Islam's Trojan Horse (Built by Democrats)

The Democrat National Convention will open with a Muslim prayer.

The DNC says that there will also be Catholic representation in the multi-faith group at the convention, but it does not want New York archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan to be there. This sounds like payback for Dolan's opposition to Obamacare's insistence that Catholic institutions offer birth control. Conspiracy theorists and Republican campaign outliers would like to make this proof that Obama favors Islam over Christianity. I doubt this is the case.

Even a radical multi-culturalist like Barak Obama must see that snubbing the "Pope of America" in favor of exclusive Muslim prayer would be political suicide. An official with the Obama campaign admitted that there will be a "high ranking" person from the Catholic church invited to the DNC convention. "Both/and" not "either/or" is the Democrat way. No surprise here. However, this incident highlights one of the dangers of the multi-cultural agenda and it showcases another way the Democrats can be distinguished from the Republicans.

This discussion must be undergirded with the premise that America is a pluralist society, not a Christian society. The founding fathers' concept of religious freedom embraces at least one tenet that is lacking from many other religious systems, Islam in particular. The First Amendment freedom of religion guarantees all religions the right of expression without government interference. That Constitutional freedom ends, however, when the religious expression impinges on the rights of others to believe or act differently. The Quran is not equally tolerant, and this generation has seen the radical outworking of that intolerance, particularly since 9/11.

The Blaze has a particularly revealing article about the real intentions of the Muslims who are spearheading their prayer service at the DNC. The biography of Siraj Wahhaj, the head Imam in this operation, is particularly frightening. He is quoted by one interviewer saying,  “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” And in another instance, “it is his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran…we need to speak up!”

This raises a paradox of freedom question: must religious freedom include the right to espouse a religion that would exterminate all other religions? Asked another way, does our Constitution grant citizens the right to abolish the Constitution? This is where the question of minority rights becomes tricky. If a minority of citizens wants to rewrite the Constitution, they must enlist the majority on their side. This is what the civil rights movement accomplished, as I see it; not a rewrite, but an amendment process within the Constitutional framework. This is fine.

A replacement of the Constitution with the Quran, with Sharia law is a different matter. Until Muslims become a majority, this eventuality is impossible to imagine. That said, our current system must allow a voice and a place for those who wish to see the Constitution replaced. This must be the position of Christians as well as Muslims. The only ground on which Christians can fight for their own freedom is that which guarantees all others their freedom as well.

Conditions already exist which begin to limit the free expression of the Christian religion. The outgoing Air Force chief recently forbade Christian officers from "proselytizing." There have long been complaints that public schools teachers can talk about any religion with their students except Christianity. The expression of certain Biblical views are now considered "hate speech" punishable in some jurisdictions. We must continue to fight this kind of discrimination.

But there must be limits to our freedoms. In the same way that freedom of speech cannot allow someone to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, we must consider how to handle religious zealots whose belief system is antithetical to our Constitution. If my religion required that I sacrifice a virgin on every full moon, the law against murder would trump my religious freedom. Similarly, if my religious views demand insurrection and the overthrow of the majority, my actions must be curtailed. Without this restriction, we would have to allow homicide bombers to express themselves without legal consequence. 9/11 becomes just  a really dramatic religious expression; nothing wrong with that.

One hopes the Democrats weren't thinking this far when they allowed the expansion of Muslim activities at their convention. One wonders how they could even embrace someone as radical as the people who are coordinating the event. Robert Spencer pegged it in frontpagemag.com saying, "The Democrats are so in thrall to multiculturalism that it is likely that few, if any, DNC organizers know or care about Wahhaj’s Islamic supremacist statements and ties." One risks being called Islamophobic for saying so, but it is hard to imagine the Republicans being in this position. Again, one thing is clear: the two parties are radically unlike in what they support. A real choice is being offered: ride the horse George Washington rode, or climb on the Trojan horse the Democrats are building.

Whose War on Women?

Democrats claim Republicans are launching a war on women.

The irony is so thick you could cut it with a wooden spoon. The Democrats are trotting out every filly they have to run in the race started by Todd Akin's unfortunate comments about abortion last week. It begins to look as though Sandra Fluke (rhymes with look) is going to be the Dem's Joe the Plumber this election cycle. According to a response to a Michelle Malkin column, Fluke saw that Georgetown's insurance did not cover contraception and, "she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy." If she is representative of the party, then another clear distinction between parties is being drawn.

Sandra Fluke made her debut in the news back in February when she protested the Georgetown University policy of excluding birth control from student health plans (see Washington Post.) This was in the midst of the media storm revealing that Obamacare would not give Catholic institutions an exemption from the requirement to provide birth control to employees, regardless of their long-standing opposition it.

The crux of Fluke's argument was that she represented a large body of women at Georgetown who wanted to have unrestricted access to birth control. Unless I am mistaken, the primary reason to take the pill is to prevent pregnancy, and pregnancy only happens after sexual intercourse. I think the Catholic church is also against that in extramarital circumstances. Doubtless some of the women Fluke claims to represent are married, thus avoiding the double jeopardy, but I have not found any indication that she meant to specify married women's rights, so her argument is twice flawed. She wants women to have the church-supported right to commit two sins (as defined by the Catholic church.)

While protestants agree to disagree on the ethics of birth control, there is no argument concerning sex outside of marriage: the Bible clearly says it is wrong. As Francis Fukayama insightfully suggested years ago in The End of History, easy access to effective birth control fundamentally changed society. Decoupling pregnancy from sexual coupling broke down the major barrier to non-professional female promiscuity. The subsequent lowering of resistance to and eventual wide acceptance of abortion as a method of birth control completed the revolution.

Society has arrived at the point where a woman not only can have, but according to Fluke, should be paid to have contraceptive options, making free love truly free, at least free of the emotional and financial burden of child rearing. One wonders, however, if there are not hidden costs in all this freedom. Not surprisingly, God had his reasons for sequestering sexual activity within the institution of marriage. In the same way that ignoring the law of gravity can have painful, long-term effects, flaunting the restrictions on sexual activity exact a price as well. Teen pregnancies and single-parent households, predominantly headed by women, are plaguing our society. No one can deny that these are results of sexual freedom and they cost us something.

Taking another tack, allowing men to have their choice of multiple sexual partners without committment does not raise the status of women; it lowers it. When women can dictate the terms of sexual engagement and demand commitment by the man, backed by society's moral framework, women become the real arbiters of power. But apparently the Fluke-style Democrat woman wants a different kind of freedom; she wants the freedom to have unlimited sex with any number of partners with no commitment by either participant. That is part of the Democrat platform. And it would be naive to deny that abortion is one nail in that party plank.

Progressives like to talk about abortion as a matter of women's reproductive rights. This terminology introduces a red herring: making abortion a reproductive right is the same as saying infanticide is a form of family planning. A woman's right to reproduce begins and ends with her right to control who gets into bed with her. "Not tonight , Dear; I have a headache," is supposed to be sufficient restraint for any gentleman. "Not until after the wedding," is supposed to be the societal norm, Christianly speaking.  Once again, Fukayama agrees saying, "moral values and social rules are not simply arbitrary constraints on individual choice but the precondition for any kind of cooperative enterprise." Democrats don't agree.

No discussion of women's rights would be complete without a question about the rights of some 27 million women who have been murdered since 1973. That is approximately how many female fetuses have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. Forget for the moment that it is biologically, philosophically and Biblically sound to insist that human life begins at conception. If an acorns gets crushed, the forest is minus one oak tree; if a tadpole gets eaten, there will be one less frog in the pond; if an embryo, fetus or whatever one calls the product of human conception gets terminated, one less human will have the chance to breathe.

Here is the distinction: you can march with the Democrat party of Sandra Fluke, or vote Republican with someone like Michelle Malkin who chided Rush Limbaugh, but continued, "Young Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law is not a “slut.” She’s a moocher and a tool of the Nanny State. She’s a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers." If there is a war on women, the Democrat's policies have far more "kills" than the Republicans. Anyone who still thinks the two parties are the same is not paying attention.

Obama Isn't the Problem

People on the left, aka the progressives, liberals, Democrats, whatever you choose to call them, hate being called socialists. The only thing they hate more is when someone like Rush Limbaugh calls them socialists. Rush went a step further this week and actually said, "the country could survive four more years of Obama... but I don't believe the country can survive in a country full of people that would re-elect him."

Since at least forty percent of the country is currently polling for Obama, this is a sweeping indictment. One must wonder what particular view is so troubling to Rush Limbaugh (and many of the rest of us.) I believe it is simply this: Obama's vision for America is a socialist revolution. The policies his administration and the Democrats in Congress are advancing are blatantly socialist in nature. They openly admit they are patterned after the European (socialist) model. The policies they present will take our country in a different direction from its last two centuries.

Since many people today are convinced there is no difference between the two major political parties in America, it might be instructive to outline the distinguishing economic features. The typical Democrat believes that the answer to every problem is a government program. Conservatives see individual initiative and personal preference as the keys to making things work. Progressives think the government should create equality of outcomes (read wealth redistribution) whereas Republicans typically strive for equal opportunity for all. The liberals want to give the poor a hand out, their opponents prefer to offer a hand up.

Over the years, many Christians have recommended socialism as more in line with Biblical teaching. They believe the socialist model is more compassionate, more loving perhaps. They think it better serves the underprivileged. There are two problems with this. First, the New Testament nowhere suggests that human government is to be God's financial instrument to help the poor. Biblically speaking, stewardship is a personal matter; helping the poor is a church issue, not a state issue. Secondly, in actual practice, the poor fare better in capitalist systems than in socialist economies. Check out Cuba, the former Soviet Union and her satellites or the communist dictatorships in the far east and you will find far more people in poverty on a per capita basis than in any society with a free market capital economy.

Having said that, it must be emphasized that neither system is without flaws. Admittedly, capitalists have abused the underprivileged at times. The problem is not with the system in either case, but with human nature. In a sinless world, any system would work to the benefit of all citizens. But this is not a sinless world. All other things being equal, the freedom granted in a capitalist economy has historically led to better conditions for the majority of its people.

I believe this is what Rush meant when he said we can't survive as a country if a majority want to re-elect Obama. That choice means that a majority want a socialist country. These people apparently are unaware that no socialist society has been able to succeed long-term. The melt-down in Greece and Spain and the impending collapse of the entire European Economic Community should put to rest any thought that socialism works. Sooner or later, it breaks down. America has over 200 years of success with a capitalist system; Europe is coming to the end of her socialist experiment after only 60 years.

That alone highlights the choice we are making this election cycle, although there are numerous other social issues that distinguish the parties as well. But if you take the narrow view as James Carville said a few cycles ago, "It's the economy, stupid," then we have a simple choice: we can stay on the economic train that has a long track record of success, or we can jump on the one that is heading over a cliff. Problem solved.

Getting Away With Murder

There once was a Bible character named Achan who thought he could break the rules and get away with it. His crime was taking forbidden plunder after a military victory. His punishment was death for himself and his entire family. Today we have a political character named Akin who violated the taboo of talking about pregnancies that result from rape. His punishment appears to be the death of his political career and banishment from his party.

The Republican National Committee has withdrawn its financial support for Todd Akin's Senate bid. Other major donors are backing away. CBS news reports that the Romney campaign released a statement denouncing Akin's position saying: "Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape." I am sorry to hear that. There can be no logical defense for killing an innocent victim of a violent act.

I am not unsympathetic to the emotional plight of a rape victim who discovers that a terrifying moment in her life produced a child. But I am also concerned with the life of the child that some people seem so willing to murder. This is a classical example of the slippery slope. If it is acceptable to kill children conceived in rape, why not children conceived in drunken sex? Why not allow a woman to murder her baby because she realizes that the father doesn't really love her as he claimed when he seduced her? Why not abort pregnancies that result from failed contraception? Why not kill any baby for any reason the mother can muster?

Once you allow that certain humans are disposable, you have crossed a line that should not be crossed. If inconvenient fetuses can be killed, so can inconvenient children or elderly or disabled persons. It is not enough to say that the emotional trauma resulting from a rape warrants death for her unborn child. There is serious emotional trauma when parents discover that their child has a debilitating disease or birth defect. There is real anguish when a husband watches his wife slip into final stages of Alzheimer's. Families can be crushed mentally and financially when an injured loved one lies in a coma for years on end. Yet none of these situations merits murder.

If we believe that life begins at conception, then every conception must be allowed to proceed to its destined conclusion. I don't know what doctor led Todd Akin to believe that a woman's body could prevent a pregnancy if she was raped. If he truly believed that when he made his fateful statement earlier this week, he can be excused for his misunderstanding. After that, he should be applauded for his clarifying remarks in which he stood firm on his belief that pregnancies resulting from rape should not be terminated.

If anyone should be ashamed in this it is the Romney-Ryan campaign for bowing to pressure from ill-advised proponents of abortion in the case of rape. Such proponents often try to justify their position by pointing to the small number of rape induced pregnancies. Statistics are hard to come by, but some estimates suggest about 32,000 rapes occur each year with 5% or 1600 resulting in pregnancies. I cannot imagine another scenario where it would be deemed appropriate to kill 1600 people per year. I am truly sorry, horrified even that evil men perpetrate this kind of tragedy against women. But I am just as horrified that decent men are willing to multiply the tragedy by committing another indecent act against a child. If I lived in Missouri, I would vote for Todd Akin. I hope the good people who do live there will too.

Guilt by Association

Pity Paul Ryan; he's Romney's VP pick.

I used to imagine that being chosen as a Vice-Presidential candidate was an honor. Now I think not so much. Only hours after Mitt Romney chose Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate, the poor man was being pummeled by the liberal media.The really vicious ones like Maureen Dowd and the Huffington Post are making him sound like Satan himself.

When you try to see it from the modern progressive (socialist) point of view, perhaps Ryan is their satan. Since few of them believe in the real one, they need to invent one. Representative Ryan burst onto the radar with his budget proposal that actually did something to reign in federal spending by limiting what the government would do in the future. I am not an economist, but I realize that things are more complicated than most people imagine. However, one thing is certain: no entity can spend more than it takes in indefinitely. Ryan's budget tries to address that.

So by limiting the growth of government (note: not shrinking government,) Ryan becomes the pariah who would starve children and kick seniors off Medicare. From my perspective, he seems to be introducing some sanity into the situation. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results each time. That sounds like a definition of our federal government. From FDR to LBJ to BHO we have seen massive growth of government create more problems than it solves; yet there are those who want more of the same. Insanity?

Another place Ryan is taking heat is his association with the ideas of Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.) Ryan admits that his inspiration to get into politics was the economic philosophy touted by Rand in Atlas Shrugged. He has also maintained over the years in no uncertain terms that he wants no part in Rand's atheistic libertarianism in social matters. In typical hypocritical fashion, the liberal press calls Ryan a flip-flopper because he dismisses part of Rand's philosophy while embracing another part. This is what they would call a nuanced position if it were discovered in a liberal, but in Ryan it is seen as a faux pas, a weakness.

Perhaps this illustrates why so many raise their hands in despair when it comes to choosing candidates for major political offices. It feels like one must be an expert in the arcane intricacies of global economics or a doctor of philosophy to interpret a candidate's view. It need not be that difficult. If you want to know how someone thinks, look at the authors he reads. While Paul Ryan was reading Ayn Rand, Barak Obama was reading Saul Alinsky. Both men would caution that they are not clones of their favorite authors, but the policies of each display an affinity for a certain type of thinking which can be traced to the authors they read.

This is not foreign to what the Bible teaches. If I may extend a metaphor Jesus used, I would say the roots of a tree represent the influences in our lives which in turn nurture the branches, blossoms and fruit that is ultimately produced. If a tree is known by its fruit, the fruit is "known" by what issues from the roots. Or to change the analogy, if the mouth speaks from the abundance within the heart, one must regard those things influencing the heart as of paramount importance. I realize it was Aesop and not an Apostle who said we are known by the company we keep, but that too squares with Scripture. When selecting the man who will influence the world from the White House, one should look carefully at who influenced him in his house.