no way compatible with what the Bible teaches about salvation, and is not…as many Mormons like to claim…anything like what was taught by the 1^st century church! That is a different gospel of salvation from what the Bible so clearly teaches, and is enough on its own to convince the discerning Christian that Mormonism is definitely NOT Christianity!

Finally, there is the question of what the foundation of faith is. For the Christian, the foundation for all that we do, say, and believe lies with Jesus Christ…period. There is no other source from which we derive our faith, there is no other road that leads to salvation, and there is no other stable foundation for us to build upon save the Rock of Ages. For the Christian, Jesus is the Alpha and Omega; He is our all in all.

The Mormon Church, however, does not rest on that foundation. The Mormon Church rises or falls on the claims of Joseph Smith to be a prophet chosen to restore the Gospel to the world in 1830s New York. Putting aside the fact that this claim of a worldwide apostasy directly contradicts Christ’s words to Peter that “…on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18, NKJV), it puts Joseph Smith in the position of being the rock and not the fact that Jesus is the Christ! Take these words of President Joseph Fielding Smith and tell me who is the foundation of the LDS church, Joseph or Jesus:

     [There is] no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained the keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again upon the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

If that doesn’t convince you, then maybe this statement by Joseph Smith’s immediate successor to the post of Prophet, Brigham Young had to say:

     …no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.

     From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith as a passport to their entrance into the mansion above where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me.

     I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys to rule in the spirit world and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh.

Those sentiments should apply only to Christ and the salvation that he freely gives, not to Joseph Smith of Palmyra, NY! But it is as I said, Joseph Smith is the foundation of the LDS church…even if the name “Jesus Christ” appears on the official letterhead; this is not Christ’s church, but Joseph’s.

And these are just a few of the reasons that Christians question the Mormon religion. There are very serious breaks from Christian orthodoxy in the LDS faith that the LDS will not argue or refute; instead they attack any who question their religion as bigots or claim the well worn mantle of persecution. I do not question Mormonism from a place of hostility; for years I and my 3 brothers were active Mormons, with my two older brothers serving missions in Brazil and Bolivia. Many of the nicest people I have met in my life were Mormons, and those that I met and befriended have a special place in my heart. So, no, I do not “hate” Mormons nor do I misunderstand their teachings and beliefs. I simply must question those beliefs, and what they say about a man that is pursuing the most visible and powerful single elective office in the land. His religion is a part of him, and it is fair game to be questioned just as the faith of Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani is fair game. We don’t change the rules for Catholics, Baptists, or Muslims who run for office…so we shouldn’t change the rules for Mormons either.

I hope that I have expressed myself clearly and I anxiously await all comments.

 

 

Schism: a formal division in or separation from a church or religious body

The schism that has been brewing in the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion recently came to pass when the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin (CA) voted to formally split from the main Episcopal body in the US. The issues that eventually led the San Joaquin Diocese to vote for formal secession should come as no real surprise: the US body has decided that sexual immorality, especially of a homosexual nature, is to be accepted by the church as “natural”, and therefore homosexual unions should be considered as acceptable practice.

What seems to have moved the San Joaquin Diocese to action is the fact that this is in open violation of the stated beliefs of the Anglican Communion, not to mention the very words of the Bible itself. In 1998, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion passed a resolution that read in part:

·         The church rejects “homosexual practice as incompatible with the Scripture.”

·         “In view of the teachings of the Scripture…abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.’

·         The church “cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing or ordaining of those involved in same-gender unions.”

So what did the Episcopal Church do?  Just a few years later, the church decided to ordain Gene Robinson as a bishop in open defiance of the resolution passed by at the Lambeth Conference!

But the point is not just about the Episcopal Church, it is what seems to be a trend in the greater Body of Christ…the rise of “liberal Christianity.” And just like every other type of liberal, “liberal Christians” seek to redefine Christianity so that it jibes with the PC norms of secular society.

It is liberal Christians who advance the idea that Christianity should embrace the homosexual agenda, using themes of “social justice” as the basis of their reasoning. It is “liberal Christians” who are at the forefront of trying to make the global warming scam a “moral issue.” And it is “liberal Christians” who poses the same question today that the Enemy posed to Eve in the Garden, “Did He really say…” Only today, it is not about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but about sexual morality, ethical behavior, treatment of our neighbors, and our very freedoms.

Bible believing Christians of all denominations, be they Baptist, Methodist, Lutherans, or COGIC are facing the same assault by “liberal Christianity”, and now is the time that we should all be able to defend and prove our faith. Now is the time that was foretold when people would be led away from the true Gospel by preachers who appeal not to the Scriptures, but who are scratching our “itching ears.” We have to know what we believe, why we believe it, and know it for ourselves. We have to be that light that shines out, not that which is hidden under a bushel.

Because if we do not stand firm in our beliefs, like the San Joaquin Diocese did, we can rest assured that the Christian body will be split from within, and not brought down from without.

Now is the time to put on the whole armor of Christ, hoist the old blood-stained banner, and behave like soldiers in the Army of the Lord! We must plant our feet on the Solid Rock and hold fast to the UNCHANGING GOSPEL. The world needs us, and so does the church.

And if we don’t do what we have been called to do, the Episcopal Church is not the only one that will be led so far towards apostasy that schism is seen as the only alternative. And that is not the path we want to see the Church following.

I took the opportunity to travel around the web a little today, since there weren’t any good football games being played until the late games, and visited a couple of conservative websites that I haven’t gotten to in a while. I visited National Review Online and The American Spectator to see what they have been up to, and I found a number of interesting political articles posted.

At NRO I found about what I expected…the editors have finally given their official endorsement to Mitt Romney, (D…uh, R…yeah, R) Massachusetts as their choice for the Republican nomination for President. It was expected because they have been shilling harder for Romney than Hugh Hewitt has here at Town Hall…and for a lot longer. According to them, Romney is the only GOP candidate that is hitting on all of the right conservative notes, and their article tries to offer a convincing argument for that proposition. Personally, I’m not buying it, but I offer the link for all to read it and make their own decisions.

At the American Spectator site I found some very juicy articles that were far from advocating the nomination of one of the “frontrunners” for the presidency. The writers touched on a lot of topics that I thought were interesting, so I have decided to mention them here at the Spade.

First, there is an article that is the antithesis of the attitudes held by the editors at NRO and by Town Hall’s own Hugh Hewitt that takes a long look at how Romney is presenting himself and his candidacy. While author Jeffrey Lord states that he would vote for Mitt over any Democratic candidate, he has qualms about Mitt’s stated belief in analyzing data and coming to a decision in that manner. Mr. Lord takes us on a quick trip back in time to see what would have happened had Lincoln and Reagan used that type of strategy to govern. A truly interesting read, if you’re interested.

There was also an excellent article by Quinn Hillyer on why Fred Thompson’s campaign may not be buried just yet. It seems that old Fred is steadily gaining in several polls and that while Huckabee may be the big story right now, that very media attention may be his ultimate undoing as people look into his days as Arkansas governor. In the case of Fred Thompson, slow and steady may yet win this race.

Speaking of Huckabee, there are a couple of interesting articles about him that I found at TAS. One, by Liz Main relates how Mitt Romney is stepping into a dangerous place when it comes to his criticisms of Mike Huckabee, and how their records may not be so indistinguishable to voters. The other, written by Phillip Klein, is a pretty scathing look at Gov. Huckabee’s clemency record in Arkansas and how bad the record really is, beyond just the Dumond case that has garnered so much publicity recently. This article should give some Huckabee supporters pause in their support for the right reverend Huck.

Finally, there’s an article that hits home for me since it is taking place in my beloved North Carolina. There is a heck of a battle shaping up in the district that includes Camp Lejune, NC and is currently represented in the House of Representatives by Republican Walter Jones.  Mr. Jones has recently abandoned his support for the war in Iraq and has started to drift left on a raft of issues, and now faces a stiff challenge from Joe McLaughlin for the GOP nomination from that district. Mr. Jones has tried the “I support the troops and funding, but not the mission” line to explain his position switch, now we’ll see  if his military constituents are going to buy that…or if they’re going to turn him into a former Congressman. That is one race that bears watching.

I hope that all of these articles are as interesting to you as they were to me, and stay tuned for an actual original posting soon!

 

This is a departure from the usual post here, but I felt it necessary to go this route. Ralph Ellison and I have been back and forth on the comments thread of my last post "Killing the Messenger", and in order to avoid the dreaded TH character limits I have decided to post the discussion as a blog. Everyone is free to read and chime in as always, and to Ralph Ellison I would just like you to know that I'm not trying to put you on blast or anything. It's just that what I wanted to say needed a larger forum than my comments section.

Ralph Ellison writes:

Flag, you have to be kidding me on this. Here we go:

“I read Etan Thomas's letter to Whitlock a while ago at SlamOnline and found it to be pretty stupid.”

How was it stupid??? Could you elaborate? How about Dave Zirin’s article?? Wasn’t he correct???
 I respond:

Etan Thomas’s article lapsed into stupidity the moment that he decided to call Jason Whitlock, JC Watts, and Clarence Thomas “Uncle Tom’s” who are willing to sell out and put down their people in order to succeed. He also managed to lump Bill Cosby into that group, so he lost all credibility with me. The rset of his “open letter” was the usual attack on a black person that he deemed to be conservative and holds no merit with me. That’s why I think his letter is stupid: it is bereft of any ideas and simply filled with the same old attacks on anyone that does not agree with the accepted liberal stances on race. As for Mr. Zirin, he is passionate but I disagree with his article. I read the Whitlock piece and did not see an attack on a race of people, but on a “hip hop culture” that is self aggrandizing and self destructive. Whitlock was right in saying that the hip hop attitude is not conducive to winning at a team sport like football, because it doesn’t stress being part of a team but stresses “getting yours.” As proof, this is what Mr. Whitlock said in his article:

“Race is not the determining factor when it comes to having a good or bad attitude. Culture is.

Hip hop is the dominant culture for black youth. In general, music, especially hip hop music, is rebellious for no good reason other than to make money. Rappers and rockers are not trying to fix problems. They create problems for attention.

That philosophy, attitude and behavior go against everything football coaches stand for. They're in a constant battle to squash rebellion, dissent and second opinions from their players.

You know why Muhammad Ali is/was an icon? Because he rebelled against something meaningful and because he excelled in an individual sport. His rebellion didn't interfere with winning. Jim Brown, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc. rebelled with dignity and purpose.

What we're witnessing today are purposeless, selfish acts of buffoonery. Sensible people have grown tired of it. Football people are recognizing it doesn't contribute to a winning environment. “

I simply don’t see where that is an attack on black people, but on a “culture” that we can both presumably agree is not the healthiest of cultures to embrace.

I originally wrote:
“As for people using words like plantation, it simply doesn't get me up in arms because it is not some racial commentary at all.”
Ralph Ellison writes:
You have got to be kidding me. I have never heard someone say a Jewish person, Hispanic person, nor a “white” person has a “plantation mentality.”. Nice try Flag, but stop the BS.
I respond:

I may not have heard that whites have a plantation mentality, but I have heard of their trailer park attitudes, the victimhood status of Jews, and the “La Raza” attitudes of Latinos. Every group has words that are more closely associated with them than others. However, the “plantation” reference gets used about liberals of all stripes who stray from liberal orthodoxy, as was seen in the treatment of Joe Lieberman. I think that you see this only in reference to blacks because that’s what you want to see, and any other reference of this type will be duly ignored.

I originally wrote:
“WE kill each other like it's a goddang sport, we victimize one another like it's going out of style, and then we scream "RACISM!" We victimize one another more than anyone else, then we come up with dumb sh*t like "No snitching" so that the very people who victimize us are protected...by US! “

Ralph Ellison wrote:

True. I don’t “blame the man” for black on black crime. So what are you going to do about the problem??

My response:

I will do my best to teach my children a better way, first and foremost. Then I will try to make my voice heard among my friends, family, and within my community. That is the only way that I know to impact this situation.

I wrote:
“I am sick to death of any black man that dares take a stand that doesn't square with the ideas of the civil rights brigade being accused of "selling out" or being an "Uncle Tom".

Ralph Ellison wrote:
Same here. I like debate. Let’s here another person’s opinion. I am sure we can shoot down any cons ideas. I am also tired of being thought of as being on a “plantation” or embracing “victim hood” just because I point out that race is a major factoring America and will continue to be for a long time. Agree???

My response:

I don’t think that you really like debate as much as a good argument. To me, debate is presenting differing ideas and honestly discussing the merits of those ideas. Too often, “debate” devolves into a shouting match where each side spends it’s time telling the other side how wrong they are! Both sides are guilty of it; I am personally guilty of it, and I would wager that you are too. And until we actually learn to debate, and not simply argue, we will continue to go around and around on the same issues.

“You bemoan the fact that whites form their opinions on black culture from the snapshot of the rapper, yet you do not bemoan the fact that rappers spend all of their time accentuating the most negative stereotypes of the black man” Ralph Ellison: Actually I have on many occasions. I have joined with the NAN to boycott the Big 4 Recording Companies. BET is not shown in my household. So what were you saying again??? “If everywhere I looked I saw Bill Clinton, then maybe my views about who white people were would be skewed.” I agree. So then white people who believe in stereotypes are stupid right??? People who make judgments on 36 million people based on rappers are ignorant and stupid correct??? No sympathy for their ignorance. Lets call them out for what they are. I say: On these points, we agree. However, I cannot blame people for forming their opinions on the images that they see. Instead of complaining about that, we should be trying our best to change those images.

Ralph Ellison writes: Thursday, December, 13, 2007 10:38 AM Flag 3 “Thomas Sowell, Armstrong Williams, Alan Keyes, and Walter Williams want the same thing that most other blacks want...to see their people live up to the potential that they possess.” Do you seriously believe that???? See, I like to read. I have read Sowell, Williams, and seen Keyes for the longest time being here in the DC Area. Sowell has always been very anti-HBCU, has a strong color complex, is paid handsomely for his critique, has no involvement with the African American community he supposedly cares about, his books are overly simplistic and short on unbiased analysis, and has criticized the Civil Rights Movement since Day 1. Williams is even worse. His support of the neo-confederate movement, his strong supportive relationship with Jared Taylor and his New Century Foundation, his support of the Color of Crime Report that is completely false, disproved, and racist, his connections to groups like FAIR and the Pioneer Fund, his strong opposition to AA, and his constant Bo jangling for the Right. Shall we even discuss Alan Keyes??? That could take days. This is not hate. I don’t hate people. I hate BS, especially the kind your trying to shove down my throat. Remember that everyone who looks like you isn’t always for you. I say: You make my point for me! You have decided that all of these men are “bad guys”, so you don’t LISTEN to what they say; you hear what you THINK they are saying. I hear them saying that blacks have the same opportunities for success as anyone else, we just have to take it. But, because they are politically conservative, you see them as borderline “evil”. You care little about their ideas, but are focused on their ideology! I originally wrote: “And spare me the tired line about how conservatives extol "white culture" over "black culture". Most conservatives that I know and correspond with here at TH and in my daily life are not worrying about the so-called "white culture", but are busy extolling the virtues of AMERICAN culture.” Ralph Ellison responds: In their minds, American culture is “white/European culture”. Anything else is inferior in their eyes. Why do you think they rally so much against multiculturalism and diversity??? Be honest Flag. Not trying to get you in trouble with the cons, but please be honest ok. I respond: I have no fear of getting in trouble with anyone, especially conservatives. Because even when I disagree with them on the threads, or at this blog, or at other blogs I do not get the same type of condescending attitude that I do when I disagree with liberal dogma. As for the culture question, I have the same problems with multiculturalism as many people do. I have a problem when the multiculturalists tell people that they should not become a part of the broader American culture and should instead stand alone. That serves to do noting but divide us by pitting one individual culture against the broader American culture. American culture has absorbed and accepted elements from all sorts of cultures to form the unique American culture. Our language, our foods, our architecture, and our lifestyles reflect elements from all of those that helped to make America the “melting pot” that it was. All of those diverse cultures melded together to create a unique singular culture, which the new wave of “stir-fry” multiculturalism threatens to destroy.

 

 

In the immediate aftermath of the tragic murder of Sean Taylor, I chose not to write anything about the subject at either of my blogs, because I did not want to make a fool of myself by writing without any real proof of what happened. That did not stop professional reporters and columnists from doing so, since it is their job to do so and I actually linked to the article written by Jason Whitlock as a fine example of what was being written. While I did not agree with everything that Mr. Whitlock wrote, I saw what he wrote as about as honest an assessment of what happened as anyone would get that close to the event.

What I also knew after reading Mr. Whitlock’s column was that condemnation was going to be quick in coming from certain quarters in the black community. You see, Jason Whitlock has become an easy target of the segment of the black community that sees every problem encountered by blacks as a consequence of racism or societal oppression, and is a strong voice demanding that blacks take responsibility for themselves instead of trying to pass the buck to everyone else. This has earned him the nickname “Uncle Jason” and has caused some to determine that he is a “race traitor” or “sell-out”; I think that he is simply an honest man who is unafraid to give his opinion, even when he knows it will be unpopular.

This past week, former NFL defensive lineman and current ESPN analyst Marcellus Wiley decided to respond to Mr. Whitlock’s last column about the Sean Taylor shooting, and used his forum on ESPN Radio as a guest of Mike and Mike in the Morning to sing the song that Whitlock was wrong to compare the murderous mindset of too many black men to the KKK. He argued that intra ethnic crime is a problem for all ethnicities in this country, and that for Mr. Whitlock to bring up black on black crime was somehow wrong; according to Mr. Wiley, the story was about athletes being targets, not about black on black crime.

But Mr. Wiley’s attempts to gloss over the problem were simply wrongheaded, and ignorant. Just because we do not like the facts we are presented with does not mean we get to ignore them, or to create our own set of facts. And the facts are simply stunning when it comes to this issue.

We all now that blacks make up only about 12% of the American populace, yet according to Department of Justice statistics blacks account for 46.9% of American homicide victims and 52.2% of homicide perpetrators. And from 1976 to 2005, 94% of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. Also, in 2005 blacks were 6 times more likely to be victims of homicides than whites, while they were simultaneously 7 times more likely to be offenders than whites, so the whole “it happens among all races” line may be true, it is obviously a more pressing problem among blacks.

But instead of making a commitment to do anything about this problem, people like Marcellus Wiley concentrate their efforts on discrediting Jason Whitlock and making him out to be a villain. They are concentrating on killing the messenger, instead of listening to the message. That is shortsighted and is not helping anything. Don’t get mad at Jason Whitlock because he’s saying things you don’t like, get mad because what he’s saying is true. Stop trying to destroy Jason Whitlock and start trying to destroy the very mindsets and sense of victimhood that he rails against.

Because when you get down to it, he’s not lying. He’s just telling a really inconvenient truth

Controversy: (n) 1: a discussion marked esp. by expression of opposing views: DISPUTE 2: QUARREL, STRIFE

 Seemingly on a daily basis, we are confronted with alleged constitutional controversies that have to be settled by the 9 wise ones on the Supreme Court. We are confronted with the abortion controversy, gun control controversies, or civil rights controversies. But how many of these controversies really stand up to scrutiny?

The United States Constitution is not a controversial document, mainly because it is about as direct a document as you will ever find. It says what it means, and means what it says for the most part. It is also not a document filled with “gray areas” or secret meanings, since the Founders seemed to want a document that was easy to understand and to implement; basically the Constitution lays out the functions of the federal government and leaves everything else in the hands of the various states. Nothing could be simpler, right?

Wrong!

But the controversies that are constitutional in nature do not come from the document itself, those conflicts occur when someone attempts to “interpret” what the Constitution clearly says. And usually that “interpretation” is in direct contrast with the words written in the text of the document itself, and reveals some particular political agenda.

Take the controversy over abortion as an example; we here at Town Hall have had a healthy debate over the abortion issue at The View From the Island blog, mainly over whether or not abortion is a state’s rights issue. Some, like BrianR take the position that there should be some federal guideline about when life starts which would basically put the issue entirely in the hands of the federal government. Others, like me, argue that the issue has always been and should always be left to the states; we argue that federal involvement in the issue was unconstitutional on its face to begin with. But the problem with this entire issue lies with the SCOTUS attempting to “interpret” the Constitution, and managing to find what Justice William O. Douglas called “penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees” in the 1^st, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, and 9^th Amendments to the Constitution. From this legalistic gobbledygook the SCOTUS was able to find a “right” to abortion that just happened to fit the liberal policy preferences of the Court’s majority in 1965. Nowhere does the Constitution assign a right to absolute privacy to the people, but in order to make their policy preferences law the SCOTUS managed to find an “interpretation” that fit exactly what THEY thought the Constitution should say about the issue.

And now we have a case that will be heard on the right to bear arms in the city of Washington, DC. Basically, the court is set to decide if DC’s draconian gun control laws that basically prohibit law abiding citizens to arm themselves passes constitutional muster. What boggles my mind here is that this case has to even be argued, since the 2^nd Amendment is crystal clear about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Tell me what is confusing about this: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That seems pretty simple, until you get lawyers, judges, and politicians with their personal agendas involved in “interpreting” what the Constitution is really saying…because it simply cannot mean what is written on the page! So we have those that attempt to break the amendment into clauses that support their particular…usually anti-gun…positions. So you can have a city basically outlaw gun ownership for its citizens, in clear violation of the words of the Constitution and not have that ban laughed out of court.

And that is the problem with attempting to “interpret” the Constitution; the plain meaning of the document gets lost in the rush to make it say what the interpreters want it to say. It is high time that we stopped allowing judges individually, or in groups to determine what the Constitution says. So long as we allow that, controversy will reign and the republic will be lost a little more with each of them.

Have You Seen This Man?

 

A search is underway for Richard B. (Dick) Cheney, whose whereabouts are a mystery. Mr. Cheney was last seen sometime before the ill fated, White House backed comprehensive immigration reform debacle. He has served as a member of the US Congress, Secretary of Defense, and most recently held the post of Vice President of the United States. He has served faithfully and loyally, and has been considered by his friends as a man of great principle. There has been talk of Mr. Cheney being missing due to a perceived disagreement with his employer over the wisdom of opening U.S. borders to anyone willing to sneak across them.

Anyone with information regarding Mr. Cheney’s whereabouts is urged to call 1-800-NO RINOS. There is a substantial cash reward.

Please help find Mr. Cheney before the President totally loses his way!

With the tragic murder of Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor dominating the headlines, some have taken this is an opportunity to discuss the problem of violence that plagues the Black community. As much as Blacks have a tendency to blame white folks fot their problems...you know the list, institutional racism, latent racism, educational racism, et cetera...white people aren't the ones killing us. We are. It may be blunt, but it is very real, and it is totally accurate.

To that end, Jason Whitlock has added his perspective to the disussion. While I don't agree with Mr. Whitlock's assertion that bringing up past incidents with law enforcement or on the field is necessarily appropriate in this instance, since it can induce many to "blame the victim" for lack of a better term, I am in complete agreement with his broader point. If we Black men don't stop killing each other, we will have made ourselves the endagered species that so many rappers talk about. Check the link, even you non sports fans need to read Mr. Whitlock's article.

Hat tip to my brother Pat for sending me the article!