Oswald Acted Alone

As a history nerd and hater of conspiracy theories, here is the first of five reasons Lee Harvey Oswald and Oswald alone killed JFK.

Oswald Acted Guilty

Oswald displayed clear consciousness of guilt. Of the many employees at the Texas School Book Depository, only Oswald failed to show up at the roll call after the murder. Of the hundreds of thousands of people in DFW, Oswald is the only person to shoot and kill a policeman moments after the murder. These are the clear actions of a guilty person. 

Traditional Conservativism, Conservation and Climate Change

The modern spectacle of vanished forests and eroded lands, wasted petroleum and ruthless mining, national debts recklessly increased until they are repudiated, and continual revision of positive law, is evidence of what an age without veneration does to itself and its successors.
Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot

One of the primary purposes behind my periodic posts about the nature of conservativism has been to show far far afield what commonly passes for conservativism has strayed from the roots of genuine conservative thinking. There is no issue which more clearly demonstrates this drift away from true conservative principles than the issue of climate change.

Traditional Conservativism, the Second Amendment, and Gun Laws

The horrific shooting at Newtown, CT, has renewed the debate over gun control measures. I have noticed lots of my friends who consider themselves conservatives posting a lot of FB status updates on this issue, so I thought I would weigh in on the issue from my perspective of traditional conservativism.

The Traditional Conservative and the Fiscal Cliff

In his discussion of the influence of Edmund Burke on conservative thinking, Russell Kirk made this observation: 

The modern spectacle of vanished forests and eroded lands, wasted petroleum and ruthless mining, national debts recklessly increased until they are repudiated, and continual revision of positive law, is evidence of what an age without veneration does to itself and its successors. (The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, Kindle Locations 779-781). 

Kirk's comments on careless stewardship of the environment deserve more attention in a later blog post, but for today I want to focus on his trenchant critique of debt, "national debts recklessly increased until they are repudiated." 

Chuck Hagel and the Sad State of "Conservativism"

President Obama's choice of former senator Chuck Hagel to be his new Secretary of Defense should be the cause for wide Republican support. Hagel is a decorated Vietnam veteran and a Republican with a lifetime rating of 84% from the American Conservative Union with a strong traditional conservative voting record. But not so fast. Senator Lindsey Graham expressed dismay at Hagel's nomination:

Tolkein, Kirk, and the Forgotten Conservatism

A few weeks ago I began posting reflections on the nature of conservativism, drawing heavily from Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind. Kirk was the intellectual godfather of modern American conservativism, though sadly, far more Americans know of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh than Kirk. Hannity, Limbaugh, and others who are part of the media-entertainment complex that poses as conservatism are in reality ideologues (perhaps even demagogues), and thus are the antithesis of the conservativism defined by Kirk as "the negation of ideology."

In today's post I'd like to draw attention to a strain of conservative thinking that Kirk wrote about in The Conservative Mind that also happens to be reflected in The Hobbitt and The Lord of the Rings trilogy penned by J.R.R. Tolkein. That line of thinking is usually called agrarianism.

Conservativism - The Negation of Ideology

Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind was a landmark study of the various threads of conservative thought. Sadly, today's so-called conservatives get their marching orders from the media-entertainment complex rather than looking back to the first principles, or as Kirk called them, the "permanent things" of traditional conservatism. As a result, conservatism has been dumbed down to a few bullet points and divorced from the prudent, thoughtful legacy of men like Kirk.

This paragraph from the forward to the seventh edition of The Conservative Mind captures the essence of conservatism:

What is conservativism?

How many times have you heard or read the words "soul-searching" after the recent election? As in this headline: "After Romney loss, GOP soul searching begins." There is indeed a great deal of discussion and debate among those who consider themselves "conservative" over the direction of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. But who defines conservativism, and how should conservativism be defined? That is the deeper philosophical issue behind these discussions. 

If at First You Don't Secede - or Saving Conservatism

In the aftermath of President Obama's re-election, the reaction on the right has been one of anger, disbelief, and denial. Anger because the president's election allegedly shows that America is now a country in which there are "more takers than givers." Disbelief because of the barrage of predictions by pundits on the right that Romney was going to easily defeat the President. And denial, to the point that some so-called conservatives are now openly talking about secession.

Politics, Religion, and the Danger of Compromise

Religious convictions should never be muted or compromised for the sake of political correctness (whether liberal or conservative). Even though I am not a Catholic or a Mormon, for instance, I really appreciate the fact that

We Are Going Broke and It's My Fault (And Yours, Too)

Our nation is drowning in debt, and if the government used standard accounting practicies, entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare would reveal an actual debt of $40 trillion (yes, TRILLION) unfunded commitments. This problem has been brewing for a long time, but we the people have either ignored it or refused to hold our politicians to account. We have no one to blame but ourselves. I truly believe that we get the government we deserve, and that has never been the case more than right now.

The problem is that both parties are controlled by inflexible elements that will not do what has to be done to solve this problem: raise taxes and cut spending while reforming Medicare and Social Security. Last night's vice-presidential debate put into sharp focus what's wrong with our country. First, Mr. Biden sounded like he was in a debate from the 1980s, dusting off the old canard that Republicans hate Social Security and Medicare, and refusing to put on the table any solutions like opening Medicare up to market competition. And last summer when the President and the Speaker were negotiation a "Grand Bargain," the President lost nerve because elements in his party would not accept changes in spending and entitlements.

Meanwhile, the Speaker could not go through with their deal because of people like Romney and Ryan who steadfastly oppose tax increases. In fact, they are promising to cut rates by 20% in addition to maintaing all of the Bush tax cuts, while claiming that this will be revenue neutral due to offsets in tax expenditures (deductions) and "growth." Yet they have refused to explain what deductions they will end, and how the number of deductions can make up for the cuts. They just think that with the wave of a magic wand, "growth" will take care of everything.

Last night Mr. Ryan argued that this has been done before by JFK and Reagan. Here's the problem with his logic. The tax rates were much higher when JFK and Reagan cut taxes. Eisenhower had left in the high tax rates to fund the Korean War and reduce the debt from WW2 (imagine that - a Republican who thinks wars should be paid for!). So there was room to maneuver to reduce those rates once the Korean War was over and the debt had been partiallly paid down. In Reagan's case, the rates were still quite high (70% for the top rate), and worst of all, inflation was raging out of control, pushing workers into higher tax brackets without greater spending power (it was called bracket creep). Even then, after President Reagan cut taxes, he had to raise them again in 1982 and 1986 to offset the deficits. But today the highest rate is 35% and inflation is non-existent. The situations are not the same at all, so to continue to promote the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts when the scenario is far different is the epitome of ideology over reality.

The real way to grow the economy is to show that we are serious about tackling the issue of debt. And this is a moral issue. It is immoral to pass on trillions in debt to future generations. It is immoral to make promises to seniors that we will have to break. And it is a family values issue as well. If we don't fix this problem now, the sacrifices every family will have to make will only be more painful down the road.

And this is all my fault. I used to be a rabid partisan and ideologue. I used to love talk radio, and read only those sources that I agreed with. No more.

Last night I posted a status update on the debate coverage of Fox News and MSNBC, joking that you would never know the two channels were covering the same debate. My point was that ideology was trumping reality. And doggone it if many of my friends didn't chime in with ardent partisan comments about their guy, proving that what is true in the media is now true among many of us. 

We have dug ourselves into a hole that is getting deeper by the day. And as long as we allow the ideologues in either party to control the debate, nothing will be done to fix it. I URGE you to check out the website of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and also to download and read the report of the co-chair's of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform found here. 

We can have a good government we deserve, but only if we will muster the political will to stand up to the intransigent forces in each party that refuse to do what must be done to solve this problem.

Is There a Christian Economic Policy?

One of the dramatic changes in America that has taken place in my lifetime is the shifting political  allegiance of evangelicals. Growing up in Kentucky, most people I had anything to do with were self-described evangelicals, and most were Democrats. They believed in traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and an economic policy that was fair to "the working man." They typically held Republicans in suspicion as servants of wealthy special interests like corporations, and believed that New Deal programs saved the county from the economic ruin of the Depression.

Religion and Politics: A Cautionary Note to Christians

This past week Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum reignited the controversy over President Obama’s religious beliefs, and triggered a larger discussion of the relationship between religious beliefs and politics. I have been concerned for some time about a dangerous trend I think I see among believers, and I would like to address it in this post.

Some Great Ideas for Wall Street Reform

In a recent column in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibi offered some concrete proposals for reforming Wall Street that I think are worth merit. Incidentally, it seems to me lately that many Christians have become knee-jerk defenders of anything remotely labeled capitalism. There is no question the Bible supports personal property rights (Acts 5:3-4), and promotes the individual work ethic (Ephesians 4:28). But there is also no question that the Bible condemns stealing (Ephesians 4:28), as well as the abuse of the poor by the wealthy (James 5:1-6), and affirms the role of the civil government in punishing evildoers (Romans 13:3-7). With that in mind, here are my favorite reforms Taibi mentions:

Standing Pat with Pat Downs

There is all sorts of outrage right now regarding the new TSA method of screening passengers. The options are a full body scan or a thorough pat down. All it takes is one or two inappropriate actions by TSA staff (out of the thousands of screenings each hour) to feed the complaints about "Big Brother" intruding upon our freedom.

This sort of whining demonstrates that we Americans are not serious about our own security. If you have ever traveled to Israel, a nation that has lived under the threat of terrorism since its inception, you know what genuinely thorough security measures at an airport look like. The hysterical reactions to the new TSA program are embarrassing to me as an American.

All it will take to stifle these grumblings is a successful attack, and frankly, we have been enormously lucky the last few years. I fully expect that many of the same people complaining about the TSA now would also be among the first to blame the government for failing to protect us if a catastrophe were to happen.

Phoney posturing about the dignity of travelers and personal liberty reflects an almost infantile ignorance of the dangers facing us. Be thankful that our government is (belatedly) trying to take airport security seriously, and cooperate with the TSA staffs that are working hard to protect us. A few extra minutes in a security line and a thorough screening are a small price to pay for the safety and convenience of travel.

Is President Obama a Muslim - and Does It Matter?

Last week the Pew Research Group reported that nearly 20% of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim. This news, combined with the president’s remarks regarding the proposed Muslim center near Ground Zero, sparked widespread discussion of the president’s religious beliefs. Is President Obama a Muslim?

This question is not merely a matter of whether President Obama’s father was a Muslim. Many people choose a different religious path from their parents, as did the president’s father, who rejected Islam for atheism. President Obama has been very clear about his convictions. "I believe Jesus died for my sins and I'm redeemed through him – that is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.”

Does that sound like a Muslim to you? The Qur’an specifically denies the notion that Jesus died for our sins. "That they said, 'We killed the Christ Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah';- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them [or it appeared so unto them], and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise" (Surah 4:157). Islam teaches that Jesus was a great prophet, but it categorically denies that He died on the cross to atone for the sins of humanity.

To be a Muslim one must confess: “La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad-ur-Rasool-Allah” – “There is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet.” Whether President Obama was raised by a Muslim or not, the bottom line is that he has chosen to publicly confess allegiance to Jesus, not to Islam. Is it possible that the president is merely pretending to believe in Jesus? Of course – just as many politicians profess faith as a smokescreen for outrageous behavior. Is it true that many Muslims see the president as “one of us”? As the first president in history to have Muslim blood relatives or to have lived a substantial period of time in an Islamic country, Obama would necessarily have an appeal to Muslims. But the president claims to be a Christian, and his public statements about Jesus are incompatible with Islam. Bearing false witness about the president’s religion does not honor Christ. The bottom line is that for all of us the only thing that determines whether we are truly Christians is how our beliefs and practices measure up to the Bible.

The most disappointing thing about all of the speculation regarding the president’s religion is the assumption that something would be wrong if he was a Muslim. But what if tomorrow the president announced that he has changed his mind, confessed the Shahada, and embraced Islam openly? Would he suddenly become disqualified to be president? Not according to the Constitution, which specifically says in Article 6 that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So why does it even matter of President Obama is a Muslim or not?

It is inescapable that the real issue here is prejudice, a deep distrust of anyone who might remotely be considered a Muslim. Why is it that during the 2008 presidential campaign many pundits loved to point out that Obama’s middle name was Hussein? “Oh, I’m just calling him by his full name,” they would demur. Really? Then why didn’t the same pundits refer to John McCain as John Sydney McCain? The only reason critics brought attention to Obama’s middle name is because it is a popular Muslim name, and in their mind, anything Muslim is suspect.

Are there Muslims who should not be trusted? Of course, just as there are some Methodists that shouldn’t be trusted. Is there a fringe of Islam that murders innocent women and children to advance its agenda? Tragically that is the case – and most often around the world the victims are Muslims. But none of this represents the vast majority of Muslims who live in America. There were many Muslims murdered by the terrorists in the attacks on 9/11. There are thousands of Muslims serving in our armed forces. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in our country because they want to enjoy the American dream. Do we need to be vigilant to protect ourselves against radicalized Islam? Of course. But to dismiss anyone who is a Muslim as a threat to America is bigotry.

So what if President Obama was a Muslim? Based on the hysterical speculation I hear from some people, you would think President Obama is on the verge of imposing Sharia law on America! Not only is this absurd since he is not a Muslim, but since we live in a system filled with checks and balances, what do you think would happen to any president who tried to impose a narrow religious order on America? That president would be immediately impeached and removed from office. Duh!!!!!!

There are legitimate reasons to oppose President Obama’s policies. But the measuring stick ought to be the Constitution, not baseless speculation. Since the demographic group most likely to believe the president is a Muslim is my own group (white, Protestant conservatives), I would like to speak directly to “my people.” If we truly believe that Jesus is the only way to God, then we have the duty to share the gospel with Muslims. How can we possibly reach out to people while at the same time we push them away with fear and prejudice?