On a day of celebration, I celebrate. John Adams would have me do so. I marvel at the miraculous victories frequenting our history books. I reverence the countless heroes who “more than self their country loved” and gave the “last full measure of devotion.” I am grateful for the liberties and luxuries I enjoy as an American. As a Christian, I especially appreciate the expansive rights guaranteed to me in the First Amendment.

But I also take time for reflection. I cannot ignore the path America has followed in the past four decades. As Jefferson reminded his contemporaries, the natural course of liberty is to decline. Our freedoms have been legislated and litigated away, and our liberties have been redefined and restricted, all justified in the name of greater freedom and equality for all.

I conclude not with a melancholy resignation to an inevitable surrender to those who blindly attack the foundations of our Nation. Rather, I renew myself in my dedication to my God and the “God of Our Fathers” and to this Country that is still worth saving. May God grant a prayerful and powerful return to the positions that made us what we are: a Republic, a “Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

“Save the whales, save the snails!” Comedian George Carlin had it right when he talked about the audacity and craziness of some to misplace priorities on where to put a helping hand when it comes to people and the planet. When it comes to organizations that ‘break from the norm’ the most, when balancing the value between people and animals, PETA has to be near the top of the list.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was founded in 1980. On the periphery, the organization seems somewhat benign, if not wholesome, in their stated mission of working to decrease the abuse of animals. If you dig a little deeper, you would find that the organization believes that animals should not only be saved from cruel experiments, but also from being used by man for clothing, or even to be eaten. It doesn’t take very long for a grounded individual to begin looking askew at this radical leftist organization, and why not? In reality, to endorse PETA, one has to take oneself several steps down the food chain.

We can see that humans are not sowelcome in PETA’s view of things, with their continuous onslaught on free market organizations, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken. Despite the organization’s charges of cruelty to chickens by the KFC restaurant chain, their own organization statement that animals should not be consumed by humans brings thinking people to the simple fact that KFC will never be able to throw PETA ‘a bone’ they will accept. Despite this fact, PETA members go straight to the gutter to attempt to save potential chickens in distress. Like a deranged cult group, the young and impressionable (almost exclusively female) are recruited, stripped, and sent all but naked into the streets to decry the fate of a chicken, bird, rabbit, you name it. In what should enrage the feminist groups around the globe, PETA objectifies partially nude women in bondage-like ‘cage’ depictions that reduce women to nothing more than cheap sex objects. In other words, PETA attempts to swap one form of ‘meat’ with another form of the same. This activity is, in a word, shameful.

The depths that this organization will go to are potentially limitless. PETA recently admonished President Barack Obama for killing an annoying fly during a television interview. While this may be the toughest foe that President Obama actually takes on, PETA made it clear that the fly ranks as high as any creature under their protection from the abuse of man. To top off the lunacy, PETA sent the president a “capture and release” device for future fly encounters.

Groups such as PETA warrant more than the simple ‘eye-roll’ we often give radical leftist organizations. In my opinion, PETA’s bizarre equating of human and animal as being equal reflects not so much a love for the creatures of the planet, but an underlying hatred of humans. The fact that they actively denigrate their followers is only further proof of a twisted philosophy in action. Any group or organization that diminishes the worth and value of mankind, be it to certain religions, social groups, race-baiting groups, or even those cute little animals, should be a concern to everyone.

Earlier this year, when “Tea Party” events began to pop up across the country, I was particularly interested to see how the “Tea Party” movement emerging in the population-center closest to where I live (Portland, OR) would do. Considering how challenging this very Blue local political environment has been for me, I knew that the Portland Tea Party would be in for more of an “uphill battle” than other “Tea Party” groups in more welcoming communities.

Considering this “uphill battle”, I was particularly interested in getting acquainted with the central figure in the Portland Tea Party movement, a young man named Geoffrey Ludt. Since I hoped to get involved in the “Tea Party” movement myself, I thought it was likely that I’d get to meet Geoff at a Portland Tea Party event. However, other developments in my life made the timing bad for this. Just as the “Tea Party” movement was beginning to get some traction, I took on a new job. In addition to markedly reducing my frequency of blog posts, that has made getting involved in any new “extracurricular activities” out of the question. In spite of this, amazingly (I say tongue-in-cheek), the Portland Tea Party movement seems to be succeeding without me. So, instead of continuing to wait for circumstances to bring us together, I reached out to Geoff and we got to spend some time together recently. That meeting gave me some encouraging insights that I want to share.

PERSONAL

First, I think it’s only fair to let you know that I came away from my first meeting with Geoff as a fan. It’s not uncommon for Baby-Boomers like me to have concerns about “the younger generation” and how that bodes for “the future of our country”. Well, Geoff is from the generation of Baby-Boomer children (Echo Boomers) and he has life’s priorities in order in a way that I wish I’d had sense enough for at his age. Included in this is the fact that Faith and Family are paramount for Geoff. If you check my Twitter Bio, you’ll find that those are my top priorities too. With this in mind, I’m sure you can understand that I came away from our meeting not just thinking “he’s my kinda guy” but “I’d be proud to have a Son like that”. And, of course, I found that to be personally encouraging.

THE GREATER “UPHILL BATTLE”

My primary goals in meeting with Geoff were to get better acquainted with him and the Portland Tea Party. Of course, the “getting acquainted” process is a two-way street so, early on in our conversation, Geoff was hearing my points of view as much, if not more, than I was hearing his. In what is probably another typical Conservative Baby-Boomer rant, I expressed my sadness over the present state of our nation and the direction its being taken. Of course, I let Geoff know that this is why I have such great appreciation for efforts like the Portland Tea Party. But, I added to that thought my discouragement, that things may have already gone too far for us to ever recover. With that, I was prepared to move on to another subject but Geoff stopped me. He said, “Don’t be discouraged. Remember, we are at the beginning of a reform movement.” Maybe you had to be there to appreciate it but I have to tell you; that sensitivity, that wisdom and that optimism lifted my heart in a way that was most welcome.

GOALS

Once we had a good start on getting acquainted, I shifted my attention to learn more about the Portland Tea Party. To set the stage for that, I asked about the organization’s goals … what they are now and how that differs from what they were at the outset. Geoff’s response was that the organizations goals remain the same as they were at the beginning. These are:

•  To speak out about governmental irresponsibility.
• To inspire others to stand up and voice their opinions on this. 

MEASURABLE SUCCESS

It struck me that gauging success might be difficult, with those sort of goals. On the contrary, Geoff was able to point to:

•  Portland Tea Party’s first event was on February 27, 2009. Geoff started out on his own with this one, tying into the nationwide Tea Party movement, protesting the massive amount of government spending that was being advocated by the Obama administration. Based on the guidelines of the national organization, Geoff thought he was pretty much on target in expecting most of the 30 people who had signed up to show up for the march from Portland’s Pioneer Square to the waterfront park on the Willamette. Over 100 people showed up to join Geoff in that march.
   
• Next, was Portland Tea Party’s participation in the Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party, on April 15, 2009. By this time, Geoff was no longer a one-man-band and the group was expecting a turnout of around 600. According to one local TV station, the crowd that showed up was estimated to be between 5,000 and 7,000. Although that is impressive on its own, it’s at least equally notable that 22 other related events took place on that day, throughout Oregon, in part due to the inspiration of the Portland Tea Party. Likewise, the Portland Tea Party served as a source of inspiration for the many National Tax Day events held across the Columbia River from Portland, in Washington State, where I live.
   
• Although the two events, detailed above, demonstrate measurable success in “speaking out” and “inspiring others” to do so, the Portland Tea Party’s greatest achievement so far may be in “enabling others to speak out”. I believe that being smarter with social networking and especially in leveraging new media is a key to the Conservative cause regaining its place in U.S. politics. The example, noted above, of the Portland Tea Party’s single event on February 27^th blossoming to inspire dozens of events in Oregon and Washington on April 15^th, is a great example of this. Additionally, Portland Tea Party has connected with other significant groups and individuals including: Local (KPAM) Talk Radio Host, Victoria Taft; Top Conservatives on Twitter; Smart Girl Politics; American Liberty Alliance; The 912 Project and the most recent protest over journalistic sellout at Portland’s ABC TV affiliate, KATU. In this last case, the Portland Tea Party teamed with Tom Cox, the organizer for that event, to succeed in getting KATU to broadcast a non-partisan panel discussion following what many thought of as ABC’s day-long “Obamacare” infomercial.

CONTINUING THE “UPHILL BATTLE”

Next up is Portland Tea Party’s July 4^th Rally and Parade in Hillsboro, OR. No doubt, this will be another successful event. I was particularly pleased to learn that it will incorporate an element aimed at encouraging those “yearning to be free” in Iran, to not lose heart. However, in winding down our visit, I wanted to focus more on practical advice for individuals who want to get involved, especially those who (like me) have been frustrated in doing so due to some lack of resources (in my case, time). Here again, I found Geoff’s response both wise and inspiring. He said,

•  “Now is the time to get involved. The campaign season of 2010 will soon be upon us. Everyone has to deal with limited resources, in one way or another. However, if you get involved in whatever way you can now, no matter how small it may seem, you’ll have more time to develop your ability to contribute and learn how to better leverage your contribution.”
   
• “Generally speaking, those who want to get involved want to do so because they long for restoring a government that is truly Representative – i.e. A government that serves us and not the other way around. The key to successfully getting involved is for those who want to get involved to move from an attitude of ‘I should …” to an attitude of ‘I am …’.”

For me, one of the best illustrations of Geoff’s last point is Geoff himself. He recognized that he was accomplishing nothing by going around thinking “I should do something about the irresponsible way our government is conducting itself with all this outlandish spending.” So, he changed his attitude to one that moved from “I am tweeting about this” to “I am starting a local group to speak out about this” to “I am an integral part of an organization that is impacting this locally, regionally and nationally.”

I’m blessed to be getting to know Geoff and I’m certainly inspired. For me, it will mean continuing to struggle to find time for blogging when I can and looking for more ways to leverage that. And, even if I’m just one face in a crowd, to show up in support of more events.

So what about you? How will you respond to Geoff’s challenge to move from an attitude of “I should …” to an attitude of “I am …”? Of course, I can’t answer that for you but, with Geoff, I want to encourage you to do so now. To me, it’s terribly sad to imagine waking up the morning after the elections of 2010, learning the result is not what I’d hoped for and thinking “I should have …”. So, let’s don’t let that happen. As we honor Independence Day this year, lets move to an attitude of “I am …” and in doing so help assure that we will continue to be able to celebrate many more Independence Days to come.

The true nature of Islam is revealed in its sacred texts and its history. But, there is another Islam--Official Islam--that has been revealed by Obama in Cairo. He made official what the media, politicians and the universities have pushed since 9/11.

Here are the major points of Official Islam:

· Islam is a religion similar to Christianity and Judaism. They all worship the same god.
· Good Muslims prove that Islam is good
· There are no jihadists, just extremists
· Islam must be accommodated in as many ways as possible
· One of the proofs of Islam's greatness is the Islamic Golden Age, humanity's best days
· Violence by Muslims is due to their being poor and abused
· Islam gave the West its basis for our intellectual world
· The Crusades were a great evil by Christians
· There are moderate Muslims and a few extremist Muslims
· "Extremists" cause the violence
· Islam is found in the Koran (never discuss Mohammed)
· The "bad stuff" in the Koran is only due to its interpretation
· Good Muslims will reform the "extremists"
· Islam is the religion of tolerance
· Islam has a Golden Rule
· Islam is the religion of freedom and justice

But the official version of Islam is a *Big Lie. The fact that the Official Islam does not agree with the Koran, Sira and Hadith is of no importance, since it is not based upon them. Official Islam is based upon the propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not one line of the Official Islam is totally true and many of the points are complete fabrications.

At best, some assertions are partially true. A half-truth is a lie. When you testify in our courts you have to swear an oath: I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Official Islam is not only made up of half-truths, but it also has points that contain no truth, e.g. Islam is the religion of tolerance, so it contains both half-truths and total lies. There is not a single statement in it that it completely true. It is a Big Lie.

Anyone who does not agree with these points is labeled a bigot and will be condemned by all of the official non-bigots, those who believe the Big Lie. The oddest thing is that they make moral judgments about those who do not believe. They say that if you don't believe in the Big Lie, you are a bigoted Islamophobe.

Official Islam cannot be proved and is delivered by "authorities." It is based upon authoritarian thinking-believe it because those who have more power that you say it is true. We must use truth and critical/scientific thinking to destroy the Big Lie of Official Islam. Official Islam is the mind of denial and delusion and is the intellectual basis of the destruction of our civilization.

* BIG LIE: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA, 1971, pgs. 231, 232.
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Today, I was listening to a beautiful rendition of “America the Beautiful,” performed by the late-Elvis Presley, who shares a birthday with me. I really focused on the words, “For purple mountains majesty above the fruited-plains. America, America, God shed his grace on thee, and crowned thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea.”

It suddenly hit me. I’m a real American cowboy with a real horse, and frequently ride on those “purple mountains majesty,” usually on 13,000 and 14,000-foot peaks in the majestic Sangre de Cristo range in southern Colorado. Meaning, the “Blood of Christ” the Sangre de Cristos are so named for the red hue on the snow-capped peaks at sunset and sunrise. I have been so richly-blessed, I thought, to live my dream borne of my childhood imagination in Akron, Ohio while watching Roy Rogers, the Range Rider, and John Wayne.

I ride my beautiful black and white pinto Eagle up in the “high lonesome” and do indeed look out “above the fruited plains.” Recently criss-crossing the nation, traveling to Orlando, Florida, Las Vegas, then Oklahoma City, I spent a week in each location in different time zones, different environs, and different climates. I have been in all fifty states and today thought about the wonder of it all and the differing climes throughout our country. However, the majestic varied types of beauty found throughout our nation are not what makes this country great.

“And crowned thy good with brotherhood.” That is how it is supposed to be, and that is what we must get back to if we truly want to reclaim our bounteous blessings. GM used to stand for General Motors, but now it stands for Government Motors. That is reminiscent of the defunct Soviet Union or communist China, but not the country where I grew up. Brotherhood? Politicians have convinced the poor that the rich are greedy and should be forced to give it all to the poor. Poverty pimps convince black children they are victims, instead of teaching them they came from a strong powerful race of people that survived slavery and the wilds of Africa. As a cowboy and a western author, I wrote my own Code of the West, and one of its principal tenets is “A cowboy is only as good as his word.” When you are a politician, you can promise all the free cake and ice cream to voters all day long, but except for the very ignorant, at some point, people will realize that somehow, someway, somebody is eventually going to have to pay for all that free cake and ice cream. 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence and most of them died in poverty, because they gave to this nation for our freedoms, not for our freebies. They did not collect food stamps, welfare, social security, or ask for a guaranteed rocking chair to go along with their gold watch and dead turkey on retirement day. They looked ahead to see what we all need: Our most precious individual freedoms and liberty, and they gave their all, so that we could each enjoy those blessings.

In my Code of the West, I state that “A cowboy will share his grub and campfire with you.” That is voluntary, but if you try to take what is mine or my family’s, you better have a .45 in your hand and shoot straight, because I darned sure will have two Colts in mine. And if you try to force free men and free women to work harder to pay more money to those who want only to take from this nation without giving, you will find yourself under a stout cottonwood limb, listening to those famous old words: “Somebody grab a rope.”

For this nation was nurtured by the blood and sweat of heroes and true  Americans will live free like eagles, and will not be herded like mindless cattle for very long. The biggest mistake made; over the years, by tyrants, dictators, selfish politicians, carpet-baggers, and land-grabbers, is to underestimate the will and might of free men and free women. The self-serving beware: Don’t tread on me, for nobody fights harder than a man or woman in the cause of protecting their God-given freedoms.  Keep herding us into a box canyon with rock walls of new laws, hidden taxes, and regulations, and we will teach you a new game. It’s called “Cowboys and Bureaucrats.”

The Arabs know what they want, and that is the end of Israel.

The Jews are divided as to what they want. The left wants to get the hell out of the West Bank. The center, including Kadima and Labour, want to keep the settlement blocks containing most of the settlers but are prepared to uproot as many as 70,000 Jews, perhaps even 100,000. The right does not want to allow a Palestinian state to emerge, even if demilitarized.

All are united in requiring an end of conflict and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Netanyahu is a centrist, though he campaigned on the right. In his response to Obama’s Cairo speech, he demanded recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and was prepared to accept a demilitarized Palestinian state. He also demanded that Jerusalem be part of Israel and that Israel have defensible borders.

Unfortunately, he was silent on his intentions regarding the settlers and the demanded settlement freeze. He did emphasize Israel’s historical rights but went nowhere with them.

If he was sincere in his demands, he would have said that until such time as the Arabs accept Israel as a Jewish state with defensible borders and a united Jerusalem, and until they accept a demilitarized Palestine, there would be no reason to proceed with negotiations. Having not done so, one must conclude that none of these are red lines.

The Arabs weren’t shy about totally rejecting demilitarization and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. They also said that they wouldn’t commence negotiations until there was a complete settlement freeze. I suspect that this position is for starters only, and if Israel agreed to a meaningful freeze, if not total, they would go along.

Subsequent to Netanyahu’s speech, Netanyahu has sided with Barak in being prepared to compromise on a freeze. In trying to avoid it, his government has been rejecting the freeze as being immoral or unjust or unworkable. They have been pleading for “natural growth”.

Nowhere do I hear the government of Israel insist on the right of Jews to live anywhere, particularly in their ancient homeland, or to reject the notion that such settlements are illegal under international law or to reject the constraints of the Roadmap regarding a settlement freeze. Nowhere does it reject the notion that Israel must withdraw from100% of the territories except for mutual exchanges. Netanyahu has not even banged his reciprocity drum by demanding that the Arabs stop their incitement and violence and get unified before any settlement freeze will be agreed to. Obviously, Netanyahu’s remarks about the rights of Jews were throwaway lines for home consumption.

Under no conditions should Netanyahu agree to a settlement freeze. Any time the Arabs want to stop the growth of settlements on “their land,” they could compromise on all the issues, including borders, so that thereafter there would be no settlers or construction on their land. This assumes, without debating it, that the settlers would have to leave.

I am reminded of the story we read on Yom Kippur of  Rabbi Amnon of Mainz of whom it was demanded, convert to Christianity, or else, similar to the demand Obama made on Netanyahu, freeze settlements of else. Reb Amnon said in reply ”Give me only three days to think about the matter — then I shall bring you my answer.”  Netanyahu also replied something in the same vein, namely, let’s discuss it.

The Rabbi was horrified by what he had said and then explained his actions and change of mind.

“In a moment of weakness I fell into sin and lied and made false promises. To save my life without defying my faith I sought the cowardly grace of three days in which to give you my answer.

Netanyahu should likewise have said “no” and take what comes with with it.

The reason that the settlement freeze is the most important issue for the Arabs is that so long as construction continues, time is not on the side of the Arabs. If they had a freeze in place, they could continue to be as intransigent and uncompromising as they have been. Concomitantly, it would put enormous pressure on Israel to capitulate.

The Arabs don’t want a state. They prefer to be the object of everyone’s attention and largesse. Why give that up. For a state? Fuget about it. They will not compromise on the “right of return” or on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. To do so would sell out the refugees and the Arab Israelis respectively.

So where does Obama fit into all this? His hubris, aided and abetted by his anti-Israel staff, friends and State Department, convinced him he could succeed where countless others couldn’t.

To understand just how outrageous Obama’s demand is read Joseph Farah’s article Obama tells Jews where they can live

It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.

I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel ­ let alone their own country.

Obama thought he could get the Arabs to be less withholding, particularly if he kissed up to them enough. That was his first error in judgment.

Then he thought that he could force Israel to give in on settlements and that capitulation on Israel’s part would win him friends in Iran and Saudi Arabia. No only was he wrong in this assumption, he was wrong to believe that he could put the squeeze on Israel in this way.

Netanyahu could have said, we accepted the Roadmap based on an agreement made at the time which was described by Sharon at the Herzelia Conference.

“Israel will deliver on all its obligations, including on the matter of settlement construction. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction lines. There will be no land confiscations meant for construction, no special economic incentives, and there is no construction of special settlements.”

If you now deny that agreement, we deny the Roadmap.

Now that Mitchell reached no resolution of the issue with Barak, Mitchell won’t be meeting Netanyahu for another two or three weeks. My how time flies when you are not having fun.

When Bush Sr wanted to squeeze Israel, he froze loan guarantees just when Shamir needed the money to resettle the Russians, who were coming in droves.

Obama, on the other hand, made no issue as U.S. re-approves Israel loan guarantees program.

Recently JPOST reported Israel, US bridge gaps over fighter jet.

A deal is close to completion for the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter jet after the Defense Ministry and the Pentagon recently reached understandings on a number of IAF demands to integrate Israeli technology into the plane.

On these two important matters, Obama chose not to impose linkage. Though he did attempt linkage with the Iranian issue, which appears now to be a dead letter.

He has not been able to get the Arabs to make meaningful concessions, which was part of his original plans.

So where does that leave him?

If he can get Israel to agree to a settlement freeze, as I have written in the past, that would be victory enough. But it would be a serious mistake on Israel’s part. At least the Administration is now speaking of a moratorium only.

Time will tell. In the meantime, Israel should not agree to a freeze, even a temporary one. Of what significance is a temporary freeze unless it is considered a stepping stone to a permanent freeze.

Its not too late for Netanyahu to find Rabbi Amnon’s resolve.

Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Conservatism  

Every Thursday at our NEW TIME of 6:00 pm PT hosts Babe Huggett and Warner Todd Huston discuss and examine current political events, put them in historical context and follow trends to their logical conclusions through a conservative, Christian viewpoint. Scheduled guests will enjoy their own feature interview segment. Phone in comments from listeners always welcome!

Upcoming Episodes

Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Conservatism strikes again!

Listen to Huggett & Huston on Blog Talk Radio

Hosts Babe Huggett & Warner Todd Huston dig deep & analyze the news with their usual insightful and historical approach all the while being as politically irreverent as possible! We're heading into cloak & dagger territory tonight with Mr. A Nonymous, a retired Department of Defense analyst, Arabic linguist and author of Tremble The Devil, who will explain why the police can not handle terrorism from the African-American community's islamic converts.

Poor Kal-ee-for-nee-ah Governor Ahnold Schwarzenkennedy! He may have an “R” after his name politically but he’s been running California like a liberal for years now. However, it is finally catching up with him; as of July 1^st California went from a state of great weather and fabulous scenery to one of fiscal emergency. Facing a $24.3 billion shortfall in the state’s budget, Governor Schwarzenegger called a special session of the state legislature on June 30th to close the gap but the state’s Republicans held firm against the frantic demands of the tax-tax-tax, spend-spend-spend and spend some more Democrats.

Now California’s vendors and local agencies will be getting IOUs instead of state checks We can also expect needed services and providers like police, firemen and health care workers to get the axe while Sacramento fat cats on six-figure salaries bloviate about the need to cut corners “somewhere”.

Governor Schwarzenegger put a brave face on things when he said "Though the legislature failed to solve our budget problem yesterday, rest assured that solving the entire deficit remains my first and only priority, and I will not rest until we get it done. I will not be a part of pushing this crisis down the road -- the road stops here."

Well, bully for you, Governator, but talk is about the only thing that is cheap here in California. Before you can solve anything, you and the California state legislature have got to come to grips with a very basic concept: you can not spend more than you take in. Your once high state tax revenues are tanking thanks to 11% unemployment, businesses & workers moving to friendlier states and a complete slow-down in market activity. Yet nowhere was there ever any corresponding lowering of state spending to compensate. Accepting Obamunist bail-out money from DC would be a complete surrender of state sovereignty. Talk about strings attached! Just ask the former CEOs of General Motors and Chrysler if you don’t believe me. Considering just how heavily taxed Californians are already, upping taxes is political suicide. Schwarzenegger knows enough not to do those things even if the Democrats refuse to understand the realities of the situation.

Right now, our state income tax top rate is at 9.3%. Depending upon which county we live in, we also pay anywhere from 8.25% to 9.75% sales tax! Californians also pay nearly $0.64 in taxes out of every dollar spent at the gas pumps. $.87 comes out of a California smoker’s pocket in taxes before he can light up his first cig from a 20 cigarette pack. Property taxes are through the roof, Proposition 8 or no. Without Prop 8, my aged parents would be driven out of the home where they have lived since 1968. Yet what they are paying now will be upped an additional $24,900.00 a year the split second the house is finally sold to new owners.

Fees are just another name for taxes and California car license tag renewal fees increased 100% this year. That means my old clunker will now cost me $150.00 to get the tags renewed rather than the $75.00 I shelled out last year. Only this time I’m not paying it because in less than two weeks my husband and I are moving out-of-state for good.

Yes, pumpkins, we have had it with this state. It is time for us to go to somewhere where we won’t feel hemmed in, over-regulated and over-taxed. It’s been real, it’s been fun, but it hasn’t been real fun. But, before we go, I’d like to offer Governor Schwarzenegger just ten simple little cost cutting things he can do to get the California state budget under control. Think of it as my gift to the state and/or parting shot:

 1. Freeze the welfare rolls then go through them with a fine tooth comb looking for double/triple/quadruple dippers and the still-being-paid deceased.

2. Resurrect Proposition 187, which banned illegals from getting onto welfare. The voters passed it and the usual liberal, racist goo-goos screamed, hollered, ranted, raved then shopped it around in the courts until they found a liberal judge to declare a constitutionally valid, voter approved state proposition “unconstitutional”.

3. Enforce illegal immigration laws and don’t give me that garbage about it being a “federal issue”. Listen: if an illegal is on California soil, it is a California issue. The flood of illegals here is destroying our health care and school system not to mention the stress they are putting on municipal services and housing.

4. Stop printing up everything in multi-lingual versions. Catering to a polyglot society is expensive, time-consuming, frustrating, and divisive. All it does is reinforce the soft-bigotry of low expectations by its implication that new arrivals are too stupid to learn English.

5. Get rid of the California Teachers’ Association and let the schools reflect their communities the way they used to. Once upon a time California was the top state for education and now it’s at the very bottom thanks to our politically correct, ignorance factory, public schools. There is also no reason why counselors and psychologists should be on that CTA gravy train either since most of the time they do more harm than good.

6. Freeze state government hiring especially in the upper echelons. Does California really need another $240K a year Investment Director, California State Teachers’   Retirement System?

7. Gut the Health and Human Services sub-departments. What are we doing with a Department of Aging? Or a Commission on Aging? And what the heck is a State-Local realignment Department? These are chair-warmer jobs.

8. Stop giving the Environmental Protection Department free rein to destroy property rights under the guise of saving the environment. One reason why housing prices are so artificially inflated in California is that it is nearly impossible to get new housing built and we wouldn’t be having an energy crisis if we could get new power stations erected. But we can’t and all because some dumb jerk of an enviro-weenie thinks a snail darter is more important than our health and well being.

9. Stop with all the arts grants. Endowments for the Arts are why God invented philanthropists. Besides, whoever is currently commissioning public works of art has bad taste. Fire them too and not only will you save their salary for the taxpayers but you will save all our collective eyesight while you are at it.

10. Let libraries be libraries where people go to enjoy books, magazines and newspapers instead of being unfair, government subsidized competition to video rental and   music stores. Why are taxpayers’ dollars going to stock local libraries with rap cds, violent video games and Japanese anime? Why do we need a state-funded Science Fiction library collection in Riverside?

With the passing of Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy along with the dissolution of the Center for Reclaiming America and the Center for Christian Statesmanship, the issue has arisen once again as to whether or not conservative Evangelicals should participate in political activity. Since things have not gotten any better and if anything continued their downward spiral since the advent of the contemporary conservative Evangelical movement popularly referred to as the "Religious Right", it has been suggested by some that politically interested Christians should be herded back into their pews to once again await the Apocalypse.

Interestingly, one of the foremost voices now opposed to conservative Evangelical political involvement is none other than columnist Cal Thomas, who at one time served as a Falwell underling as vice president of Moral Majority and spoke at Dr. Kennedy's Reclaiming America for Christ conference. Thomas, in a column analyzing the passing of his former colleague titled "The Legacy of Jerry Falwell", concludes of the Religious Right, "The movement also had its downside, because it tended to detract from a Christian's primary responsibility of telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ."

While there is a degree of truth to that as during the early to mid 90's at times it seemed Falwell's ministry did place too much emphasis hawking videotapes exposing the criminality of Bill Clinton and replaying week after week snippets of homosexual excesses to the point where one had to send children out of the room or have to explain why mommy and daddy's faces were turning red, some of this is more the fault of how the Evangelical subculture is structured sociologically than the result of Christian political participation per say.

All throughout Sunday school and the Christian day school environment, those spending most of their lives in this branch of the Christian faith are conditioned with the assumption that those holding professional ministry positions such as pastors and missionaries are some how a cut above the remainder of the congregation even though the traditional Protestant position held to the priesthood of all believers and that all moral work was as equally holy. As such, it is no wonder most believers are paralyzed unless there is a so-called "man of the cloth" there on the scene to direct their every movement. Thus, it was only natural that clergy such as Falwell and Kennedy would have to play prominent roles in these movements.

Ironically, at earlier stages in his career, Thomas was one of the most eloquent voices urging Christian youth to consider callings in fields other than professional ministry such as government, politics, and the media. He even one time quipped he did not recall any Christian being called to serve Christ part time.

However, now that he's had his career, Thomas concludes that "...a Christian's primary responsibility is telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ." If that's the case, is Thomas going to repose himself from commenting on sociopolitical matters in favor of more monastic or missional undertakings or is it part of a more natural inclination of not wanting to share notoriety. For in another column Thomas lamented the rise of consumer choice as exemplified by the growth of talk radio and the blogosphere and instead enunciated a preference that the masses all sup of the same information from the swill placed before them by traditional journalists as the nation's media gatekeepers.

When Thomas chastises Christians for participating in politics and the media since this detracts from time that should be spent directly sharing the Gospel, is he also going to level this charge against Christian physicians if they take the time to perform surgery rather than only praying for the patient's recovery? Likewise, what about the farmer that toils away all day in their fields as this is also time that could be spent in more religious pursuits.

I Corinthians 12:28 says to some God gave to be preachers, some evangelists, others government. Not everyone is cut out for the same purpose in life. As such, their level of interest and the way they contribute to the advancement of the Kingdom of God will varying by kind and degree.

Thomas writes, "But Christians must first understand that the issues they most care about --- abortion, same-sex marriage, and cultural rot --- are not caused by bad politics, but are matters of the heart and soul." While Thomas is correct that these problems won't ultimately be solved until people have a total renewing of the mind found through Christ's shed blood, it does not follow nothing else should be done to ameliorate the social impacts of these manifestations of man’s sin nature.

All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. In certain communities across the United States, whether or not I steal your car at a stoplight, plug your head with a bullet, and rape your mother as you lay their bleeding to death there on the pavement are as debated as the propriety of abortion and sodomite nuptials are in others. Does that mean in such jurisdictions those of good conscience should not insist that laws against these infractions should not be enforced since, well, the unrepentant apparently have few qualms or taboos against such alternative lifestyle choices?

The tendency of the human species is to take things to extremes. Luther remarked that man is like a drunkard banging his head into one wall and then the next. Granted, many believers have come to expect too much from politics as David Frum has remarked that the debate is no longer about reducing the size of government but rather about divvying up the fiscal spoils.

Many Christians probably did become dupes of the Republican Party at one point. Frankly, though, where else were they going to go?

At least the GOP would consider individualism construed through the prism of a Christian worldview. The Democratic Party has pretty much given itself over to debauchery and collectivism. If one tries really really hard one can count the number of worthwhile Democrats such as Zel Miller on one hand.

Though some Christians are loathe to admit it as they have been conditioned by overly pacifistic interpretation of passages such as turn the other cheek, sometimes Christian involvement is not about bringing the reprobates to a saving knowledge of Christ as fundamental and essential as that mission is. Rather it is about keeping these ravenous jackals away from you and what is rightfully yours.

Some might respond “But didn’t Jesus say to give them your cloak?” My friends, these blatant communalists want more than the shirt off your back. For they will stop at nothing until they not only have the souls of you and your children, but also the very house that you live in and the automobile that you drive if we adhere to the recommendations of the radical pietists if we as believers refrain from political matters such as property rights and environmental policy.

And if some preacher gets up there and blabbers on about how these are just material things we should give up willy nilly, see if he ever forgets to pass the collection plate or how antsy he gets when the IRS considers tweeking something in its code not even remotely related to the survival of religious liberty in this country such as exemptions on pastoral housing allowances. If the rest of us get hosed by revenuers, why not the clergy as well? Maybe then they won’t be so quick to bend their knee before the state’s Baphomet.

While some such as Cal Thomas seem to counsel disinvolvement from sociopolitical activism out of a sincere desire to retain doctrinal purity and separation, others embodying what in Fundamentalist circles is known as Neo-Evangelicalism do so for other reasons. Seeking to get along with other theologies for the sake of getting along, this perspective is endeavoring to take hypertolerance and unity to a whole new level even if it means downplaying or overlooking some of Scripture's most obvious mandates.

Ironically, though the word “mandate” means something else, one of the issues the Christian in the pews is being urged to keep quiet about is none other than “man dates”. For in the March/April 2007 issue of The Plain Truth Magazine, in the article “I Kissed Religion Goodbye”, Greg Albrecht lists as one of his complaints is that many churches expect members to “Vote and politically agitate in absolute, lockstep with pro-life and anti-homosexual views exactly the way your church promotes and endorses them”.

Unlike the war against terror over which sincere Christians can have differing interpretations as to how to best approach the issue, there is not much wiggle room there as to abortion and homosexuality. There is not really anyway around “Thou shalt not murder” and injunctions against carnal relations with members of the same sex unless Albrecht wants to come out and say that the unborn really aren’t human beings and that God did not create marriage to be between a man and a woman.

To many, these issues probably do seem to attract an inordinate amount of attention from conservative Evangelicals. But whose fault is that?

Would most believers even give buggery all that much thought if the gay rights movement was simply about what one did in the privacy of one's home. Seems to me, activist gays are the ones trying to get up in everyone's business as they attempt to penetrate the media, education, and now even ecclesiastical institutions.

Though opposition to such perversities should not become the sole focus of any balanced ministry as Christ died for these individuals also and one wants to avoid becoming unhinged like the Fred Phelps cult, if the churches of America are not going to stand up for the traditional family and marriage as being between a man and woman as the only legitimate form of marriage out of fear of whom they might offend, then they might as well empty the baptismal font and close up shop. For if they do deny the true nature of these fundamental human relationships, it won't be long until the true nature of the God that instituted them will be denied as well.

In the opening of his article, Albrecht laments the "mudslinging and negative rhetoric that ridiculed 'Democrats' and lavished unadulterated praise on all things Republican." Of this, the discerning Christian must ask was this an outright political endorsement of a particular candidate or party (as today I have a hard time imaging there are that many pastors with that much of a spine left willing to jeopardize their tax exempt status as a friend relayed to me how he was pressured to drop the word "liberal" from an article written for the newsletter of what is suppose to be an Independent Baptist Church).

If believers and churches can no longer mention in a nonpartisan context where the Christian faith lines up with the conservative Republican agenda nor condemn those things traditionally thought of as being more liberal Democrat in nature, how much longer until we are counseled by those whose fortunes and notoriety are derived from holding lucrative positions of ecclesiastical leadership to downplay more fundamental aspects of the Christian faith. Already, operatives of Rev. Moon have convinced a number of churches to remove crosses. Those caving so easily will no doubt next downplay the need to be saved from our sins and eventually the need for Jesus as Lord and Savior all together.

However, don't think Albrecht is calling for the complete expunging of politics from the socio-ecclesiastical enterprise all together. For the influence he would see taken out of the hands of conservatives, he gladly places in the hands of more liberal causes.

In a bullet point list of what he perceives as the errors of more conservative or traditional congregations, Albrecht writes in a flippant attempt at humor, "Don't worry about the environment, the poor, or global warming --- those liberal, do-gooder churches have programs for those kinds of things."

What Albrecht is criticizing here are believers who do not necessarily think spending more money and who do not think more government intervention into our lives is going to solve certain problems, that things are as bad as elites would have us believe, or think that people do not necessarily bear some responsibility for their own problems.

As to the poor, it has been my experience that often the most conservative or Fundamentalist of churches of the "old school" variety probably spend larger percentages of their overall incomes on missions and outreach to the individual poor in their immediate vicinity than more leftist evangelical and mainline churches that probably spend a greater percentage on making sure everyone else sees what they are supposedly doing for the poor.

As to the environment and global warming, frankly the jury is still out on this issue as to the following reasons. (1) Does global warming actually exist? (2) If it does, what is its exact cause? So by edicts handed down from on high without these questions being answered, does this mean the average person should forfeit much of their physical mobility just because of some whim of someone further up the bureaucratic hierarchy?

Of course, such restrictions do not apply to the self-appointed such as Greg Albrecht since such figures are so much more important than the rest of us as we Neanderthals would be lost without such guidance.

As to both the environment and poverty, it is questionable that mass scale approaches are the best approach for solving these issues. Often the aide sent to Africans ends up hindering their plight.

Likewise, the best way to save the environment is not by necessarily cordoning it off necessarily into untouchable preserves and by regulating the life out of property to the point where one cannot do anything with it as most sane people tend to care for something best when they are the ones that own it and have the largest say in how it is used.

While no Christian in his right mind advocates dirty water, to a growing number of Evangelicals this concern for the environment goes beyond keeping trash off the shoulder of the highway. Though I cannot speak to Greg Albrecht's views on the afterlife, from one of the snippy remarks made in his sarcastic bullet points one could come away with the impression that he is trodding dangerously close to embracing some of the assumptions of the Emergent Church crowd that the Kingdom of God is not so much a promise of a new heaven and a new earth but the continuation of this one in its current state. Frankly, if this world is all we've got, Christianity is a big waste of time and those snookered into it deserve a refund.

The hyperpious might begin to hyperventilate at such a bold proclamation; however, it is essentially a Biblical sentiment. I Corinthians 15:19 says, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”

One can deduce that Albrecht and those of like mind in the Emergent, Purpose Driven, and Church Growth movements don't place all that much importance upon the afterlife. For while certain eras of Church History such as the Middle Ages often placed too much emphasis on what comes next, these contemporary theologies don't emphasize it nearly enough.

In his tongue-in-cheek bullet points, Albrecht writes, "You need to believe in the hottest hell with billions being tortured. And you need to believe in the Rapture, the time when members of your church (at least those who are in good standing) escape hell on earth. Some call this time 'The Tribulation' --- a time when so many who richly deserve it will 'get their's'."

Sincere souls can disagree about the sequence of some of these foretold events. However, what they cannot do is deny that one day there will be some kind of ultimate accounting.

Though it has changed considerably, as a leader in the Worldwide Church Of God, frankly, Albrecht ought to be the last one to criticize an interest in eschatology as his sect or denomination was at one time infamous for their obsession with the topic. But like a former glutton that has lost all kinds of weight now telling everyone else that they eat too much, Albrect condemns as a fanatic anyone daring to suggest that there is an eerily increasing similarity between certain portions of Scripture such as Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation and certain political and technological developments.

Often those that run in Emergent Church circles foment the assumption that the image of a God of justice and wrath is somehow at odds with the image of God as a God of love. It is because He is a God of love and mercy that He must also be a God of justice and wrath.

The prospect of no eternal punishment for those outside the parameters by which God allows men to be saved (namely believing that one's own good is insufficient to accomplish this and only belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is going to get one to the Pearly Gates) in fact actually tarnishes those gates and makes the streets of Heaven all the more dim. For if God ends up letting anyone in irrespective of whether or not they are sorry for what they did even though God was willing to go to the extent of sacrificing His only begotten Son in order to make a spot for them with Him in eternity, that would make for a very weak God.

Though we as human beings have an innate tendency to avoid pain at all costs even if it means denying its existence, that does not eliminate it if we are unwilling to take the necessary steps. For example, if someone diagnosed with a horrible disease simply decides to say the disease of an uneducated and overactive imagination, that is not going to prevent it from ravaging the patient's body.

Then why do Modernist, Postmodernist, and Emergent theologians waltzing along the ledges of apostasy keep thinking that wishing away Hell's flames is going to make them any cooler? It has been estimated that Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did heaven; therefore, if we are to say that on this matter He is just plain wrong, then why are we to turn around and assume He's anymore correct about Heaven, His coming kingdom, or even the forgiveness of sins?

As to whether or not some Christians are vindictive about Hell has no bearing as to its existence. To say that it does is akin to saying the police department should be abolished entirely and criminals allowed to pillage through the streets simply because a few officers have abused the powers that have been vested in them.

It is only because the most orthodox of Christians believe that Hell as an actual place of torment exists that it seems to play such a prominent role in conservative theologies of varying stripes. While as fallen human beings it is easy from time to time for our anger to get the best of us and to wish someone to that dreaded realm that has ticked us off, those on the right side of the theological continuum do not emphasize the reality of Hell out of some perverse desire to see the unrepentant tossed into the Abyss but rather so that the greatest number might be able to avoid this destination of unimaginable torment.

Thus in recap, among Evangelicals such as Albrecht wanting to look cool in the eyes of the world, Heaven is downplayed in favor of a utopian kingdom. Relatedly, Hell is downplayed for fear of casting bad PR on a loving God and because it makes the unbelieving uncomfortable. Kind of makes you wonder the point of giving one's life to Christ if some saintly grandmother that loved the Lord her entire life is going to endure the same fate as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin since it is highly doubtful these genocidal reprobates pleaded for mercy on the Blood of Christ before leaving this world.

Over the past few decades, at times Evangelicals have taken political activism to extents that can understandably cause concern among the discerning. However, to disengage to the extent some now suggest would also prove equally disastrous.

By Frederick Meekins

In this epsiode of the Conecience of Kansas radio program, I interview Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters. Next, I talk to Nicole Matthews of PETA about the Obama fly killing incident.  Next, I interview conservative political cartoonist Zack Rawsthorne, author of "Diversity Lane". We invite you to listen and comment of the show!

  to listen to the show click here