South Carolina For Ron Paul

I am a native son of South Carolina. I am a Christian, a father and an active duty military officer and I support Ron Paul for president. I do not make this claim of support lightly - I have not fully supported any candidate since Ronald Reagan (and I was young then). To be certain I liked the ideas of Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes but each of those elections were different. Different in that enough of the polity was not sufficiently upset to actually accept a solution other than the option offered up by the party bosses. Look at the poll numbers and contribution amounts right now - he traditional base of the Republican party is fractured and confused. Many know that things have gone awry but don not yet know where to turn for solutions.

Ron Paul is the answer, he is the only real conservative in the race. He is the only man that stands true to principles that our South Carolina ancestors would be proud to associate with. He is the only man running that a Christian of true conscious can vote for.

I know that those associated intimately with the party machine fear and disdain Paul - he exists outside of the system. The Republican Party itself supported a recently converted democrat (and liberal) against Dr. Paul in 1996 in a congressional election. This says much more about Ron Paul's commitment to stand firmly on his principles than it does of the wisdom of the party leadership. If you are one of those hard working party loyalist here in SC that believe that Paul is an outsider I ask that you consider what it really means to be a conservative and measure Paul against that - not against silly notions of "electability", pragmatism and loyalty to some notion of corporate fidelity. You know, or should know that at this stage of the game, with Paul's record of donations and support that he is far ahead of where Ronald Reagan was in 1979. Paul is electable, don't believe anything to the contrary.

Folks say Ron Paul is a contrarian - I say he is just principled. Anyone that observes politics knows full well that is ever there is a vote in Congress with only one dissenter - that is Ron Paul. He has been called Dr. No for this very reason - he alone seems to understand or care that the legislation that Congress passes must adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Constitution. No matter how "good" of an idea that comes up, Dr. Paul will not and never has supported any program not specifically authorized in the Constitution. Why is this important? Good ideas and running us broke but more importantly a government that does not follow its highest law is not a legitimate government at all.

Consider this, Ron Paul has

• never voted to raise taxes.
• never voted for an unbalanced budget.
• never voted to raise congressional pay.
• never taken a government-paid junket.
• never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
• voted against regulating the Internet.
• not participated in the lucrative congressional pension program.

What would he do as President?

• let Americans keep more of their own money.
• end the IRS.
• stop the central bankers’ “inflation tax.”
• stop unconstitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy.
• stop the financial dependency on China, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign governments.
• oppose trade deals and groups that threaten American Independence (incl. the UN, GATT, NAFTA, NAU, WTO, CAFTA, ICC).
• protect our privacy and stop the national ID card.
• protect our constitutional rights and end the “Patriot” Act.
• secure our borders and end illegal immigration.
• end “birthright” citizenship for illegal aliens.
• bring our troops home from no-win “police actions.”

This is all we really should want a president to do. We do not need any more men with "good ideas" related to programs they believe will solve all of our problems. Honestly, can any decent, right-thinking person think of anything the government really does efficiently or effectively? If you understand the Constitution and the specific delegated powers and responsibilities our states bestowed upon the federal government can you honestly say that you truly want anyone to propose that the central government do any more? Is anyone that proposes a departure for our law, our Constitution really a conservative or are they rather a progressive (or possibly worse)?

These are weighty issues, Americans have become accustomed to hearing politicians propose sweeping programs to solve problems (real and imagined). Many of us have come to believe this is the role of our federal government - it is simply not so.

The most beautiful thing about Dr. Paul is that he understands that most of the issues that the federal government currently concerns itself with belong at the state or county level. Abortion, education and dozens of other issues that clutter up the national dialogue are items we should be talking about and solving in our states - as the people of the states see fit. That my friends is freedom - that is the federal system that the founders envisioned and that is the notion of states' rights that our ancestors fought to preserve. We dishonor their memory, our own system of laws and future generations when we turn to slick politicians that say they can solve problems from Washington.

Just take a look at the recent Republican debates. Folks accuse Ron Paul of being out of step with the party. This is not true, he is on a completely different frequency than the other six candidates and this is obvious. It is impossible to debate with someone when you do not agree on fundamental issues. Paul holds that the very premise of the Federal government doing anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution is wrong and should be stopped immediately. The other want to tweak the system just a bit. That is a fundamental divide - such a gulf that you cannot even agree enough to argue. Paul is not out of step with he party - some within the party (many in fact) have lost touch with traditional conservatism.

Google Ron Paul, visit his campaign site, read my other Ron Paul posts - whatever and however you do it inform yourself about the man. He is electable, he is the only conservative in the race and he is the best hop we have at the national level of restoring the Republic.

In Defense of Christian Exodus

Heidi Cenac wrote a piece in the 10 February Anderson Independent that simply must be repudiated. Read the entire thing and then come back for analysis.

The story begins "objectively" enough -

Some people read the Bible and some people use the Bible.

This is of course a true statement but it is an odd way to begin a fact based article.

Local ministers and religious experts are concerned that Christian Exodus might be the latter.

This would imply that all or most local ministers and religious experts share this view. I wonder if Heidi asked all or most of these people after they were fully informed of what Christian Exodus is all about and what they really envision for government in South Carolina. I doubt that she did because I doubt that most ministers in Anderson fully understand these things right now. Any opinions they could possibly express would be based an upon incomplete understanding of the facts.

As an example of the ignorant views she solicited we have -

Tom Ritchie, pastor at Young Memorial Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, said he has difficulty finding scripture that suggests Christians should take over government.

This is an ignorant response because Ritchie is suggesting that CE desires to take over, that phase implies some tactic other that the utilization of legal precedents. It is a strong term, it connotes negativity. If we applied the term, as used in Ritchie's response, any time one political party achieves a majority we might say that they have "taken over". In reality all Christian Exodus seeks to achieve is a majority in the various law-making bodies. The application of the phrase "take over" is better applied to a coup, something outside of normal legal channels; this is not why CE stands for. He continues:

“I think it’s pretty tragic and pretty frightening stuff,” he said. “If the people of Anderson allow it to happen, we probably get what we deserve.”

So according to Ritchie, if a majority of Christians in Anderson elect lawmakers that observe natural law and respect liberty then the county will get what it deserves. I must question what alternative Ritchie would propose? Would he rather see agnostic, atheist and heathen lawmakers legislating based on secular values? Does he propose that this is a better alternative?

What is truly frightening is the notion that anyone that seeks higher guidance in lawmaking is somehow inferior to someone that relies entirely on human reasoning.

And of course then there is Dan Olinger from Bob Jones -

Those in conservative Christian circles are worried about Christian Exodus’ implication that the church should use the power of the state to enforce biblical morality, said Dan Olinger, a professor in the seminary at Bob Jones University in Greenville.

“We want to be good citizens and participants, but we’re not really interested in using the iron fist of the law to compel people to everything Christians should do,” Mr. Olinger said

Here again we find someone answering a question unrelated to the issue at hand. Ms. Cenac never even attempts to establish that CE desires to "do anything like compel people to do everything Christians do." Why then print a response to an unproven accusation? By printing this response the article implies that it is a known fact that CE does wish to impose some sort of theocracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But let us take Mr. Olinger to task for his statement all the same. A careful review of history clearly demonstrates that for most of American history and all of Western history morality has indeed been regulated by law. It is true that we have ever so slowly slipped from an adherence to natural law to secular law. This fact alone does not make the trend a correct course of action.

The preamble of our own Constitution recognizes the fact that man alone is not supreme. We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

One wonders how we could be grateful on one hand but disobedient on the other. Mr. Olinger suggest that Christians should be mere participants in what ever happens. But if we take his own words, "good citizens and participants", is it not logical that voting, and maybe even voting together for Christian leaders, is not reasonable?

Let's just break this entire thing down. Christian Exodus is nothing more than a group that intends to build a voting bloc. The method is unique in the American but not solely so - it has been done before (successfully in Kansas). Critics make large deal of the fact that CE wishes to return the county and state to a legislative stance closer natural law. People act as if this is something new, or perhaps something old that was tried and failed.

The questions that any Christian in South Carolina ought to seriously ask themselves is this.

1. Will there children be better off in a secular or Christian society?
2. Is society really better off without some constraints on morality?
3. Who better to make laws, a Christian or a secularist?
4. Who better to vote with, Christians or secularist?

South Carolina 1788 Constitution Preamble

We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution. (Via Yankee Doodle)

Thoughts of C.S. Lewis

My father was a digital man - he was an engineer by education and a career infantry officer by profession. His mind's eye functioned all of his life in terms of black and white. He was a good man and open-minded in terms of new ideas related to his profession but he had his limits.

In his waning years he has opened his mind to other possibilities - I am glad to have the fleeting moments I am allowed to see this side of him.

When I was around 9 or 10 I was reading for the first time Tolkien's Lord of The Rings. I had previously read The Lion The Witch and the Wardobe but I had no idea that Tolkien and Lewis had any relationship with each other.

My father came to me one afternoon and asked me why I was reading stuff about magic and the like. We talked, he would have preferred I read one of the "classics" in his mind (Mark Twain), a book of military history or better yet spend more time on mathematics. In the end he allowed me some leeway - I am glad of it.

In time I came to find and love all of c.s. Lewis' works. I simply cannot overstate the simplicity combined with profoundness that I still find to this day contained in Mere Christianity.

One must consider that Lewis was likely the most dedicated atheist in England in the early 20th Century. One evening In October 1931, J.R.R Tolkien and Hugo Dyson showed Lewis the errors of his dismissal of Christianity as a mere myth. He came to see that myth is but what has survived of the real truth.

Most folks from where I am from would openly write off the simple message Lewis explains so eloquently as watered down theology or ecumenical gobbledygook. But it is not.

One can ague, probably successfully that there is much more to the Christian faith than the simple tenets Lewis articulated. He himself did not deny this. He described this as nothing more than a hallway with doors. The hallway itself consisted of "mere Christianity", it is possible and acceptable to have doors going off the hallway so long as the baseline requirements of faith remain intact.

More on C.S. Lewis here