I originally posted this in 2013, but it is, perhaps, even more relevant in today’s political climate. Is it possible for conservatives of every stripe, who feel like their respective Party has left them behind, to work together toward returning this nation back to Constitutional principles?
I found myself pondering this question today. Are there any Conservative “Democrats” left? I have to think that there must still be some “Reagan” or “Blue Dog” Democrats left out there who would agree with Conservative “Republicans” like me on the majority of the big problems facing this nation – Government growing far beyond its Constitutional scope, $17+ trillion deficits, printing money like it’s going out of style, rewarding people who break our laws by entering illegally with citizenship, etc., etc. Yes, there will be some issues where we would disagree, but I think it would probably fall into the 80/20 rule.
I just finished reading a book by Doug Stanton called “Horse Soldiers”. It tells the true story of the U.S. Special Operations Force that went into Afghanistan shortly after we were attacked on 9/11. This relatively small force, about 50 guys to begin with, were dropped in to work with the leaders of the Afghan army that had been fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda for years trying to take back their country. The mission of the soldiers was to work with those leaders, to provide support and expertise where they could, but ultimately it was up to the Afghans to do most of the fighting to get their country back. Amazingly, in a relatively short time, the combination of the two forces got the initial job done, and forced the Taliban into the shadows. By working with the Afghan generals, and not trying to push their ideas on them or just solve problems with a gun, these soldiers came to be thought of as brothers to the Afghan generals.
At the end of the book, Mr. Stanton said one thing that really stuck with me. It was regarding why the beginning of the war in Afghanistan went so well, and why the war in Iraq didn’t: “Instead, the crisis of a particular moment was fixed by crouching in the dirt with a stick, opposite the ‘opponent’, and scratching out a solution. This method, though time intensive, can be far more effective and lasting than kicking down doors, guns blazing…” In Iraq, the decision was made to “fire” the Iraq National Army by disbanding it. One of those key to the early success in Afghanistan said, “Ambassador Bremer has sent 500,000 young men home with their weapons, after we’ve bombed their country. They’re angry. In the end, they won’t be on our side.” He was right.
So, with that model in mind, would it be possible for Conservatives of different “labels” (Republican or Democrat) to work together to get strong Conservatives into office regardless of their Party affiliation? Would those Conservative candidates be strong enough to stand up to the Party establishment on both sides, and do what’s right regardless of what the Party may want? Can we get past some of the less crucial issues that separate us right now, and work together to elect candidates that will represent the people of this country, and not just be a party stooge?
And, through doing this, might we just change both Parties back to something we can live with?
There was a poll released today on how Young Americans (the “Millenials”) are turning away from Obama, Obamacare and the Democrat Party in general. They don’t like where our government is taking this country, or what it’s doing to their future prospects. Granted, they aren’t too keen on the Republicans either, but surprisingly, the numbers for Republicans in this poll were up slightly.
It sounds to me like they are ready for a change. I wonder if they would be interested in working together on taking this country back from the brink of Socialism.
Anyone who knows me well, knows I’m a died in the wool Conservative, and that I’ve felt that the Republican Party is just as infested with Progressive lovers of Big Government as the Democrat Party. Many of the Conservative pundits have made an observation, with which I totally agree, that the Republican Party is ashamed of their Conservative base. I have to wonder…does the same apply to the Democrat Party? To listen to the media, all Democrats are as liberally Progressive as the leadership of the Party. Is that true?
My grandfather, who only voted for Democrats until Ronald Reagan, started taking a close look at the Party he’d stuck with his entire life during the time of Jimmy Carter. He saw the Party moving further and further to the left, and that was not where he wanted to go. He felt like so many others when he voted for Reagan…he didn’t leave the Party, the Party left him. Are there more like him out there today?
In this nation so strongly divided when it comes to politics, is it possible for Conservatives of all stripes to combine forces for the good of this country? I think yes. In a story from The Blaze today, a group of young people, most who identify as young liberty activists, got together to have fun, and raise funds for a Conservative Congressman’s re-election campaign. Said the organizer for the evening, “We really have a great group of young people who want to advance liberty…”
Advancing Liberty…I think that is something Conservatives of every Party can get behind.
Today, January 27, 2017, is a dual day of remembrance. First, it is Holocaust Remembrance Day – the day we remind ourselves to never forget that one man tried his very best to exterminate a race of people, and to renew the vow of “never again”. And, second, today was the March for Life in Washington DC to stand for the life in the womb.
Do you realize, that since Roe v. Wade was upheld in the Supreme Court in 1973, more than 55 million American lives have been snuffed out before they even had a chance to pursue the happiness they are guaranteed under the Constitution? If this were in any other context, it would, rightly, be called a genocide.
Let’s compare it to the other genocides that took place in the last century:
- Hitler and the Nazis exterminated an estimated 11 million people during their reign. 6 million of those were Jews.
- Stalin and the Communists of the Soviet Union caused the “unnatural deaths” of an estimated 20 – 60 million people.
- Mao Zedong and the Communists in China executed an estimated 45 million people in 4 years.
- Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge murdered approximately 1.5 million people in their 4-year reign of terror.
- In Rwanda, over the course of 100 days, the Hutu extremists attempted to wipe out the entire Tutsi population, and they succeeded in murdering between 800,000 – 1 million people.
In each of the examples above, the perpetrators were condemned for what they did. We look at the photos of the bodies piled up, the mass graves, and we are horrified.
Yet, in the United States, the only land with a guaranteed right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, more human beings have been exterminated than all but the Soviet government under Stalin.
And, we say it is our “right” to do this.
Where are the rights of the unborn human being growing in its mother’s womb? Because, whether you want to admit it or not, the woman is not going to be giving birth to a Buick or a giraffe. That individual inside of her is, genetically, a human being. It is not just a “blob of cells”. Well, not after the first few weeks anyway.
Most women don’t really realize they are pregnant until around week 12-13. This ultrasound shows a 13-week old baby. A baby with a head, body, arms and legs, etc. It is certainly more than a blob of cells.
But, if you can imagine, there are science deniers on the liberal side of the political aisle who look at this ultrasound and say that what is there is not a person. They cannot define when “personhood” begins, but it’s not at this stage.
Again, this is not a typewriter – it is a human being.
The Atlantic published an article on January 24th with the headline: “How Ultrasound Became Political”. No great bombshell there. No, that comes with the sub-headline: “The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.”
Wow…conspiracy theory much?
The article was in response to a bill that Republicans proposed called the “Heartbeat Protection Act” that would require doctors nationwide to “check for a fetal heartbeat” before performing an abortion, and prohibit them from performing one if the heartbeat is detected.
The article then goes on to tell the history of the ultrasound – how it was developed as “stealth technology” for underwater applications – and then goes on with such winning commentary as “ultrasound made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.”
There is one line in this article that really betrayed the author’s true feelings about the subject: “For them, “informed consent” laws add insult to inconvenience, slowing down their access to care while belittling their ability to make decisions about their own bodies.”
The key word in that sentence is “inconvenience”. That is the heart of the abortion fight. It is not whether the fetus in the womb is a child or just a clump of unfeeling cells. It is about the fact that the woman would be inconvenienced by carrying that child.
Is it inconvenient to be pregnant when you’re not ready for it? Yes, I expect it is.
Whose fault is it that you’re pregnant? Yours.
It is a harsh reality, but reality nonetheless. The only “choice” in the equation is whether or not to have sex. If you ask yourself prior to the act, “am I ready to potentially end up pregnant?”, and the answer is “no”, then you’d darn well better not be having sex.
There is no 100% sure form of birth control but abstinence, and it is not the innocent unborn child’s fault that you were not responsible.
Really…how inconvenient is it? It is 9 months out of your life, only about 4 of those that may prove really “inconvenient”. There are millions of couples in this country who are desperate to adopt a child, yet find themselves having to go outside the country to adopt babies because there are not enough babies here for adoption.
Imagine the joy that could be brought to a childless couple for a few months of “inconvenience”.
I must admit…I am floored by my friends who say, “I am anti-abortion, but I don’t want the government telling women what they can and can’t do with their own bodies.” There is no logic in that. The second part of that statement completely negates the first part.
One of the few constitutional jobs our government has is the protection of life, and if you are for life, then you have to understand that there are times when the government must step in to protect that life if you are not going to.
However, I would rather women wake up to the reality that it is up to us. We are the ones who will have to bear the consequences, quite literally, of our decisions and actions. Choose responsibility in the clear light of day. Should you decide to go forward with the act of sex, then do so with your eyes wide open. Don’t punish the baby that may come from it because you made a choice that is no longer convenient.
I dream of a world where no child is ever “unwanted” again. That each life that is sparked in a woman’s womb will be allowed to breathe the air of this world, and grow into the individual God intended them to be. That they will be a part of a family that will love them, even if they are not blood of that family.
I believe in the future history will not regard us well. Future generations, I expect, will look back at these decades of mass murder of the unborn, and refer to it as the American Genocide.
From the very beginning God was undoubtedly clear: His chosen people are the Jews, and Israel is the home that He provided for them. He made a covenant with Abraham that stands to this day (and anyone who tries to tell you differently is calling God a liar and oath breaker), and He laid out exactly what would happen to those who stood with, or against, Israel.
In Genesis 12:3 (ISV): I’ll bless those who bless you, but I’ll curse the one who curses you, and through you all the people of the earth will be blessed.
Just in case He didn’t make himself clear with that one, He followed up with:
Numbers 24:9 (ISV): He crouches, laying low like a lion. Who would awaken him? Those who bless you are blessed, and those who curse you are cursed.
Why do I bring this up? Because I believe that, until recently, the United States has been blessed for two reasons:
1) Our Founders made a covenant with God that this nation would stand on His principles.
2) We were the first nation to recognize Israel as a nation within 7 minutes of the resolution passing the UN in 1948.
Have you ever wondered why a nation, not even 300 years old, has managed to storm the world stage as the undisputed Super Power, when nations that have been around a thousand years or more did not do it?
I contend it was our commitment to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and our support of His chosen people as they have grown to be a strong nation.
That is why the decision of the Obama Administration not to veto UN Resolution 2334, and the speech made on Wednesday by Secretary of State John Kerry to defend that decision are so very disappointing, and disturbing to me.
If you read the text of UN Resolution 2334 (2016), it is 90% bad, bad Israel, and “oh, as an afterthought, Palestine – you need to tell your people to quit promoting terrorism against civilians.” – which is only in there because the U.S. (supposedly) insisted on “strong” language about the Palestinian terrorism.
In fact, the “strong” language is so vague in point 6 of the Resolution (“Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror (emphasis added), as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism”), that I can’t tell if they are talking about Israel or Palestine.
Let’s just forget, for the moment, that the Palestinians voted in a terrorist organization (Hamas) to run their government. Oh, and before that their government was run by another terrorist organization the PLO. Oh, and we just need to ignore the fact that they glorify their “martyrs” by hanging banners with their photos on them around their cities. Oh, and we shouldn’t bring up the fact that every time Israel has given in to the majority of their demands, the Palestinian leadership has walked away from the negotiating table proving they are not looking for peace.
Once again, as in his days as an Illinois State Senator, and then United States Senator, this President chose to vote “present”, rather than take a hard stand. Although, if Secretary Kerry’s speech is any indication of the true feelings of this Administration, I don’t think he ever meant to stand with Israel.
Despite his multiple protestations of support by this Administration for Israel throughout his speech, Secretary Kerry was rather one-sided in his condemnation, with a grand majority of it falling on Israel.
Even a long-time liberal like Alan Dershowitz had to take him to task for the vote and body of the speech:
”The speech itself was as one-sided as the abstention. It failed to mention the repeated offers from Israel to end the occupation and settlements, and to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza: Arafat’s rejection of the Clinton-Barak proposals in 2000-2001: and Abbas’ failure to respond to the Olmert offer in 2008.
Kerry also discussed the Palestinian refugee, without even mentioning the equal member of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries.
Finally Kerry, seemed to confirm that in his view any changes from the pre-1967 lines would not be recognized without mutual agreement. This means that the prayer plaza at the Western Wall, the access roads to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now all illegally occupied.
This is, of course, a non-starter for Israelis. It is also wrong as a matter of history and law. Jordan captured these historically Jewish areas in 1948 when all the surrounding Arab countries attacked the new Jewish nation in an attempt to destroy it.
When Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967, Israel recaptured these Jewish areas and allowed Jews to return to them. That is not an illegal occupation. It is a liberation.
The primary barrier to the two-state solution remains the Palestinian unwillingness to accept the U.N. resolution of 1947 calling for two states for two peoples — the Jewish people and the Arab people.”
Occupation: That is a word used at least 6 times in Secretary Kerry’s speech, and the UN Resolution refers to Israel as “the occupying Power”. I don’t remember any other “occupying Power” allowing the “occupied” people to hold positions in their government, yet Palestinians who are citizens of Israel make up a number of positions in the Knesset and other branches of Israeli government. I don’t know of a single Jew/Israeli living in the Palestinian territories who have been allowed to be a part of the Palestinian government.
In an article from the Wall Street Journal: “The obstacle is Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in any borders.” “The reality is that the resolution denies Israel legal claims to the land—including Jewish holy sites such as the Western Wall—while reversing the traditional land-for-peace formula that has been a cornerstone of U.S. diplomacy for almost 50 years. In the world of Resolution 2334, the land is no longer Israel’s to trade for peace.” “But the effect of Mr. Kerry’s efforts will be to put it further out of reach. Palestinians will now be emboldened to believe they can get what they want at the U.N. and through public campaigns to boycott Israel without making concessions. Israelis will be convinced that Western assurances of support are insincere and reversible.”
So, what does all this come down to in terms of God’s promises to curse those who stand against His chosen people?
I find it interesting that over the last 8 years we have had an Administration who has professed their “friendship” to Israel, yet have actively worked against her. This President has been rude to Prime Minister Netanyahu on more than one occasion, and even going so far as to use our tax payer dollars to actively work against the Prime Minister in Israel’s last elections.
Kind of ironic given his response to the “interference” (supposedly) of the Russians in our elections this year.
And it is not just the current Administration. Many churches, and businesses, have joined the BDS (Boycott, Diversify, Sanction) movement against Israel over the last 10-15 years. Many of the churches believe that the God withdrew his favor when Jerusalem was destroyed in 72 AD, and that the Christian Church has replaced the Jews as His Chosen. However, to believe that is to call God a liar.
Over the last decade or so:
- Our economy has tanked, with only a sickly recovery at best.
- Our standing in the world has plummeted to joke status.
- “Lone wolf” attacks began happening, starting with Ft. Hood
- Our national debt has reached a point of no return (there is no way on God’s green earth that we will ever be able to eliminate it – we’ll just be paying the interest for generations)
- …and so much more.
I pray that with the new incoming Administration, our policy toward Israel will return to being one of a blessing to them, and that 2017 will see a turning to God in this nation as we have not seen since 2001. I believe that, by following both of those paths, we will see the tangible blessings from God that He so greatly wants to shower upon us.