Saturday, May 12, 2012

Mitt Romney Finds A Problem-Solver

“What I’m hearing from folks around the country is: ‘Game on, we’re in, we will do whatever is necessary to elect Mitt Romney now because Obama has shown where he really stands,’” Brown said.

(HT: Politico.com)

A lot of Social Conservatives looked askance at Mitt Romney’s relatively easy victory in this year’s GOP Primary race. I endorsed Rick Santorumin the GOP Primary myself. Then conceded to reality and decided to suck it up. Thus, I refrain from whinging over various primary season butt-hurts and support my party’s inevitable nominee.

Then yesterday happened – now it’s time to commit even for the Mitt! At least that’s what some recent polling suggests is now happening in the GOP.

What’s funny is that Mitt really didn’t have to do much to earn this burst of enthusiasm. He just had to stand by his record as a moderately Republican Governor of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This made him look like an absolute Rock of Gibraltar athwart Barack Obama’s shameless, gutless and toothless pander to the homosexual community concerning same sex marriage. This in advance of a Big Hollywood fundraiser. Way to sell yourself and not in a good way.

So much for President Gutsy Call. Roger Stone blogs on behalf of Libertarian Presidential Candidate and Turncoat Former Republican, Gary Johnson. However, he describes Barack Obama’s gutlessness to a tee.

Once Gay Americans are through celebrating President Barack Obama’s “personal” support of Gay marriage equality, they will learn that Obama’s “evolution” changes nothing…This comes on the heels of an cynical Obama campaign pirouette where Team Obama trotted out first Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then Vice President “Crazy” Joe Biden to say they support gay marriage and imply that the President would too–after the election. Now, incredibly, Obama says Gay marriage is a state issue.

This benefits Mitt Romney who displayed a quiet, yet firm stick-to-itiveness on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney fought homosexual marriage all the way to the State Supreme Court as a governor and has decided not to veer from that stance on the issue.

“My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney said. “That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point. … Or ever, by the way.”

Mitt Romney did nothing more than remain Mitt Romney. Barack Obama herded disaffected social conservatives in Mr. Romney’s direction like the Tail-End Charlie on a cattle drive. Then, Mr. Obama ran away from his own panderation to his base after pocketing the checks and hob-knobbing with George Clooney. Thus, this becomes more than just a debate on same-sex marriage. It becomes a discussion of who these two men are and how each is faring with their respective party base.

Barack Obama is the unprincipled flip-flop artist that everyone accuses Mitt Romney of being. Mitt Romney hasn’t had to move an inch. Barack Obama sold out to his base and quite literally sang for his supper in the Palatial Clooney Mansion, amongst the pampered 1%. The GOP Base may not totally agree with Mitt Romney, but at least they no longer have to ask themselves how he is different than Barack Obama. Barack Obama’s pathetic moral cowardice has offered Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaign a contribution-in-kind.


View the original article here

Potemkin Federalism And The Modern Campaign Straddle

We Call This Federalism Instead of Open Cowardice

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.

(HT: Yahoo News)

I’m thinking President Obama regrets two of his decisions right about now. He wishes he wasn’t about to hold the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC and he’d rather have Opus The Penguin as a Veep right now instead of Huey “The Kingfish” Biden. As our Commander-In-Chief leans forward, gasps for breath and removes the 9” piece of steaming cutlery Mr. Biden recently sheathed between two of his vertebrae, he attempts to find a new and unique way to straddle the contentious issue of homosexual marriage.

Presidential Candidate Obama needs to stay on both sides of any controversial issue. As an Illinois State Legislator, he could always vote present. As United States President, he gets no such option – except that he kind of does. He can rediscover the magical principal of Federalism. He personally claims to favor homosexual marriage, but doesn’t want to shove his values down anyone’s throat. If only he could try that gambit out on energy policy and health care. This is far from the most egregious stunt I’ve seen out of Obama Presidency to date.

Had President Obama delivered this response in a vacuum filled only by moderately liberal suburbanites it would be an unquestionably logical decision. He doesn’t have any such vacuum to orate in and his teleprompter would probably fail if he tried. He gets the base of the Democratic Party to speak with instead, and they consider Federalism only slightly less insidious than Radon Gas in the basement. John Cook of Gawker explains liberal heartburn over President Obama’s “Present vote” on homosexual marriage.

He now believes that gay couples should be able to marry. He doesn’t believe they have a right to do so. This is like saying that black children and white children ought to attend the same schools, but if the people of Alabama reject that notion—what are you gonna do?…. before Roe v. Wade, abortion was a state-by-state issue, too. So was slavery.

> (HT:Gawker)

Mitt Romney meanwhile suggested that he had permanently retired Flip The Romney Dolphin. He chose his side on the issue years ago as Massachusetts Governor and won’t evolve.

Obama’s likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage, and fought his state’s highest court when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, when Romney was governor. Romney said on the campaign trail Monday that he continues to oppose gay marriage. ‘My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney said. “That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point. … Or ever, by the way.’

All of this seems like a perfect opportunity for Barack Obama to reaffirm his status as President Gutsy Call. He could take the bit in his teeth. He could demand openness and liberalization. He could make those damn, dirty Tea Partiers evolve. Except for one little nit to pick…..

The DNC will re-coronate Barack I in Charlotte, NC this summer. North Carolina just passed a ban on homosexual marriage by a 61-39 margin. And not only that, President Obama is going against a key element in The Democratic Party’s base if he openly supports homosexual marriage. Time Magazine (after their obligatory cheap-shot against North Carolinians for voting against leftist preferences on homosexual marriage) explains why Barack Obama won’t be making a very gutsy call here.

The constituency calculus makes this choice politically risky for Obama. Black voters, who were critical to Obama’s ‘08 victory, are strongly against marriage equality. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found 55% of blacks oppose gay marriage and 42% support it, which is almost the opposite of white voters—53% support and 43% oppose.

So there you have it. Federalism rises from the grave. It’s easier than leadership and more conducive to longer careers in politics than making principled decisions one way or the other. Now we just need to start devolving some of DC’s power, along with all the controversy and blame.


View the original article here

Vote Roundup from CJS Appropriations Bill

On Tuesday, we noted that there would be many important spending cutting amendment offered on the floor to the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill (H.R. 5326).  Well, a number of conservatives offered amendments to cut or eliminate wasteful, harmful, and unconstitutional programs.  Most notably, we focused on Mike Pompeo’s amendment to eliminate the stimulus program – Economic Development Administration.   The House defeated most of them, and in doing so, turned away about $4 billion more in spending cuts.  See how many of them were supported by your member of Congress.  Remember that those who are unwilling to eliminate these relatively small programs and agencies are not likely to have the guts to enact entitlement reform.

On Wednesday, Senator Thune told Politico:  “It’s the environment we’re living in right now. There are lots of folks who are watching every member’s voting records; you’re not only going to be attacked by your opponent on the Democrat side, but there are obviously Republicans out there who may not like when you’ve been around a few years and you got a lot of votes.”

Thune is correct.  We are spotlighting voting records, and it is clearly working.  Although most of the spending cut amendment failed this week, most of them garnered support from more than half the conference.

Here are the results from some of the key amendments:

Pompeo Amendment to abolish the Economic Development Administration [roll call #207]Broun amendment that would cut 3% from salaries and expenses accounts covered in the bill and direct $874.6 million to the bill’s spending reduction account. [Roll call #203]McClintock amendment that would cut $277.8 million from wasteful and protectionist programs in the International Trade Administration.  [Roll call #204]Scalise amendment that would reduce funding for Economic Development Administration salaries and expenses by $7.5 million and also reduce funding for the Commerce Department’s management account by $10.7 million. The amendment would direct $18.2 million to the spending reduction account. [roll call #206]Quayle amendment that would cut $21 million provided for industrial technology services at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). [roll call #208]Harris amendment that would cut $542,000 from global warming programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) [roll call #209] PassedBroun amendment that cut $15 million  for expenses associated with the restoration of Pacific salmon populations [roll call #211]Grimm amendment that would increase funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program by $126 million.  This is another federal intrusion into law enforcement that has not shown successful results.  [roll call #214] PassedFlake amendment that would cut $1.2 billion from the National Science Foundation. [roll call #217]Scott, R-Ga., amendment to abolish Legal Services Corp.[roll call #219]Broun amendment that would cut 12.2% from the entire bill. [roll call #222]

Cross-posted from The Madison Project


View the original article here

Morning Briefing for May 11, 2012

RedState Morning Briefing
May 11, 2012Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

So yesterday morning the Washington Post runs a story detailing what kind of a jerk Mitt Romney was in high school. This is a surprise, right? A high school kid being a jerk. This has never ever happened before. Why, you might well ask, would the Washington Post devote valuable time and space to writing about this event? And why, you might well follow up, is this worth posting about when everyone should be talking about the environment?

The answer is easy. It builds a meme and it translates Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage from a liability into a perceived strength.

[Editorial Note: The Washington Post, overnight, changed the story without noting any changes to the story]

Please click here for the rest of the post.

The serious problem of bullying in junior high and high school has received some overdue attention lately. Lee Hirsch’s documentary Bully is in theaters and highly recommended.

But don’t think that bullying in academic settings is exclusively a phenomenon of adolescence. Adults also bully adults. That’s what is happening now at Emory University in Atlanta.

You can be a brilliant, innovative pediatric neurosurgeon at a sky-scraping top medical school, in addition to being a generous philanthropist with an inspirational up-from-dire-poverty personal story, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and a best-selling writer whose memoir was turned into a TV movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr.

But in the hands of academic bullies, if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications — well, everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Let me present to you the amazing amount of scrutiny that apparently needs to go into a Barack Obama campaign ad, just to understand what it actually means.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

I wanted to bring to your attention a short report released by The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions (full disclosure: I am the president) focused on state spending burdens and their connection, or lack thereof, to economic growth.

Adam Schwiebert, The Diehl Family Fellow at the Buckeye Institute, put together a short policy brief that uses a measurement know as “state spending burden” – comparing combined state and local government spending as a percentage of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – to look at the connection between spending and growth. The resulting chart, shown below, highlights that Ohio has a higher level of spending than growth states like Texas, South Dakota and Colorado.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

In the past week, I’ve been called a bigot, a hater, had people wish I died, and had people wish Christians had died, been rounded up and killed, or experienced their own personal holocaust.

All this came from proponents of gay marriage. The media won’t cover most of this. The media sees most stories as victims versus victimizers and those who support gay marriage are the victims. They get the positive media coverage.

In reality, though, throughout this week I’ve seen a number of Christians engaged in as much hate filled rhetoric as gay marriage proponents, including the pastor in North Carolina who encouraged parents to beat up their gay acting sons.

As a Christian, I cannot support gay marriage, nor can I accept practicing homosexuality as anything but a sin. At the same time, there are a lot of Christians out there who seem convinced they aren’t sinners. In fact, we are all sinners and as I have matured in my faith, I have a harder and harder time understanding how so many Christians can be so tolerant of so much sin, but treat homosexuality as some sin set apart from all other sins making it a worse sin than, for example, adultery.

Please click here for the rest of the post.


View the original article here

State Spending Not The Path to Growth

I wanted to bring to your attention a short report released by The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions (full disclosure: I am the president) focused on state spending burdens and their connection, or lack thereof, to economic growth.

Adam Schwiebert, The Diehl Family Fellow at the Buckeye Institute, put together a short policy brief that uses a measurement know as “state spending burden” – comparing combined state and local government spending as a percentage of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – to look at the connection between spending and growth.  The resulting chart, shown below, highlights that Ohio has a higher level of spending than growth states like Texas, South Dakota and Colorado.

For what Paul Harvey would have called the “rest of the story” keep reading.


You can probably guess where this is headed: States that spend heavily, such as Ohio and Michigan, have not witnessed the strong economic growth that lower spending states have experienced.

Allow me to quote rather extensively from the report:

Spending burdens rise for two reasons: Either the private-sector economy decreases relative to government spending or government spending exceeds private sector growth. Both are true for Ohio.

Over the past two decades, government spending in Ohio has grown far faster than private sector growth. From 1990 to 2009, Ohio state spending outpaced inflation by 41 percent. During that same time, per capita income growth in Ohio averaged only 3.4 percent, tying for 6th lowest in the nation. The end result was a spending burden that grew from 20.74 percent of Ohio’s private-sector economy in 1992 to 26.30 percent in 2009.

Ohio is not alone. Michigan spent heavily over the past two decades and achieved underwhelming economic results. Like Ohio, its spending burden exceeded the national average and reached nearly 27 percent of its private-sector economy by 2009. When government spending grows faster than its tax base, it becomes more burdensome to job creation and only further stifles economic growth.

Other states have followed a different, more prosperous course. Texas, South Dakota, and Colorado are three states that have done a far better job at limiting government spending to the growth rate of the private sector. As a result, the spending burdens for each of these states is at or below 20 percent of their private-sector economies. Despite these restrained spending levels, economic growth has flourished in these states over the past two decades. Per capita income growth averaged 4.0, 4.6, and 4.0 percent in Texas, South Dakota and Colorado, respectively, from 1992 to 2009—far outpacing the anemic growth of Ohio and Michigan.

Chart?  Chart:

The takeaway?  More spending does not equal more growth.  Ohio and Michigan have spent more and yet seen less economic growth and prosperity.  Growth states in contrast have been able to restrain spending and reap the rewards.

This is particular worth highlighting because just as the economy is showing signs of life the calls for more spending are growing in the states.  But states like Ohio and Michigan simply can’t afford to return to the status quo of run away government spending and economic stagnation.

Instead, they must lead the way by relentlessly pursuing structural reforms and holding fast to fiscal discipline.  Only by keeping government limited and focused on its core components can states give the private sector the space it needs to grow and for communities to thrive.


View the original article here

What the Mainstream Media Isn’t Reporting About Solyndra

Promoted from the diaries.

After just a short time in Congress, I find myself more keenly aware of the research and reporting failures of the modern mainstream media.  If a story gets more depth and attention than the typical 10 second sound bite, I admit, I’m surprised.  Solyndra is no different.

There are a number of facts surrounding the Solyndra story that don’t seem to be getting any attention.  A significant part of the public outrage regarding the bankrupt company isn’t centered on their failed business model or external factors; it’s the millions of taxpayer dollars that the Obama Administration lost on Solyndra after the business was doomed.

After Solyndra defaulted and they knew Solyndra was in real financial trouble, Secretary Steven Chu’s Department of Energy (DOE) staff made a decision by December 10, 2010, to subordinate $75 million of taxpayer money so more private capital could be injected into Solyndra.  Subordination means that outside private investors are given superiority over taxpayers in the event of bankruptcy.  At that point, $440 million of the $535 million loan guarantee already had been pumped into the company.

By law Secretary Chu wasn’t allowed to subordinate the taxpayers’ money.  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically states that the loan guarantee “shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.”  It was the clear intention of Congress that taxpayers should be reimbursed first.

For a company that had already been declared in default and had a collapsed business model because the Chinese were selling their solar panels for less, one might question the sanity of private investors who gambled on Solyndra in December of 2010.  Were they after Solyndra’s intellectual property (IP) rights?  As a private investor and the dominant financier, could Argonaut’s support of President Obama have helped them secure Solyndra’s IP assets?

By December of 2010, these private investors were placed in first position to get the choice parts of the business – intellectual property, including proprietary information, processes, and patents – when Solyndra went under.  To be fair, I’d guess that these assets likely aren’t worth billions, but one could certainly speculate they’re at least worth $75 million, which legally belonged to the taxpayers.

Without question, $170 million – at the very least – was wasted.  If DOE had simply let Solyndra fail in December 2010, taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for $95 million of the loan guarantee that had yet to be dispersed in addition to the $75 million that was subordinated.

Why isn’t the mainstream media asking questions like these?  What other questions aren’t being asked?  To me, the Solyndra scandal is worthy of some good, old-fashioned investigative reporting.  Where are Bernstein and Woodward?  Is there no budding Mike Wallace?  I will continue to try to get to the bottom of this scandal.  Will the media join me?

Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, Virginia Republican, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.


View the original article here

Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameless Cover-Up

Fast and Furious: Barack Obamas Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameless Cover-up, by Katie PavlichIMAGINE A GOVERNMENT agency designed for the specific purpose of investigating and preventing the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms. Now imagine this agency engaging in an operation that not only goes against that purpose, but actually seeks to accomplish the opposite, by actively encouraging the sale of firearms to people whose ties to organized crime and gun violence are well known– and that this operation involves sending firearms across an international border into a country that this agency, and the government of which it is a part, purposely failed to warn, inform, or request permission from.

That, in a nutshell, is the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” program, whose development, bloody results, and ongoing cover–up are comprehensively documented and presented by investigative journalist Katie Pavlich in her new book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameless Cover–Up (Regnery, 2012). In the book’s ten chapters and 222 pages (of which nearly sixty are appendices and meticulously cited endnotes), Pavlich makes the case that the Obama administration’s “gunwalking” operation “wasn’t a ‘botched’ program, [but] a calculated and lethal decision” by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, with the full knowledge and assent of the Departments of Justice and of Homeland Security, “to purposely place thousands of guns into the hands of ruthless criminals” (p. 162).

The plan was simple – and both clearly and blatantly stupid (Pavlich quotes ATF agent Peter Forcelli as saying, “I can’t think of a single, logical strategy as to why [Fast and Furious] would have worked” [p. 47]). ATF agents like Hope MacAllister, the lead case agent for Fast and Furious, approached Phoenix–area gun stores and “requested” their cooperation with a program that would allow for the monitoring, tracking, and (ostensibly) prosecuting of gun buyers for deadly Mexican drug cartels (pp. 46–47; as the ATF has the ability to pull gun shops’ licenses, this was far more of an involuntary deputization than a simple request for assistance). Cameras were installed in the cooperating gun shops, and ATF agents watched as “straw purchasers,” or cartel gun mules, made massive firearms purchases in cash.

From this point, the ATF (and its DOJ masters) planned to track the purchased guns to their end users, thereby gaining insight into the cartels and gaining the ability to do far more damage to these violent organizations than they would have been able to simply by arresting each “straw purchaser” they caught. Unfortunately, the Mexican government was intentionally kept in the dark, and none of the decision–makers at DOJ or ATF evidently considered the consequences or repercussions that would result from allowing thousands of weapons, from 9mm pistols to massive 50-caliber BMG longrifles, “walk” across America’s southern border and directly into the hands of some of the deadliest people in the western hemisphere.

THOUGH U.S. ATTORNEY Dennis Burke and Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley – both employees of Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder, who has had an antagonistic relationship with the truth regarding Fast and Furious (pp. 129, 132–3, 150, 154, etc.) – ensured that cartel purchases from involuntarily deputized Phoenix gun shops remained monitored, they actively prevented agents from “interdicting weapons” that were en route to Mexico, and the relevant criminal cases were dropped as soon as the suspects and their newly–acquired weapons crossed the border (p. 42).

As dealers began voicing concern to the ATF over the guns the agency had tasked them with selling to cartel-related buyers, they were reassured that “guns weren’t being sent over the border and into Mexico” (pp. 56-58), and the DOJ publicly claimed that ATF “has never knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to suspected gunrunners” (p. 81). In one case, a cartel buyer requested five times the number of 9mm firearms that a gun store had in stock. When the dealer reached out to the ATF to request guidance, he was told to order the additional guns and make the sale.

Fast and Furious weapons began to turn up at murder scenes throughout Mexico and in the southern U.S., as anybody but the ATF and DOJ decision-makers could have predicted (a map is provided in image 4, between pp. 104–105; these include the murder of Agent Brian Terry and of the brother of a Mexican Attorney General). The Mexican government had purposely been kept in the dark about the program, and though the revelation of its existence and its scope caused an outrage, Obama’s State Department staunched Mexico’s outcry by threatening to cut off $500 million in U.S. anti-cartel aid if criticism of Fast and Furious did not cease (pp. 110–111). At the same time, DOJ was issuing gag orders regarding the program (p. 101) and leaders within ATF were doing their best to intimidate and ostracize whistleblowers (pp. 115–121). Further, instead of focusing on cartel buyers and drug–related gun violence, the DOJ railed against American gun shops, accusing them of serving as “the gun locker of the Mexican drug cartels” (p. 43) and declaring that “Mexican Drug Lords go shopping for war weapons in Arizona” (p. 71) – without, as Pavlich notes, “mention[ing] that the gun shops that had sold these guns would not have done so had it not been on orders from the ATF” (ibid).

In addition to demonstrating the intentional nature of ATF’s gunwalking program, and the lunacy of those involved in planning and executing it, Pavlich also records the descent of that agency from enforcement of the law to bureaucratic nonsensicality (a theme begun in the introduction, written by AFT Special Agent Jay Dobyns [pp. 1–8]). For example, on page 43, she conveys ATF Special Agent Peter Forcelli’s recounting of a 2010 case concerning a suspect who was “believed…to be sending grenades out of the [U.S.], trafficking parts for grenades into Mexico, and then building the explosives for the cartels.” Emory Hurley’s directive to the agents: “[D]o not let [the suspect] leave the country, but if you catch him leaving the country, we won’t prosecute him.” The suspect, Jean Baptiste Kingery, was eventually caught attempting to cross the U.S.–Mexico border “with grenade parts and components packed in his tires,” but after offering “a full–blown confesion…that he had been making grenades for the cartels and smuggling explosives over an international border,” Hurley and Dennis Burke “dismissed the case and Kingery went free” (ibid).

THE PROSE IS slightly clunky at times, and the book’s organization could be improved. The latter is most apparent with regard to the proximity between the presentation of evidence about Fast and Furious, and the author’s efforts to draw a direct line from the operation to purported efforts by President Obama and Attorney General Holder to severely curtail gun rights in America. This is not to say that the subject isn’t relevant to the overall narrative; in fact, it is very important to consider the evidence Pavlich presents in support of her assertion that, “Under Eric Holder, the ATF was deputized to change the nation’s gun laws by putting in place a shadowy operation designed to prove a falsehood: that weapons sold by U.S. gun shops, especially ‘assault weapons,’ are the cause of Mexico’s drug violence. By creating public outrage, President Obama, Eric Holder, and other administration officials, all with longstanding records of hostility against the Second Amendment, hoped to reinstate the assault weapons ban, which had been one of their early, but failed, political goals” (p. 154). However, while Pavlich demonstrates the existence of these efforts, the overall narrative might have been better served by relegating commentary on them to a chapter or two at the end of the book.

Additionally, the book’s presentation as a largely continuous narrative actually masks some of its most outrageous revelations about Fast and Furious and its cover–up. The author occasionally drops bombshells in the middle of pages and paragraphs, but continues on with the narrative without allowing the reader a moment to fully absorb their impact. For example, on page 55, Pavlich notes in passing that “On June 10, 2010, as complaints from ATF agents in Mexico escalated, Hope MacAllister asked the National Tracing Center to hold off on tracing gun that were being recovered in Mexico. The [NTC] waited for instructions on when to resume tracing the guns. They never received such orders. It appeared the Phoenix office did not want the Mexican government or ATF agents in Mexico to know that so many of the guns were traceable to gun shops cooperating with Fast and Furious.” Given the fact that the entire program was based on tracing the firearms that had been sold by forcibly–deputized gun shops and allowed by the ATF to walk over the Mexican border, the revelation that MacAllister ordered an indefinite halt to the tracing of these guns is a major bombshell, and was almost certainly worthy of more attention in the text than it received (the narrative continues immediately after that paragraph with a shift to David Voth’s claims of the “great progress” being made by the operation).

However, these minor shortcomings do not do much to take away from the book’s purpose or its overall impact, which should be to open the general public’s eyes to the enormity of this scandal, and to force media to acknowledge it despite their best efforts not to since it became public knowledge nearly two years ago. The book closes with another bombshell (this time in summation of the evidence and narrative presented throughout the book. Pavlich writes, “There are still 1,400 Fast and Furious guns missing, and ATF agents are not actively trying to track them down. Ten thousand rounds of ammunition were sold to cartel–linked straw buyers under the watch of the ATF. Eight hundred of the original 2,500 weapons sold through Fast and Furious have already been linked to criminal activity. We can be certain this is only the beginning” (p. 154).

The media have largely been silent on Fast and Furious since the public became aware of the operation in the wake of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder in December 2010. The eye–opening case presented in this book should not only force the media to do their jobs and pay attention, but it should also serve as an instrument of information for the voting public as a whole during this campaign season, as the executive who is ultimately responsible for this scandal and those who implemented it (and covered it up) is actively seeking an electoral mandate for a second term in office.

Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameless Cover–Up, by Katie Pavlich (ISBN 978-1-59698-321-2; 222 pages; $27.95), is published by Regnery.


View the original article here

Where Is The Balance?

In the past week, I’ve been called a bigot, a hater, had people wish I died, and had people wish Christians had died, been rounded up and killed, or experienced their own personal holocaust.

All this came from proponents of gay marriage. The media won’t cover most of this. The media sees most stories as victims versus victimizers and those who support gay marriage are the victims. They get the positive media coverage.

In reality, though, throughout this week I’ve seen a number of Christians engaged in as much hate filled rhetoric as gay marriage proponents, including the pastor in North Carolina who encouraged parents to beat up their gay acting sons.

As a Christian, I cannot support gay marriage, nor can I accept practicing homosexuality as anything but a sin. At the same time, there are a lot of Christians out there who seem convinced they aren’t sinners. In fact, we are all sinners and as I have matured in my faith, I have a harder and harder time understanding how so many Christians can be so tolerant of so much sin, but treat homosexuality as some sin set apart from all other sins making it a worse sin than, for example, adultery.

This is a political blog and I try to leave my theological ramblings for special occasions, but I think this needs to be said.Christianity is a religion premised on God’s love. We are to hate sin, but we are to love sinners. For non-Christians, that may make them rage about Christian hypocrisy, but it should not. I have gay friends. They all know where I stand on this issue. But they also know that I know that I too am a sinner. For me to love myself and hate them would just be sin on top of sin. We all, like sheep, have gone astray and I am no better than they are nor they better than me.

Hearing a pastor encourage parents to commit violence on their sons because they may be gay is offensive to me. Hearing Christians refer to gays with slurs is offensive. At the same time, hearing gay rights proponents wish Christians would die is equally offensive. Hearing gay rights proponents derisively call a Christian a bigot for standing on principle is offensive.

What many people tend to forget is that Christianity is not a religion premised on some of us getting to heaven and others not. Christianity is actually a religion premised on not one single person getting to Heaven. All of us are on the express train to hell. All of us.

I no more belong in Heaven than the Pope or Billy Graham and they no more belong in Heaven than me. None of us belong there.

We get there by God’s own grace given through our saving faith in Christ. Believing in Christ gets us a “get out of jail free” card, but that card does not mean we don’t belong in jail.

Those of us who are going to Heaven view ourselves as passing through this place. But we have an obligation to fight for what we believe in and to stand up for our values. We know not just that society, over several thousand years, worked out that marriage between a man and woman is the best organization for society and we should not change that just because some people think it would make them happy or be fair.

We also, as Christians, know that marriage is an institution set up by God where man and woman become one being designed to glorify God. That’s why we can’t support changing marriage’s definition.

But as I defend marriage as it exists, and recognize that many opponents on this issue will see anything Christians say and do as examples of bigotry and hate, we Christians should reflect our values with love of our fellow sinners, not condoning violence.

Liberals view the Golden Rule as they do the Commerce Clause — a theological blank slip to justify any action they want as the commerce clause is a constitutional blank slip to do whatever they want legally.

Evangelical Christians should remember the Golden Rule and treat others with the love and respect we wish to be shown. But we should also know the limits of application for the Golden Rule and remember that sometimes loving others means saying no.

The balance in an increasingly secular world is difficult for Christians to maintain. As the world comes down on our values, it is easy to react back with hostility. But as I noted on twitter the other day, for all the people calling me a bigot and saying I am out of step with the advance of history, my response is that I am not concerned about being on the right side of history. I am concerned about whose side I am on, on the last day of history.

There will be a last day. And though I may lose in this lifetime, on the last day Christ wins and I through him.

There are real rights and real wrongs and we should not be so eager to accommodate this world as to be silent on right and wrong. But we should not be so eager to show our separation from this world by pouring out contempt for others who, like ourselves, have fallen short of the glory of God.

The balance is not easy, but let’s try not to go wobbly.


View the original article here