A Bit of Heat

Ok, so I have taken a little heat from the last article I posted. – Some of it self-inflicted, to be sure. I am a bit frustrated with myself for feeling the way I do. I don’t want it to seem as if I am against Rand Paul’s recent filibuster; I really am not.

Many of the people I admire and respect in the political realm have commented, or written editorials on Senator Rand Paul’s recent filibuster which ended up being about firing drones on US citizens. 

I unequivocally agree with these responses.  The government should never be able to attack our citizens in any form. I want to make it clear, that I support Rand Paul in doing this.  He had every right to do so. It is absolute insanity to think that the government might have a right to fire one of these drones on an American. But despite all of that, I really feel like we are missing something here.

What’s bothering me is what is beneath the surface, and yes I think there is something. What’s bothering me is the further division and attacks it has caused among Republicans; and yes it has caused some.

Without a doubt, John McCain and Lindsey Graham should not have criticized Senator Paul! But in my opinion, neither should the tea party have fired back. This is getting us no where, except more division in our party.  And the truth of the matter, just maybe McCain and Graham had a right to be somewhat concerned at the timing and possible grandstanding of Paul’s actions.

I believe each of these men have their good points in regard to what they want to achieve for our nation. At the root of their differences, however, is who they see as the bigger enemy – it is a difference in ideology. Paul, like his dad, believes it is our government that we need to fear more than anything else at this time. McCain and Graham have a more traditional view of our foreign policy and national defense and take a more hawkish stance on radical Islam. I also believe they have a more realistic view of our enemy, in regard to the militancy of Islam. I think this extreme ideological difference is the root of the actual problem these two senators have with Senator Paul.

In fact, I believe the concern and the division it is causing is strictly out of ideological differences. Rand Paul sees the government as a bigger threat to Americans then he does radical Islam. He opposes the war, would cut our defense and takes more of an isolationist view in our nation’s "intervening" in these areas. We have known for some time that Rand Paul is in favor of cutting defense and has in the past proposed cutting the State Department by 71 percent. That’s huge!

Graham and McCain are more traditional in their support of the war and military and I believe both have a more accurate pulse on what is happening in regard to radical Islam.

I believe Paul’s choice in making this (i.e. the filibuster of John Brennan- which turned into a filibuster over drones on US citizens) the focus of his attention at this time, gives a clear view of where his concerns are. As example: Why didn’t Paul filibuster the Secretary of Defense nomination: Chuck Hagel? There were huge concerns over this nomination in regard to Senator Hagel being the most anti-Israel senator, in our nation's history!  And what about John Kerry as Secretary of State! Where is Paul's concern about that?

Charles Krauthammer recently wrote a great article about how in the end, it seems as though Paul is really concerned about drone attacks anywhere, rather than just about attacks on our citizens on US soil. And that this may really be about Paul’s strong distaste for this war and our attentions there.

You can read Krauthammer’s poignant thoughts here. 

And yes, there was a bit of grandstanding going on, I believe. Even Senator Paul admitted to that.  Maybe Paul’s real intentions were as Krauthammer says to stand against drone attacks anywhere, not just on US soil. Maybe this was really about the attack on al-Awlaki in Yemen. You can read my thoughts about that here.  If that is the case, then Paul's filibuster is in actuality a protest over the war on terror. We might believe then, it is also about Paul's desire to cut military spending, for which he is known. It therefore wouldn't be too great a leap for us to believe this is all because of his isolationist views. None of this is too far-fetched, in my opinion. That’s where I direct my concerns over the questionable reason for this filibuster. Now that is getting to the underlying current that has been bothering me. Drones fired on US soil?  uh uh...it just ain't happenin'.

Regardless of any of this, Rand Paul's timing was perfect in regard to the attention it brought him just before CPAC and their straw poll for 2016.

Now believe me, I understand the concern over our government gaining more power over us, especially in regard to this administration.I flat-out do NOT trust Obama nor anyone in his administration, for that matter. That's why getting this administration to admit something like Paul got them to admit, means absolutely nothing. Obama does what he wants. But, if we do not take serious the threat we have in radical Islam, I think we make a serious mistake. 

I simply find it interesting that Senator Paul has not thrown any further support in the effort to find out what happened in Benghazi.  Yes, he came out strong initially; especially when he told Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that he "would have fired her had he been President"! That statement encouraged me; I was cheering him on and singing his praises. His strong determination and resolve during those hearings was admirable. Actually, he was fantastic in those hearings, as was Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin. But it wasn't long before we started to see a bit of what Paul really believed after his questioning of Hillary Clinton. He seems to believe the US is deserving of these kinds of attacks, when we stick our noses (in his opinion) where it doesn’t belong.

If that isn’t the case, then why has he dropped the issue, now? Why isn’t he working with Senator Graham in his efforts to get to the bottom of Benghazi? What happened in Benghazi is reprehensible, and that we continue to let the Obama administration get away with this type of action is frightening.

It simply seems to me Paul has dropped the ball on that, - though Lindsey Graham continues the fight - Paul instead has focused his intentions on the issue of possible drone strikes on Americans.  I simply question why. I find myself thinking Charles Krauthammer has a point in regard to there being something more.

I trust and like Senator Paul more than I do his father, but it simply troubles me that he chose to make a greater point out of distrust of our own government, than he did on follow up of Benghazi; or this war on terror; or an appointment like Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and an appointment like John Kerry as Secretary of State. I think his lack of action on these issues speaks to his world view; and I hate to think that his actions - or lack of action on certain critical problems- might be out of his disdain for America that his father so often showed. In fact, Senator Paul's recent behavior is classic Ron Paul behavior.

With the Paul’s, it seems, it always comes down to everything being America’s fault, or the old-school Republicans fault, or that the two parties are (again, in his opinion) one and the same!  

“Speaking of the two parties Paul said: ‘They all agree that we should be involved everywhere around the world and that we should give unlimited weaponry to every side of every conflict all around the world and that we should extend foreign aid without conditions,’ he said.”

That is simply an inaccurate portrayal of our party; but making a criticism like that certainly resonates with our citizens, because NO ONE wants to see this kind of foreign aid!

The thought that the two parties aren’t any different is in actuality very damaging! Again, it simply isn’t true and I might add, especially with the new conservatives that are coming into their own within the party.

Why doesn’t Senator Paul put the same effort that he makes in these attacks of others to simply working within the system to correct what has gone awry? Instead he seems to constantly try to make himself the hero and everyone else the villain.

He is not far from his dad, on the continual bashing of fellow Republicans and pointing to himself as the only one who gets it…the lone wolf trying to fight the battle alone. I just don’t think that is accurate.  And even if it is accurate, these Republicans need to find a way to work together and come to an agreement that is best for our UNION.

In reality, both father and son seem to have the same anti-colonial view of America that Barack Hussein Obama has. They simply have such a view of America for different reasons than that of Obama. But the reason doesn’t really matter because the end result is going to be the same. It is going to take us to the same place – the inaccurate belief that America is at fault and “Imperialistic America” is to blame for all the ills of the world.

In an article at World Net Daily, though written from a supporting perspective that makes some great points as to why we need to follow up the investigation into Benghazi, we also get a view of what Senator Paul really believes.

“He said the backdrop is that the attack was a consequence of America’s interventionist foreign policy.

There he goes; blaming America! And our "interventionist foreign policy"!

“We should really be thinking to whom we give weapons,” he said.

“For years we gave weapons to the mujahedeen and bin Laden when they were fighting the Soviets. So we were in favor of radical jihad for over a decade,” he said.

Really? This was supposedly during President Reagan's time. Are we really going to believe that Reagan gave weapons to bin Laden? This is simply not factual. But it is certainly a myth that continues to propagate among certain circles! Rand sounds just like his dad on this issue delving into an inaccurate belief, that even if it were true, would have little relevance today!

He suggested the Obama administration is making a similar mistake “in a slightly different fashion by giving F-16s and Abrams tanks to Egypt.”

When asked if he has any reason to believe Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., will be a better secretary of state than Clinton, Paul said, “I think they’re identical, and they’re identical to many of the Republicans.”

He said it appears the parties in Washington are not that far apart on some issues.”

Now I totally agree with Paul on the issue of not giving our money, guns, tanks and fighter jets to our enemies; and yes, since the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt, we should consider Egypt our enemy! This is insanity at best and what some (including myself) consider treason by our leadership. I also agree with Senator Paul that John Kerry is as frightening as Hillary Clinton in the office of Secretary of State. What I don’t like is that he lumps both parties into the same position. When will we see a Paul defend the Republican Party - at least defend the traditional platform?

To be fair, I also want to include some sources that reveal the inappropriate comments of Senators McCain and Graham. I do wish they had not attacked Senator Paul; rather, making their points another way. Their comments and actions only hurt their cause. Chris Stirewalt, at Fox News, makes some good points.

"Rather than do what other moderates and hawks had done and let Paul have his moment whilst gently reminding their constituents that killing bad guys was very important, McCain and Graham mocked and derided Paul and his supporters.

It was stunningly bad politics. McCain and Graham may pride themselves on being tough-minded realists when it comes to the war on militant Islamists, but to sneer at “libertarian kids” and mock Paul after his principled stand won’t get them anywhere in their goals of keeping the U.S. on a war footing.

Instead, it just told some of those folks who were intrigued by Paul’s stand that the Republican Party was not interested in having their support. A Republican captivated the country by doing something other than losing a fight with Obama, and McCain and Graham tried to undo it.

Am I going to have to admit I’m wrong about this – that I’m wrong about Rand Paul?

I don’t think so. But the debate is definitely on about libertarians in the Republican Party. And as you can see by the above quote, I am not the only one talking about it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 

You can hear Senator Graham's concerns and passion about Benghazi in this video: Lindsey Graham on Benghazi

Listen to this video, please. I think you will find it interesting:  McCain

I simply have to agree with Senator McCain. He gets right to the heart of the issue in this video and though Shepherd Smith didn’t realize it, I’m sure, he expressed my concern best when he said Senator Paul's libertarian view is actually more closely aligned with the views of the left.  That’s what bothers me most!

I, for one, am going to fight the libertarian intrusion into the traditional Republican platform.

I’m pretty sure, in spite of the heat – self inflicted, or not – in the end, I have gotten it right. I may not totally like it, because I despise defending the more liberal John McCain, as well as Lindsey Graham; but for this subject, I believe I have chosen the right side. Because as Shepherd Smith unwittingly told us in the above video; on this issue, Paul is more closely aligned with the left. I couldn't agree more.

*As a final note, I want to include a recent video of an interview by Tucker Carlson with Charles Krauthammer after CPAC. Charles makes some interesting comments in regard to the future direction of the Republican Party. His comments about Rand Paul are particularly interesting, as well as accurate, which offers credence to what I have stated here.

 

If We Dare Believe Him...

The recent old-fashioned filibuster by Senator Rand Paul over CIA director John Brennan made me feel proud, as well as thankful that attention was brought to an important issue. This filibuster pointed to the fact that the Obama administration would not admit that it would be unconstitutional to fire a drone at an American citizen on US soil. Such a thought is horrendous and difficult to conceive! After all is done however, and looking at what was accomplished by this filibuster - though I hate to say it - it does seem that we may have the cart before the horse.

With the threat we have from North Korea at this time; with the always ever present threat our ally, Israel is under; with growing antagonism by Iran to try to influence the support we give to Israel; with Egypt now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood; and with our unsecured borders and immigration problems, it seems to me in comparison to those problems, firing drones on US citizens is not an imminent threat.

Did we really accomplish anything by this filibuster? Brennan was still confirmed. Yes, Paul was able to hear the administration say it would be unconstitutional to fire a drone at a citizen on US soil.  I guess that would mean something, if we could trust this administration!

Now, I am not saying the drone issue is a concern that should be ignored. Of course, we do not ever want to assume or allow ourselves to be governed on “intentions” as the President recently eluded referring to that topic; but we are also in a dialogue in regard to our enemy, as well as this war, that has yet to be concluded.

We have not yet clearly defined our enemy, of whom we may find at home or abroad. We have not yet even clearly defined this war in which we find ourselves. War on Terror?  Or “Overseas Contingency”? Terrorist attack? Or “Workplace Violence”? Until this discussion is finished, we are premature in assuming the worst about our government; we forget we ARE the government and we the people, are still in control.

Now when I first heard of Paul’s filibuster, I was pleased. Of course I agree with his thoughts and concerns.  We all should. But something was bothering me, and I couldn’t quite pinpoint it.  I knew Paul was right about what he was saying.  It was like a no-brainer.  Of course we don’t want it to be legal for our government to fire on a US citizen. We are already protected by this in our Constitution. And I understand fully the fact, that to keep that protection by our Constitution, it will continually require diligence and sometimes unpopular actions such as additional amendments. I always want to expect that diligence from our leaders and citizens, but there was something that still bothered me about Paul’s filibuster.

I knew it bothered me that the filibuster ended up being more about the drone attacks than it did about whether Brennan should be confirmed our not. The confirmation of John Brennan is what was taking place – that was the issue, but what it turned into was only the concern over the possible drone attacks by an administration that may get out of control. Brennan’s confirmation needed to be addressed. In my opinion, Brennan absolutely should not have been confirmed, but all of that was lost.  And in the end, of course there were enough votes to support Brennan. I think we all knew, including Rand Paul, that this would be the case.

When Paul came out and claimed victory for forcing the administration to admit it would not be Constitutional to fire drones on Americans, that of course was an admirable thing. I am so thankful for that outcome; but again, it only matters if we can believe it.

I also couldn’t help but wonder if there was a bit of political posturing going on, and a hope of gaining a political advantage was, in fact, the actual goal all along. Paul certainly got his name out there, and became known in a positive way to voters that in reality don’t often pay too much attention too politics.

I am sure it is common knowledge that Rand Paul will be seeking the Presidential nomination in 2016. He hasn’t really tried to hide that fact. I knew it would be his intentions when I saw him pose in front of an American flag, as well as an Israeli flag, several months ago.  Paul has some damage control to do over his position of supporting Israel. He blew it big time a few years ago when he authored a bill to withdraw financial support to Israel. The outcry from US citizens (translated voters) was enormous.  So much so he had to withdraw the bill. I am thankful for that outcry and that Senator Paul responded appropriately.

The biggest problem for me that I saw over the filibuster issue, was the fact when we are constantly attacking our government, who does it really help? The communists would have loved this back in the day for that was one of their goals – to put the citizens at odds with their leaders and government; and to breed disdain for ones country. When the conspiracy theories abound that our government is doing this and they are doing that, we are in effect undermining our own government, and even creating a “we the citizens can’t do anything” atmosphere.  People then don’t want to even bother trying to change anything; they even become discouraged at voting. They believe the hype and rhetoric they hear in the media. We join the mantra of attacks on America. American exceptionalism is lost.

But even as important as all of that is, what is even more crucial is that we are redefining the enemy and making ourselves the foe. It causes us to forget there is an actual adversary we are fighting that is far more dangerous than our own government. We focus our attentions on the wrong issue.

John McCain tried to say as much, but he clearly went about it the wrong way.  Attacking Senator Paul rather than giving him the support he deserved, was inappropriate. McCain should have supported Paul or at least acknowledged the senator’s concern while pointing out the other things that also needed to be addressed.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham were questioned and attacked as to why they would criticize Rand Paul in his endeavor, rather than support him. While I disagree with McCain and Graham in the manner they handled this situation, they do have a point.  “I am far more worried about an attack from Al Qaeda and other enemies than I am about our own government.” John McCain told us. I could not agree more!

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice wrote an excellent article in regard to Obama’s flim-flam attitude about this war - which by the way Congress declared with a bi-partisan vote. I hope you will take a few minutes to read Jay’s article. He addresses some very important points. While at first glance one may not see the correlation between firing drones on US citizens to Sekulow’s points in this article, it is indeed there.

We haven't clearly defined this war, our enemy, military tribunals versus civilian courts, and even enhanced interrogation procedures. Therein exists the problem. This lack of understanding and explanation over these issues is creating unforeseen problems and leaving us ineffective in the handling of these problems. How are we going to deal with the enemies among us? Whether we want to admit it or not, they are indeed here in America. I certainly don’t want a sitting President to be the one that decides who should be singled out for attack, and frighteningly we seem to slowly be removing that responsibility from the military. Let’s hear that conversation first. The discussion about this war is far from over while we have an adversary that is invading and succeeding in their agenda because of our floundering, fighting amongst ourselves and other distractions.

Of course I'm not saying attacks on our citizens should ever be allowed, but we do need to recognize we have a dangerous enemy here that needs our attention and needs to be clearly defined. We need a dialogue that will take us to the point of how we are going to deal with that foe. Defining the enemy first, will have a direct consequence in regard to targeting people that should not be targeted and protecting our citizens not only from our government, if need be, but from those that are dangerous among us.

In my opinion, the actions of those we are at war with shouldn’t be handled in civilian courts with the same rights as civilians! This is a military issue. Secrets and intelligence will be given up in a civilian court by a rampant, biased press. We are in uncharted water, with a combatant we have never experienced before. We need to get it figured out. What are we going to do about the enemy within? That is the issue that should be addressed first and foremost. We have an unfinished dialogue.

Focusing on the obvious, like making sure citizens aren’t attacked at a President’s discretion has its place and must be addressed; but there are many more fiercely important issues that need to be defined and addressed first. Attacks on US soil will undoubtedly come into that discussion and well they must. But this administration has no clear policy in regard to our enemy here in our homeland, or overseas. This President does what he wants at the moment and he has absolutely no consistency in any of his actions or beliefs.
 
In the beginning, Rand Paul stated that this filibuster was about the confirmation of John Brennan - that was the issue of the moment. Yes, we need to know where this administration stands on the drone issue, especially after hearing the President’s waffling on that issue. So it is a wonderful thing the President was forced to make a statement. But again, only if we dare believe him!  How can we place faith in only his words? He has said a number of things on a number of issues only to do the opposite. This President does what he wants.

In the end, what are we really seeing?  We are again seeing the battle between the moderates and the conservatives - what some call the “Rino’s” (I refuse to use that term as I see it as destructive) and the Tea Party. In the end, the Republicans are at each other’s throats again. Maybe we should give some thought to the term “Divide and Conquer” and understanding there might be someone seeking that end in regard to the Republican party.

 

I believe in the final outcome, we saw some grandstanding by a potential candidate for the 2016 election. And when politicians start attacking our government and one another, as well as inciting fear into our citizens for political gain, they have gone far beyond their realm of duties.

I don't want to defend John McCain and Lindsey Graham over Rand Paul. I really don't. Shame on both of these men for voting to confirm. But in regard to Paul's filibuster, perhaps in their years of experience (especially with McCain's military experience) McCain and Graham in fact, did see other issues that also need to be addressed which are being unwittingly overlooked, and by what may even be viewed by some as grandstanding. I certainly see a few issues I would like addressed first. I want this administration to admit we have a dangerous enemy among us.  I want Congress and the President to never forget Al Qaeda declared war on us! I want our leaders to acknowledge that North Korea has threatened us with a missle attack. I want our President to be prepared to deal with Hamas who just this week threatened him with war if he dare set foot at the Temple Mount during his pending trip to Israel. What are we going to do about these issues? Seems to me there are a whole lot of distractions taking place, that aren't really leading to any set policies, even if we did get the President to simply state the obvious.

I also wish we would see a Republican Party that would begin to work together and stop this childish back-biting. With whatever goal is sought, it always seems to end with a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. And Obama wins again. At least he tells us he does...if we dare believe him.

"We don't need a new idea. There is an idea: the idea is called America, and it still works."   ~ Senator Marco Rubio - at CPAC

 

The Hal Lindsey Report ~ March 8, 2013

 

March 8th, 2013

This week on 'The Hal Lindsey Report'

 

President Obama is planning a visit to Israel later this month. So far, the White House has not released the dates of the trip nor the President's full itinerary. Neither has it stipulated his agenda, other than that he would be discussing a "broad range of issues," including Iran and Syria, with Israeli leaders.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, made no mention of the Palestinian issue in his most recent statement to the press. That's interesting because during the President's first term, his people said he would only visit Israel if his presence would substantially advance the peace process.

Now, he's not even hyping his ability to solve the crisis.

Why the change? Maybe he's discovering the same intransigence the Israelis have dealt with all along. This is just speculation, but I wonder if it might have something to do with the Palestinians' warnings to him that he had better not even think about visiting the Temple Mount -- unless he does it precisely as they dictate.

That might present a problem because he will be the guest of the Israeli government. The Palestinians say he can't even have a single Israeli official or security person with him if he ascends the Mount. And that demand is just the beginning.

Of course, what the Palestinians are trying to do is get the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States, to bow to their demands and thus put his stamp of authentication on their claim that they alone have sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Ironically, the Temple Mount is THE holiest site in Judaism, yet until the last century or so, the Muslims didn't give a rip about Jerusalem or the Temple Mount. They only covet it now because the Jews have returned to Israel.

It will be interesting to see how this actually plays out. Will the President decide to accede to the Palestinians? Will he choose to honor his hosts' historic claim to the Mount -- one that predates all other claims -- or will he choose to totally avoid any repercussions by avoiding the Temple Mount altogether during his visit?

Whatever he decides, I think the important thing to note about this situation is that the Palestinians feel confident enough of their standing in the world to presume to dictate to the US President, and his Israeli hosts, what he may or may not do.

Of course, part of this is Obama's fault. He's the first sitting President to refer to the Israeli presence in Israel as an "occupation." And he did so before the United Nations. But the UN itself, by tacitly acknowledging the West Bank and Gaza as a "state" (though the General Assembly vote last November was non-binding), and the European Union, by constantly seeking to bully Israel into committing national suicide, share the blame for effectively sinking the peace process by unduly elevating the Palestinians.

All of the hubbub just goes to illustrate the accuracy of the ancient prophets about Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in the last days. In fact, one writer for a liberal publication commented on the most recent EU demand that the Jews not build any more homes in their own capital. He noted a "campaign of international pressure" that would "make the status quo unbearable for the Israelis."

Now, doesn't that sound an awful lot like Zechariah's prophecy that in the last days of this Age, "the nations of the world are gathered against it." "It" being Jerusalem.

Just to show you how things are rapidly advancing on that front, this week I'm going to play for you a portion of a show I presented in October of 2009. Here's how I described it at the time:

Last weekend, violent clashes broke out on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Israeli police had to storm the Temple Mount twice to quell the riots and prevent injury to the worshippers at the Wailing Wall. Clashes between Palestinian youth and the Israeli police are once again becoming common. History proves that these Temple Mount clashes usually lead to 'intifadas.' The influence of Yasser Arafat lives on!

Some observers feel that the palpable turn taken by Washington against Israel, evidenced by President Obama's recent referral at the UN to "the Israeli occupation" (the first time a sitting US President has done so), sends a message of tacit approval to the PA to ratchet up the pressure on Israel. Even now I can hear the words and warnings of Zechariah the prophet ringing across those ancient hills.

 

Finally, I'm going to take a few minutes to review with you why the Temple Mount, the most strategic place on earth, is also the most volatile tinderbox on earth. And it's dangerously close to igniting.

The political threats that are now flying demonstrate that, if anything, the situation has worsened and the tension has heightened. We are truly seeing the attention of the world becoming even more keenly focused on Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount -- according to prophecy, the most important plot of land in the world.

Don't miss this week's Report on TBN, Daystar, CPM Network, The Word Network, various local stations, www.hallindsey.com or www.hischannel.com. Sorry, the Report will not be seen on the stations of the CET network this week. We'll be back next week. Check your local listings.

God Bless,

 

Hal Lindsey

 

A Divided Party

The Divide

We have a divided nation. More importantly, we have a divided Republican Party. Why do I say “more importantly”? Because, this divide is what has prevented a conservative win in the White House for two elections, now. Not a popular thing to say, I know. And even if a Republican candidate had won one of the last two elections, the winning nominee still wouldn’t have been our most conservative contestant because this division started in the primaries and assured us that we ended up with a more liberal contender in the final race.

Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with the primary process. It is a necessary and vital part of our system without a doubt. We  should have healthy, competitive primaries. But there are some issues that are taking place within that primary, (and beyond) that assures this divide will continue.

We see attacks on candidates - all members of the same party - that continue well after the primary is over. We see candidates that won’t drop out well after it is clear they have no chance to win the primary. (One candidate wouldn't drop out even after the primary was well in the past and the election in full swing.) We see candidates that attack our own Republican Party to a nastier degree than we even see them attack the opposing party candidate. We see supporters that are so enamored with their candidate, that they proudly state they will not vote at all, rather than vote for someone who wasn’t their first choice. All of this ensures a divided Republican Party that is left ineffective, disrespected and discombobulated.

As with anything, we point out the faults of one group in order to promote our own preferred faction. More than that, we also sometimes, make our group look like we are somehow more special. We believe we have a special insight that the other assemblage simply doesn’t have. We are somehow above – more spiritual; more knowledgeable; more compassionate; etc. - than the opposing group. It makes us feel wiser; it makes us want to belong; everyone wants to be best. This draws supporters that may not otherwise be there. We all want to be a part of the elite party. It’s popular and it’s contagious. It is sometimes a “jump-on-the-band-wagon” affect.

We begin with an element of valuable truth whether it is our precious Bible for religious organizations or groups; or maybe it’s our respected Constitution for political groups. Somehow we tell everyone that we understand it better, we love it more…we are the only ones that truly “get it”.

We are seeing a divide in the Church for these very reasons, I believe; but it is our politics that I intend to discuss in this post.

Enter The Tea Party movement: Now I believe the Tea Party is an important part of our modern day politics. The Republican Party had drifted and is clearly moving left of our traditional platform. The Tea Party was necessary to remind us where we should be and made a valiant effort to bring us back there. However, there is a fringe group within the tea party that can be very damaging if we are not careful. We see neo-Nazis, radical militia groups and even libertarians that are, in fact, left of center taking great strides to affect (or dare I say, infect) this important grass roots movement.

With this inclusion come problems and affiliations that may not be in the best interest of conservatives that wish to bring our nation back "right of center". Attitudes and beliefs, even interpretations of our beloved Constitution may be affected. It all rubs off on others, and if we are not paying close attention, we may be deceived. We believe we are all united for the same cause, if we don’t dig deep enough into the roots of what ones agenda might really be.

We are also seeing a blatant attack on Republicans from within these ranks. It is my firm belief that attacks such as these do far more harm than anything else. One cannot go around attacking our party of choice and expect anything constructive to come out of it. We are only aiding and in effect, joining the other side when we do that. We must support and work within what we have in order to change whatever it is that may be faulty or that which has gone awry within our political party.

In the last two Presidential elections, as well as some Congressional and Senate races, we have seen a trend toward “libertarian” Republicans. Now this began, not by candidates identifying themselves with that name, as much as it began with a simple claim from them that they were in fact, the most “conservative” candidates. Eventually, these candidates became more comfortable distinguishing themselves with the label they are actually more aligned – libertarian. And now, finally, we are actually seeing articles and discussions about this trend toward libertarian leanings in regard to some candidates of the Republican Party.

One could say some almost used Saul Alinsky tactics to incorporate themselves into a legitimate position within the Republican Party. They identified themselves as the most coveted position of those of our party – conservatives who love and understand the Constitution more than any other group. When these candidates were successfully identified and maybe even erroneously recognized as such, their actual title and ideology was automatically accepted i.e. libertarian.

Libertarian Defined

Libertarian is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary – 4^thEdition as “One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.” While that sounds pretty simple and actually very noble and indeed a desired end, “libertarian” has in reality, come to mean much more. Libertarians have somewhat mistakenly believed moral issues are not for the government to legislate, thereby leaving moral excellence by the wayside. Libertarian candidates and supporters would argue this simply isn’t true, but the end result of their position leaves no other alternative or outcome. In some cases, this has lead to inappropriate application in deciding or understanding laws that need our attention.

By those (such as myself,) that strongly support Israel, libertarians are perceived as a group who is seriously lacking in regard to the national defense of Israel. Libertarians are left of center, (sometimes even left of Obama) on issues of national defense and foreign policy. Libertarians are joined by people like, John Stossel, Judge Napolitano; Pat Buchanan; and Dr. "We Started It" Ron Paul - some of whom bash Republicans at a greater degree than they even target Democrats with their attacks. Though difficult to admit, if one were to take an honest, heartfelt look, one would see that is indeed a fact. Take a look at anyone of the people mentioned above in regard to their stance on Israel, or foreign policy and you will have a clear understanding of what it is that bothers me most about the libertarian world view. You will have to look a bit deeper than a superficial glance, because the libertarian will tell you, they fully support Israel. They will tell you they simply believe it isn’t America’s place to be involved with Israel's politics. Or they will tell you that they support Israel by ensuring we don’t give money to her enemies. We absolutely shouldn’t give money to her enemies, but the fact is, we are! Removing financial support from Israel, at the same time we remove it from her enemies, does nothing to demonstrate the type of alliance we have always given Israel in our past. Our alliance and support has come out of and in accordance with a Biblical mandate. We have simply forgotten that.

A definition of the "libertarian" written by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service reads:

“Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it."

Now that is a fine definition and maybe even doable in a society without sin. This type of viewpoint might even actually have worked during the time of our Founders when it was clear, they based the whole of our Constitution on Biblical principals, and had an honest desire to create a more Godly society. As examples:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." ~ Continental Congress, 1778

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~Benjamin Franklin

“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” ~ George Washington

Clearly our Founders believed freedom will not work without a moral foundation and as Franklin stated, "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom". Neither have we defined the fact, that some of these so-called “victimless crimes”, that libertarians tend to promote in the name of freedom, actually do have victims, try as we might to say otherwise.

Confusion in the Ranks

I think one of the main problems we are seeing due to this trend toward the libertarian philosophy, is that Republicans are truly confused about libertarianism and conservatism. We have had some convince us that the libertarian viewpoint is closer to the views of our Founding Fathers. It is not! By the above quotes we can understand that a strict libertarian viewpoint will not work in a Godless society, of which we are sadly becoming. Of course our Founders wanted a limited government, but not at the expense of morality; not at the expense of our citizens generating harm. The Founders understood that our rights and freedoms come from God; but they would never go against His Word in order to promote freedom. They wouldn’t even call that freedom!

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” ~ Noah Webster

We hear from the libertarian camp: “You can’t ‘legislate’ morality.” Oh, really? Morality has been legislated since the beginning of governments of which God is the creator. Now of course, legislation is not going to change the human heart. Only God can do that, but God is a God of law and order, and the world would not be a very nice place without both. When there is a behavior that is having a direct consequence on the safety and morality of its citizens, legislation absolutely has its place. The end result would be anarchy without it. I believe libertarians in their quest for the ultimate freedoms may have taken things a step too far. Libertarians love our Constitution, but they have forgotten that our Founders said our Constitution will not work in a Godless society.

Noah Webster, also said, "The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence."

Neither do I believe the libertarian belief system of today is the same philosophy as defined by our Founders’ words and actions, contrary to what libertarians would have us believe. Do we really believe our Founders would have been in favor of legalization of marijuana? Do we really believe our founders would have been ok with the legalization of prostitution? The truth of the matter our Founders did see the Constitution as a means of safety for America’s citizens. I hardly think our Founders would understand that there are those that want to help in the legalization of dangerous drugs, by calling for the “defederalization” of these drugs. Libertarianism has evolved much over the years, as all the parties have, even from what the philosophy meant at the time of Ronald Reagan. The degradation of society has ensured that difference. There is simply no two ways about that.

It is a fact that one of the few jobs of the government is to protect our nation from our enemies. In regard to war, most libertarians oppose the wars since 9/11. I don't know how anyone with an accurate understanding of our enemy could not support these endeavors. I recommend reading The Terrorist Next Door by Erik Stackelbeck for an eye opening account of what we are up against. It seems to be a fact that libertarians simply do not have a clear understanding of what our enemies have plainly said in regard to the U.S. and Israel. Rather, they view America as the aggressor or the "occupier". This is the same view the Obama administration has of America, and I believe without understanding, libertarians are joining Obama in his "anti-colonial" views. I recommend Dinesh D'Souza's book, Obama's America.

Libertarians love to say we don’t need a strong defense –that we should cut our defense spending. They really don’t understand, nor do they promote Reagan’s doctrine of “Peace through strength.”

“We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.” ~Ronald Reagan

As pointed out in the above quote and by the facts of history, we know Ronald Reagan held a deep belief in a strong defense.

Libertarians seem to ignore the above quote by Ronald Reagan, but love to point to this quote by President Reagan: “The very heart and soul of conservatism, is libertarianism.”

What they fail to acknowledge, or understand is libertarianism is not the same as it was in Ronald Reagan’s day. Again, the libertarianism President Reagan mentions in the above quote has evolved like all the other parties and “isms” of our day. Again, the lack of God in our society has ensured that difference.

We have those seeking to destroy our nation by debauchery that we didn’t have in the Founder’s time, nor even in Ronald Reagan’s time. Libertarians of today, forget one more thing, we have involvement with the UN that we didn’t have when our Founders wrote our Constitution. Now by saying that, I do understand libertarians have a distinct disdain for the activities of the UN and anything that aligns our nation there, as well they should. But what I believe they are forgetting and thereby ignoring is that we are already there – we are already in the midst of a huge dilemma as the UN seeks to force their will upon ours. The intrusion has become a fact and it is something that cannot be left unaddressed. If we are to prevent a further slippage into UN control of our blessed United States, aggressive action is required. It will most likely require amendments to our Constitution that libertarians tend to lambaste, but that in reality - though none of us like to see them - have become a necessary protection tool.

Unfortunately, a Parental Rights amendment is needed to protect the rights of parents to raise their own children. A marriage amendment is now needed to protect the union between a man and a woman. I think our Founder’s would be turning in their graves to see we are at a place where we even need to discuss and defend such issues. But ignoring it and saying our Constitution is already enough to protect us is just fool-hardy. We have already digressed enough within our nation that we absolutely do need to take steps to prevent further intrusion. Freedoms such as these are not going to be maintained at will. We have strong forces working against us to make sure otherwise.

It is almost impossible to convince a citizen with his newly recognized libertarian stance, that he is not the traditional conservative voter, nor is he the most conservative activist. The chart below shows the position of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians in regard to the degree of philosophy each holds. This chart is actually taken from a Ron Paul website. Ron Paul and his supporters are the first to claim they are the most conservative, but the “Nolan Chart” (David Nolan) shown below, which the Paul group clearly advocates, shows otherwise.

The Nolan Chart as defined by Wikipedia is a “political view assessment diagram created by the American politician, David Nolan. The chart divides human political action into two categories: economic and personal. The chart illustrates the libertarian view of economicand personal freedom. It expands the "left-right" line which attempted to measure politics along a one-dimensional line into a graph with two dimensions: degrees of economic and social freedom.”

 

 

Recently, Ann Coulter met with John Stossel to be interviewed by a college full of over 1400 libertarian students. Now, if you know anything about Ann Coulter - though she distinctly differs from the libertarian world view - there was not a thing to worry about in the way of intimidation. She can definitely hold her own. I was actually a bit more worried for the 1400 students. Coulter was a bit more crass than I would have liked her to be, so I didn't post the discussion here, but you can google it you wish, and watch the full interview. Ms. Coulter made some great points in regard to libertarians actually unwittingly doing foot work for the liberal agenda. Now maybe it was due to their youth, but these young people seemed to miss the point of her argument entirely. And so did John Stossel. She simply made the point, if they really held to their libertarian belief they would be concerned about a good deal more than just the promotion of legalization of marijuana; and the "it's my body" argument that the discussion always seems to come down to. “What about the invasive laws being inflicted upon those that want to start a business?” She asked them. “Why are you ignoring the "big fights"?

"We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, “Oh, but we want to legalize pot."

Ms. Coulter has a great point, does she not? There really does seem to be a lot of jumping on the band wagon, without a great deal of clarity regarding what some actually believe.

 

During the interview, Ms. Coulter mentioned to the group that liberals are seeking to destroy the family and replace it with government. The group actually laughed and booed. Clearly this type of reaction would not have come from conservative listeners. Anyone from a conservative world view that has been paying attention, especially to this administration, would undertand that Ms. Coulter was actually extremely accurate in making that statement.

 

Conservatism

Now for myself, I am without a doubt a conservative. I consider myself a member of the tea party. I believe in limited government, a strong national defense, and the exceptionalism of America. I believe in the Second Amendment; the right to life and I am pro-Israel to the core. I believe in taking the moral high ground and accountability that comes with that, not only as a safety measure, but as a measure to receive God’s blessings. These views are nothing new. This is the traditional conservative viewpoint and agenda.

I am also unequivocally and unashamedly a registered Republican. I don’t feel the need to justify that, or explain that I am a “conservative” first as some seem to feel the need to explain. Sean Hannity would be an example of someone who loves to state he is a conservative first. That is fine. With the new leanings the Republican Party has taken I completely understand why there are those that like to make that distinction. But I am a Republican, I am conservative, and I understood the platform of the Republican Party and identified myself as such even before I could vote. I am also a firm believer that one shouldn’t use Saul Alinsky tactics to change the party by attacking it. We need to work within ones party and within the greatest system in the world to effect the change we need and ensure we get the most like minded candidates we can get. We will not get there by attacking ourselves. That should be painfully obvious after the last two general elections. And because of that firmconviction, I proudly identify myself as a Republican and I believe this is the party that holds to a platform at their roots of which I am proud.

I honestly don’t care if one has libertarian beliefs! I admire anyone that has convictions. I believe there are some positives about the trend that can be beneficial. What I am opposed to is libertarians forcing their beliefs on me and my party. What I don’t like is libertarians telling me I am not conservative, when by every definition of the word I am the one that is truly conservative. What I don’t like is the division it has brought. What I abhor is someone claiming to be a Republican, running as a Republican, all the while attacking the party even to a higher degree than he might attack a Democrat. What we cannot tolerate is those that use our party because they say it is only as close as they can get to their viewpoint. There are libertarians wandering in their leanings trying to figure it all out for the first time in their life, wanting to hold onto the conservative name, but being pushed elsewhere by the new libertarian mantra. They have entered into the philosophy without fully understanding it will not work in a society spiraling downward much as ours is.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~Benjamin Franklin

So if nothing else, the libertarians in their noble quest for limiting government seem to be getting the cart before the horse…if we are to have freedom, we must first have God. Do we really have that much faith in mankind that we believe we can be governed without law? In order for there to be a lawless society, we would need to see another Great Awakening, (at the very least) where people honor the God of the Universe, and desire to serve Him. We are a long way from that, I am afraid.

“Where there is no law there is no freedom.” ~ John Locke

Standing Together

Yes, I want libertarians included in our party, but they must understand we cannot tolerate or accept this division. And in the final days, when all the discussion and debate is over, we must stand together in the final outcome…until the next time. We didn’t loose our nation in one fell swoop and we won’t get it back that way. We lost it incrementally and unfortunately we will need to take it back incrementally and with patience and resolve.

We are also experiencing a great divide between what some call “traditional”Republicans and members of the tea party. No, I don’t like that term either - "traditional Republicans". We are Republicans or we are not. There can be no divide. We must take what is positive, we must take what we have and work with it.

One of the most recent examples of bickering among conservatives involves the tea party and Karl Rove. Now the tea party has long held disdain for Karl Rove which I personally believe evolved more out of the liberal media attacks of him rather than anything that Karl Rove actually did. Recently Karl Roves organization Conservative Victory Project (through American Crossroads) made the news. The very liberal New York Times did a hit piece on his organization dramatizing and incorrectly stating that Rove’s organization was out to destroy tea party candidates. This could not be further from the truth and a thinking person, would have seen a very clear agenda by this liberal newspaper. But the war was on.

Even brietbart. com reported on this declaring that “Rove Declares War on the Tea Party”, again quoting the liberal New York Times rather than taking the steps to hear from Rove, himself. Karl received a number of vicious attacks by tea party groups, despite the fact that he went on a number of conservative talk shows to clarify the mix-up. Rove was very convincing in these interviews and had any one wanted to check the facts they would have easily believed him, because the facts are there.



No excuse for this type of thing!

But the war continued! Finally, one of the tea party groups (Tea Party Patriots) posted a photo of Karl in a Nazi uniform, basically calling him a fascist. They had gone too far, and were forced to come out with an apology to Karl which he accepted graciously. I probably would not have been so gracious. I was furious at the lack of understanding and common sense to see that this fiasco was escalating and only hurting our own party. Liberals were of course, loving it! Good did eventually come out of it, I guess. The Blaze finally printed an excellent article written by Todd Cefaratti (Tea Party activist) about the need for conservatives to unite.

Well duh!! I wanted to post in regard to the article. I refrained though, in order not to discourage an effort to finally unite the party.

Honestly, after all the attacks Rove has been receiving, I am inclined to believe someone is desperately fearful of his organization and if we check things out fully, we will find it needn’t be the tea party. One will be hard-pressed to find any positive articles or videos about Roves project. Though Marco Rubio is one who came out early in his defense.

Rubio is one that has added a little common sense to the equation, and understands the need for unity in our party, and that we are not going to get there by attacking someone when they have made a sincere effort. While clearly supporting the tea party, he appropriately defended Karl Rove. Now that is a leader. I am going to be watching Marco Rubio.

Obviously, Rove isn’t correct about everything either; I am not saying that. But these kinds of antics within the conservative base is extremely damaging. If you are a doubter, or one that distrusts Karl Rove, please just listen to the facts as he makes them in one of the televised interviews.

Sincere efforts are why I support the tea party; sincere efforts are why I support groups such as Patriot Voices and ACLJ. No one is ever going to be 100% right, but we need to join together in an all out effort to do what is best for our country.

Seventeen million Christians, who usually take a conservative stance, did not vote in the 2008 election! It has actually been reported at brietbart.com and other places that an additional 2.5 million Christians did not vote in the 2012 election. These votes would undoubtedly have turned the outcome. These statistics also show we are still a "right of center" nation had people actually got out to vote. It seems rather, we simply have people that don’t care enough to vote; or that somehow believe they are betraying their conscious; or maybe they have been taught to believe they can’t change anything anyway. So many love to say they "will never vote for the lesser of two evils". This is such destructive thinking. None of our candidates are perfect - ever! The Bible says we are all evil! It isn't a matter of compromise when it comes to our elections. It is a matter of simply voting for the best candidate, and sometimes even more importantly, voting against the candidate that goes against Biblical principals and may even seek (knowingly or unknowingly) the destruction of America. I am not too proud to say I will vote against a candidate when I see that their agenda will do more harm to our nation than the other candiate's agenda will! We need to continue striving for perfection, while understanding we will never achieve it until Jesus returns. When I think of the changes we would be seeing in our country if even the more moderate candidate would have been elected this last election, it is absolutely heart-wrenching.

In reality, there is no excuse for not voting. It is more than our right; it is our responsibility! There is simply no excuse for any of this. The lack of desire and accountability to vote has to be changed. It is a travesty that must be dealt with without delay. There is no time left to waste.

The disunity between conservatives, libertarians, tea party members, and moderates is disconcerting to say the least. The bickering, back-biting and back-stabbing is beyond my understanding. If we do not understand or acknowledge this divide, we only aid the liberal agenda; we are without excuse. Now I am not saying there is no place for disagreement, discussion and dialogue. I am not saying we all have to agree. We should point out the errors of those that may be headed the wrong direction. We must recognize faulty philosophies and try to correct them; but in the end we must find common ground and stick together.

If we do not find a way to unite those that wish to identify themselves with the conservative side, our nation has indeed seen her better days. If we refuse to stand the ground on moral issues, and Biblical mandates, our government - as our Founders informed us - cannot work. If we do not strive for moral excellence; understand the exceptionalism of America and claim it proudly, America will be a thing of the past.

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” ~Daniel Webster

 

 

Resources:

• http://www.nolanchart.com/article6792-can-libertarians-overthrow-the-neoconservatives.html
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/15/1162077/-Libertarians-provided-the-margin-for-Democrats-in-at-least-nine-elections
• http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/03/5002/
• http://libertarian.jimeyer.org/
• http://www.libertarianism.com/content/definitions-of-libertarianism/
• http://www.breitbart.com