It’s bad that we can’t even run, let alone nominate, a decent presidential candidate. It’s bad that conservatives are so willing to fall for sub-par rapscallions masquerading as statesmen. But one of the biggest problems is a major flaw in our party system. And no, I’m not talking about open primaries (we’ll get to that one another day).

Competition: the politician’s nightmare

One of the first things you notice when you start observing the behavior of elected officials is that there are two things they fear: voters and primary challengers. One of the really encouraging things that the Tea Party has done is recruiting primary challengers for patrician-minded legislators.

Here in Anderson county, we’ve seen legislators go bonkers over primary challengers. Worth the price of admission, I can tell you. (And if you’d like to help turn more of our SC potentates out, click here.)

The divine right of Presidents

It occurred to me the other day that while we are vocal about the need for primary challengers, it’s an accepted thing for presidents to go unopposed by their own party. That was a “Duh!!” moment for me. Why are we doing that???

Are presidents somehow entitled to serve two terms just by virtue of being nominated once? What if they do a lousy job upholding the party values? Why should they get a free ride? Imagine how differently a president would behave in office if he knew he’d have to give account to his party in another primary before he got a second term.

What’s good for the goose…

It’s time to kill the notion that presidents are somehow above the rest of the political class. If competition is good for the goose, it’s even better for the gander. No party nominee (whether president or dog-catcher) should ever be allowed to take the support of his party for granted.

It would be hard to challenge a president, no doubt about it. But the president needs the accountability that would provide, and the party shouldn’t be locked into supporting anyone. And who knows….a challenger might actually get somewhere sometimes.

Anyone with me?

Let me say in starting that this is the most ridiculous, disasterous, ill-advised and mishandled primary I’ve ever seen. In response to the criminal mismanagement in Washington we’ve seen a huge wave of popular indignation directed toward government in general, and YET we’re on the brink of nominating more of the same people who caused this problem to start with.

Where are the Jim DeMints and Sarah Palins? Where are the people with unquestionable character and worldviews? Why wouldn’t they run? Why are we falling for the likes of Mitt Romney (who I thought would have no chance after the Obamacare debacle. Silly me.)?

Anyway.

I was never smitten with any of the candidates. I’m not interested in wasting my vote, so I wasn’t voting for Santorum. I don’t think he could win in the general election, and I don’t trust his view of the role of government anyway, especially in light of his questionable voting record.

A reporter asked who I was leaning toward the other night, and I replied that I was leaning against Romney. I still can’t believe that a lot of Republicans are supporting him. So that leaves Gingrich and Paul. I wrote a blog post explaining why I don’t like Gingrich or think he’s the conservative that many seem to think he is.

I have a major love/hate relationship with Paul. I love his integrity and his willingness to do radical things to fix the country. I hate his view on foreign policy and his worldview (note: just because you reach the right conclusions sometimes doesn’t mean your worldview is correct.).

I wavered between Gingrich and Paul literally into the voting booth. I wanted to vote for Paul. Of all the candidates, Iknow he’ll shake up Washington and I think we’re in much more danger from bad fiscal policy than from terrorism.

However, Gingrich is the only one who had a chance at beating Romney in SC. I would love to see Paul win the nomination (if only to send a strong message to the GOP), but he’s not going to win SC. If Romney does, he could be unstoppable after that. So……..*groan* I voted for Gingrich.

And I was pretty upset that I had to do it. I had prayed about it and feel this was God’s direction. I don’t regret the vote, but I do regret being put in the position where I had to do it.

And yes, as I said in an earlier Facebook status, I was pretty mad at the world…at the no-count candidates who want to be somebody…….at the good men and women who wouldn’t run…..at the conservatives who will believe anybody talking a good line…….and perhaps most of all at the Christian leaders who have no idea how to apply God’s Word to society.

So there you have it. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

One of the most important things to discern about a candidates is their worldview. Their worldview determines not only how they vote/act/govern, but why. Here are seven indicators of Newt Gingrich’s real worldview that are being largely overlooked.

Reason #1: Compromise

So many people seem to think that Gingrich has what it takes to lead this country back from the brink of disaster. They have a short memory, apparently.

Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House along with a brand-new freshman class, under the banner of the “Contract with America.” They promised to turn the country around with an outstanding legislative agenda…and then the pressure started.

Instead of being the knight in shining armor that draws his sword and leads his troops on in the face of overwhelming odds, Gingrich faltered, then compromised (here’s the whole miserable story).

Do we really think he’s going to do anything differently this time? Are we going to turn back to the General who showed the white feather last time?

Reason #2: Loves Franklin D. Roosevelt

This video says it all:

Really, Gingrich? Not Reagan or Washington or Jefferson? FDR? You should take lessons from an Englishman.

Scripture says “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise.” You show me who a man’s heroes are, and I’ll tell you what kind of man he is.

Reason #3: Reagan era “over”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise after the last reason, but Gingrich has also declared that the Reagan era is over. Rush Limbaugh explains the deadly fallacy in that seemingly innocuous statement better than I could.

I thought we all wanted a president who would do everything he could to keep the Reagan era going….but maybe that was just me.

Reason #4: Environmental ad with Nancy Pelosi

Watch and groan. Good luck coming up with an excuse for this one.

Reason #5: Praised Romneycare in 2006

Apparently we can all be grateful to Obama for showing Gingrich how bad the individual mandate is. When it was Romney’s idea, Gingrich thought it was a good one. How’s that for a brilliant Constitutionalist?

Reason #6: Supported Dede Scozzafava

The New York 23rd District Congressional race of 2009 was a sifter for conservatives vs. RINOs. The conservative candidate was from a third party and was ahead of the liberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava.

There was no pragmatic reason for conservatives to support Scozzafava over Hoffman: the latter was ahead in the polls and his conservative credentials were impeccable. However, Gingrich defiantly supported Scozzafava when other high-profile Republicans (Palin, Pawlenty, etc.) were supporting Hoffman. Does that look like loyalty to principle over party?

Reason #7: Refuses to vote for Ron Paul should he win the nomination

Given that kind of party loyalty, the final reason is surprising. If you hang around the establishment republicans at all during primary season, you’ll hear repeated admonitions to vote for the eventual nominee, regardless of who it is. It’s considered the right thing for a party member to do.

Apparently, that only applies if the nominee is run-of-the-mill or a RINO – in other words, the kind a conservative might balk about supporting. Gingrich, at least, has forgotten about that party obligation while contemplating a Ron Paul candidacy and promises not to vote for him should he win the nomination.

I have issues with Ron Paul too, but if I can hold my nose and vote for Romney, I can hold it and vote for Paul. Consistency is a jewel, Mr. Speaker.

Final note: it’s really concerning how many conservatives are blown away by his ideas/solutions/brilliance/debate skills and are giving him a free pass on his record. Isn’t this what the naive liberals did with Obama? We need to be careful to avoid falling for the same thing ourselves.

Guest post by Jonathon Hill

Like over 350 million other people, I have a weakness for Angry Birds.

A recent Art of Manliness blog post left me wondering what a proper philosophy of entertainment would look like, especially for a Christian?

Entertainment is good!

In moderation, of course.

Entertainment is restful, emotionally refreshing, and of course, fun. I’m not so serious and strict as to suggest that we would be better off eliminating all recreational activity from our lives, after all…

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Did you know that this well-known proverb has a second half?

All play and no work makes Jack a mere toy.

That’s where we get in trouble. We focus on the fun and avoid the work, because, well, it’s not fun. Without moorings to discipline and balance, we’ve become worthless, mere toys.

A Biblical foundation

The application of most of these is straightforward, so I will leave you to draw the connections. These guiding principles must shape our decisions and our values in the area of entertainment.

• “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment.”
  Matthew 22:37-38
• “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
  1 Corinthians 10:31
• “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.”
  Ephesians 5:15-16

Don’t forget the end goal: to love and glorify God. It goes without saying that you cannot glorify God with things that are contrary to His holiness. My parents taught me, “Never play about something that would be wrong to do in real life.”

Making the most of your time means getting double or triple value. By making wise choices, you can realize benefits that last far after your entertainment comes to an end.

A decline from productiveness to passiveness

In the last century Americans have made more for working less and have more time on their hands. This, television, and many other factors have contributed to a decline in the quality of our entertainment choices while at the same time increasing the quantity of entertainment consumption.

Author Jay Nash saw this coming all the way back in 1938:

The machine age has, of course, already supplied an unexampled wealth of leisure and what happens? The average man who has time on his hands turns out to be a spectator, a watcher of somebody else, merely because that is the easiest thing. He becomes a victim of spectatoritis—a blanket description to cover all kinds of passive amusement, an entering into the handiest activity merely to escape boredom. Instead of expressing, he is willing to sit back and have his leisure time pursuits slapped on to him like mustard plasters—external, temporary, and, in the end, “dust in the mouth.”

…

Man can sleep too much. Granted freedom, many men go to sleep—“physically and mentally,” organically and cortically. Not having the drive for creative arts they turn to pre-digested pastimes, prepared in little packages at a dollar per. This has literally thrown us into the gladiatorial stage of Rome in which the number of participants becomes fewer and the size of the grandstands, larger. Spectatoritis has become almost synonymous with Americanism and the end is not yet. The stages will get small and the rows of seats will mount higher.

Quality factors

As you consider your entertainment choices, consider re-allocating your time to activities that bear some or all of these quality factors:

1. Outdoors

It’s great to be outdoors. Fresh air and sunshine are very healthy. If your entertainment choices take you outside instead of inside, that’s a plus!

2. Relationships

Given the choice between doing your favorite recreational activity alone or with another person, go for the latter, especially if it involves a family member.

3. Construction

Having something material to show for your entertainment time is one of the most visible ways to make the most of your time.

4. Skill development

So many Americans are consumers—try producing something for a change. Learning or improving skills can be incredibly fun. If you like sports, go play a game instead of just watching one. Instead of reading novels, try writing one. There are so many opportunities in our “fun” activities to improve our communication, teamwork, or professional skills that we overlook and waste.

5. Exercise

I do not need to elaborate on the benefits of exercise. Go take a hike, ride a bike, or do something, outside, with a family member, for a workout!

6. Thought

Sometimes, you need time alone, and quiet. One danger of entertainment is displacing all your thinking time. Don’t let this happen. There has never been a person whose life counted for something that didn’t spend time in thought. A restful or relaxing activity might be the perfect time to reflect.

Conclusion

This can all be summed up in this concluding statement. Consider adopting this philosophy of entertainment, and passing it on to your children:

Christians wishing to glorify God should prefer entertainment choices that provide lasting benefit to themselves or other people, in a manner that is consistent with His holiness.

Jonathon Hill is a computer geek/programmer, Tea Party organizer, political activist, Angry Birds aficionado, and all-around great guy. (He also happens to be my brother. No, I’m not prejudiced.) You can find him at JonathonHill.net.

Courtesy of CBSNews

Former Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer endorsed Mike Huckabee in 2008. Mike Huckabee then endorsed Bauer in his next election.

Sen. Lindsey Graham vocally supported Sarah Palin as she ran for VP; she then donated to his campaign fund.

Mitt Romney endorsed Gov. Nikki Haley in her campaign; now she has just endorsed him for president.

Does anyone see a problem with all of this???

What is an endorsement?

Endorsement: [en-dawrs-muhnt]
noun

1. approval or sanction: The program for supporting the arts won the government’s endorsement.
2. the placing of one’s signature, instructions, etc., on a document.

(Source: dictionary.com)

An endorsement is placing your name on something as evidence of your approval and/or support. It’s testifying to something’s legitimacy with all the weight of your name.

A good name: not for sale

Scripture says “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.” If we don’t have any business selling our name, what business does anyone have selling an endorsement?

Is it right to put your name behind a candidate – as a good faith pledge that you think this is the best candidate - if you actually don’t?

Would it be right to the public to assure them that Mitt Romney is going to lead us all to utopia when he’s actually a conservative’s nightmare? How would his having endorsed you in the past change that?

Perhaps the reason endorsements are given so casually is because we’ve forgotten the value of our names.

A historical example

The signers of the Declaration put three things behind the Declaration: their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. In other words, their endorsements. Of the three, this was the greatest sacrifice.

You can give your money to a cause, and you can die for it, but a willingness to be forever maligned by the history books for your heroism and self-sacrifice is in a completely different league altogether.

Would the founders have done it to return a political favor? Not on your life.

An endorsement: not for sale

We’ve got to get rid of the notion that you have to endorse a lame blackguard just because he endorsed you. You owe it to God and to the public to endorse only the candidate who’s the best for that office, period.

And if a candidate thinks that’s too much to ask, that’s a pretty good indicator that he’s not worth diddly anyway.

John Peter Muhlenberg, colonial pastor and officer in the Continental army

The unsung heroes of the American revolution were the colonial pastors. Without them, it’s safe to say that we would never have won our independence. As one historian notes:

“There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.” (Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution)

According to The American Quarterly Register (1833),

“As a body of men, the clergy were pre-eminent in their attachment to liberty. The pulpits of the land rang with the notes of freedom.”

The pastors were so prominent in the movement that the British nicknamed them “the black-robed regiment”. When Paul Revere thundered down the streets of Lexington to warn of the British approach, patriot leaders John Hancock and Samuel Adams were staying with the local minister, Rev. Jonas Clark.

According to David Barton, Hancock and Adams turned to Rev. Clark and asked if the people were ready to fight. The pastor’s reply was “I have trained them for this very hour!” And he had: the seven casualties in the battle of Lexington were all from Clark’s church.

The Church has lost its patriotism

All this is a thing of the past though, it seems. The only outlet for patriotic feeling the American church knows about nowadays is saying the pledge of allegiance, singing all the patriotic songs in the hymnbook, and applauding the veterans.

The only reason to be grateful for a free country is “so that we can worship freely”. And you can forget about a really patriotic sermon: the best most pastors can do is draw analogies between political freedom and spiritual freedom.

We’ve forgotten what true patriotism is, and why it matters.

Freedom: a Christian concept

For the Christian, freedom isn’t just about worshiping God in peace, earning a living as you choose, and the ability to pursue the American dream.

Freedom is the result of God’s principles applied to the public realm. It’s what a society looks like that operates in the way God intended. It’s the “laws of nature and nature’s God,” applied.

Christians should be burning with zeal to see God honored as Creator and King in every aspect of life: individually, in the family, in the church, in society, and in government. We should care about freedom because we want to see God glorified.

Patriotism is a sacred duty

It’s time for the church to reshoulder the duty of political involvement. It’s the church that should lead society, not Hollywood, CNN, or (God forbid) Oprah.

We need to ditch the “Just love Jesus” theology and start being salt and light. May Christians wake up to this reality, and may the Lord raise up another “black-robed regiment” to lead us back to the front lines of freedom!

“Mighty men they were, of iron nerve and strong hand and unblanched cheek and heart of flame. God needed not reeds shaken by the wind, not men clothed in soft raiment, but heroes of hardihood and lofty courage. . . .And such were the sons of the mighty who responded to the Divine call.” – Bishop Charles Galloway

1. The Prince is marrying a commoner.

No more of this “does-she-have-the-pedigree” nonsense from the Royals, present as recently as the marriage of William’s father, Prince Charles.

No, this royal bride has been selected because of her own merit, making her the first commoner to enter the Royal Family since 1660. And that is something to celebrate.

2. The institution of marriage has been honored.

This marriage hasn’t been sold a la Henry V (and all that), nor has Prince William been pressured into it to produce an heir. The marriage is being treated like, well, like a marriage instead of a horse-breeding deal, and is only going forward after careful thought.

Sure, it’s not been perfect, but it’s worlds better than, say, Henry VIII and his six wives (married, divorced, and murdered at will).

3. It’s free economic stimulus for England.

The Royal Wedding has attracted thousands of tourists, and many more (including yours truly – no, you don’t get any details) are proud possessors of Royal Wedding memorabilia.

England is suffering a recession too, and despite being in the EU they refused to adopt the Euro as their currency, so I am thrilled about this. And taxpayers aren’t paying for the wedding, so it’s a win-win situation at a time when England needs it.

4. It will help rekindle patriotism in England.

Americans don’t understand this, really, and there are certainly better ways to spark national feeling. I’m beyond thankful that Washington opted not to become America’s first king. But it seems that the Royal Family has become one of the main focal points of British national feeling, much like their flag.

England is no long fighting for just her heritage now, but for her very identity in the wave of Europeanism ushered in by her politicians. If the Royal Wedding helps our cousins to remember, even for a moment, that they are Englishmen, then I’m all for it. And who can help loving all those Union Jacks flying?

5. Barack and Michelle Obama did not get invited.

Obama has continually snubbed the Royals and the Prime Minister. Michelle committed a major etiquette faux pax when she put her arm around the Queen – breaching protocol is no way to respect your host.

All that blatant disrespect finally got its come-uppance – and oh, what a come-uppance it is! The biggest wedding in decades, and The One’s not invited! My hat’s off to Prince William for being man enough to withhold an undeserved invitation.

Well, it looks like we’ve got another Vice-presidential hopeful – or could that possibly be someone just doing his duty?

“To speak up or not to speak up?”

Newly-elected Florida Senator Marco Rubio, according to headlines, is “stepping into the spotlight on debt fight.” Rubio was advised to lay low for a while, not to attract too much media attention, and gain credit by digging deeply into policy issues. In other words, play it safe for a while.

When he didn’t, they all started wondering if he’s wanting to be someone’s VP pick in 2012. However, Rubio is just following the example of one of the greatest statesmen in America’s history.

A historical example

Patrick Henry was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses at the age of 29. The custom at the time was to let the older, wiser, more senior members take the lead and do the talking, especially if you’re new.

When those “wise” leaders started talking about submitting to taxation without representation, however, Henry stepped up and presented the Stamp Act resolutions. Nine days after he joined the House he was leading the charge toward open defiance of the King and Parliament.

The “good ol’ boys” accused him of treason, but the resolutions were passed and word spread like wildfire. The other 12 colonies passed similar resolutions, and America was on the course of resistence that eventually culminated in the Revolutionary War and the independence of the colonies.

All that, because one brand-new legislator refused to follow conventional rules and “lay low”.

Statesmen don’t lay low.

The fact is, statesmen don’t run for office because they want to build a career. They run to make a difference, and the timing doesn’t matter to them. If a need for real leadership arises, they answer the call of duty.

As Rubio put it, “The issues that led me to run are front and center. I can’t just say, ‘Well, I’m going to sit out these issues because I’m working on some plan to ultimately fit into the Senate.’”

And if this be treason, gentlemen, make the most of it.

236 years ago today, Patrick Henry delivered his famous “Liberty or Death” speech at the second Virginia Convention. You can read the text here.

The interesting thing about this speech – his most famous one – is that it was totally unplanned. He had no notes, no rehearsed phrases or planned anecdotes. Nothing but a heart and mind on fire for liberty.

I can’t help but wonder how many Americans today could say “Give me liberty, or give me death!” Our society is consumed with worrying about what will happen to Social Security, getting free healthcare, and preserving safety at airports at all costs.

We’ve become addicted to our own comfort, safety, ease, and convenience, and have forgotten that there are some things worth fighting and enduring hardship for.  If Patrick Henry were alive to ask us today, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchase at the price of chains and slavery?” I am afraid the answer for many would be “Yes.”

Worse, we define freedom differently than Henry would have. R.J. Rushdoony pinpointed the problem: “A society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose.” That is what liberty has come to mean for America.

St. John's Church, location of the 2nd Virginia Convention

So on the anniversary of this speech, it is even more fitting to remember as well Henry’s last message to the posterity:

“Whether this [independence] will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable.

Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.”

I’m going to take a radical position on the subject of education: government, ideally, should have no role in it. At all. Zero. Zilch.

Before anyone starts labeling me as a libertarian, let me explain.

Education: essential to liberty 

I’m going to skip the whole role-of-government argument (this time). The fact is that everyone knows education is important. The question is, why is it important?

The reason given by the Founders that education is essential to the public if they are to retain their liberty. How will they see through government propaganda if they’re not educated?

The premise behind this line of reasoning is that the people are the ultimate guardians of liberty – the enemy always being government’s natural tendency to turn oppressive. 

Our system: fundamentally flawed

If the whole purpose of education is to protect ourselves from our government, putting government in charge of education makes no sense – it’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

This system is designed to brainwash students or leave them uneducated in the first place. Government, like everything else, looks after its own interests first, and that type of populace will offer little or no opposition to legal plunder and oppression.

What can we do?

This problem can’t be fixed with remedial legislation. Ultimately, the government has to get out of the education business. There’s nothing wrong with public education. Government just shouldn’t be paying for it, because whoever pays for it usually wants to control what’s taught.

Every step toward local control is an improvement. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children’s education, so let’s get back to that.

It would be next to impossible to pry the Federal government’s fingers off education, let alone the states’. However, the first step toward the solution is recognizing the problem.