A Series of Rants

There is just too much going on in the news as of late, so I will try to comment on several of the major recent news items.

The Supreme Court and Private Property- In one of the most repugnant decisions in American history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that municpalities can seize private property with almost no limitations, as long as it "serves the public interest." This is a perversion of the already perverse doctrine of eminent domain. The Supreme Court, rather than serving as the restraining mechanism of the U.S. government, it has become the great enabler of statists who do not believe the Constitution actually limits government power (except when it comes to regulating war protests and burning the American flag...then it's hands off!). No greater blow has been dealt to individual rights in this country since the wave of gun control policies passed during Clinton administration.

George Voinovich and John Bolton- despite his tears on the Senate floor, the George Voinovich failed to make a compelling case that John Bolton is unfit to be Ambassador to the United Nations. That the Democrats are holding up an appointee to a diplomatic post purely on ideological grounds (don't let Barbara Boxer's smokescreen fool you) is anathema to tradition. Whether Bolton is the "best" man for the job is not the question--that is never the question on appointments. "Best man for the job" is a nebulous description, and if that were our criteria, we would likely never find a person to fill the post. The Democrats are constantly complaining that they never get to talk about what really matters to the American people (what that is, I'm not really sure), so rather than talking about those things, they are holding up appointments to the Bench, to Diplomatic posts, and whining about turning off the Air Conditioning at Gitmo.

Hillary- the new "gotcha" book about Hillary Clinton is yet another example of the media's blatant bias. They have created backlash against the book by the way they have reported it. I have not read the book, and so make no claims either way about it, but the media's behavior has been wholly reprehensible. Meanwhile, Hillary is gearing up for what is likely to be the most vicious, brutal presidential campaign in American history. I do not know if our Republic can survive 2008.

China- The greatest threat to American national security, and moreover, to the very existence of American hegemony is China. China is taking a mixed approach to achieving hegemony in the world: improve the economy and build big guns. China's bids for Unocal and Maytag should cause significant worry in the White House, the halls of Congress, and in the offices on Wall Street. The question, unfortunately, is no longer whether or not China should be contained, but rather are we ready to deal with the uncontainable China that has emerged in the last ten years. Do we have the economic vitality, scientific advantage, and popular will to stand up to the world's most populous country? I fear we do not. American optimism is about to be shattered when the Eagle and the Dragon face off, and the Eagle loses.

Europe's Misfit and America's Ally

The Washington Times today reports on Turkey's clouded future with regard to its EU membership, particularly given the abject failure of the new EU constitution in Holland and France (the only two countries, it is worth noting, to hold a popular referendum to determine whether or not to ratify the constitution) and the troubled Western European leaders who had previously been ardent supporters of Turkey's EU membership. As the Washington Times reports, Angela Merkel, the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the opposition party in Germany, is likely to be the next Chancellor when Germans reject the failed economic and social-experimental policies of the Socialist Schroeder government. Merkel would become the first woman ever to lead a unified Germany, and while she is not a conservative from the American perspective on social issues, she is a staunch economic conservative favoring lower taxes, reduced governmental regulation, and fiscal discipline.

The CDU also is far more hawkish on immigration than Schroeder's Socialists. Due to the immigration policies of the EU for its member countries, Germany is extraordinarily concerned about a massive influx of Turkish immigrants if Turkey gains EU membership. They already consider the Turkish immigration issue one of the most serious of all national issues. All of this, together with Turkey's growing alienation from the Europe it thought was its friend (we can empathize), especially on cultural/linguistic/historical matters exhibits a unique opportunity for the United States to improve its relations with the Islamic world.

Because of America's cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and religious diversity (particularly in contrast with Europe's lack thereof), we are well-positioned to create a primarily diplomatic "empire" that would put the Europeans to shame. The question of course is whether or not we are willing to swallow our pride and embrace countries and the leaders of countries who do not look like us, talk like us, or think necessarily like us. Through the positive diplomatic interaction, however, we can spread the ideas of liberty and republicanism to the rest of the world without the loss of American or foreign civilian lives. For a country whose leaders are at least nominally Christian, we should attempt, as best we can, to apply the teachings of Christ and the whole of Scripture to all areas of life, and that includes foreign policy. And as Solomon tells us in the Proverbs "A harsh word stirs up anger, but a gentle word breaks a bone."

There is one additional factor that is important to this discussion of diplomatic relations, and courting Turkey (among other non-Arab, Islamic states, like Pakistan and those in Central and Southeast Asia), and that is the remarkable diplomatic abilities of the Chinese. The Chinese were, in their golden age, the greatest of the world's diplomats. This has been culturally preserved, and we see that the Chinese are opening embassies in obscure countries around the world where China has little or no economic interests. This is not the behavior of a minor, regional power, but of a would-be superpower. If we allow China to win in the world of diplomacy, I fear the battle is all but lost when they determine to assert their status as one of the world's new superpowers.

Dean, Guerrillas, and Christians

Howard Dean is a tragi-comic character in American politics these days. His inflammatory rhetoric is often so ridiculous that it pokes at even the most serious politico's funny bone. Calling the Republicans the "White Christian Party" was not so off-base in matter of fact, but patently false in the context. The Republican Party is the Party of White Christians. It is the Party of White Christians because the Democrats want little or nothing to do with White Christians.

Dean's pejorative use of the phrase "White Christian" is in fact quite revealing of this reality. The Republican Party, though, is more than just the Party of White Christians. It is also the Party of Black Christians and Hispanic Christians who have more than just a slight problem with the Secularist mindset that has overcome the entirety of the Democrat Party.

The GOP is also the Party of young Hispanic and Black Americans who want the chance to be entrepreneurs, to make something of their lives without the government riding in their backs the entire way. The GOP, at its core (though unfortunately not in its current manifestation of the Bush White House and the Frist/Hastert Congress) is the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Governmental Restraint, and true, Constitutional rule. The fact that this is no longer the perception in America indicates the dire need for Republicans to examine themselves institutionally and get back on message.

The Republican Party, in contrast to the Democrat Party, believes that individuals, not the government, should control their own future. Republicans believe that individuals, not groups, have rights, and the sooner we start treating and loving people, rather than giving special priveleges and faux rights to groups, the sooner we will ameliorate the malaise of racism, classism, and sexism. The policies currently being propagated by the Democrat Party only further entrench these heinous evils by creating reasons for resentment and anger.

This is what Howard Dean just does not understand. As Howard Fineman wrote today, Howard Dean's problem isn't his mouth, it's mindset. He cannot understand how the word "Christian" could be a good thing, and just assumes that the standard, 60-year old line of the Democrats that Republicans are a bunch of "evil, rich, white men" is true.

Dean has another problem. He thinks that raising money and running a party is sort of like commanding a Guerrilla war. Snipe somebody here, (character) assassinate a leader there, do outrageous things to distract people from other targets while sending a few henchmen to take care of those targets. The trouble of course is that Guerrilla warriors can cause the ruling army a lot of headache and trouble, but Guerrillas are no good at occupying and governing. Their success depends wholly on hiding in the shadows and causing the other side so much pain that it retreats and leaves. This is what is going on with the "insurgency" in Iraq. It is a test of wills and endurance. Although the Republicans under George W. Bush have given in to many Democrat demands in the face of similar Guerrilla tactics, by and large, even this administration has shown a pretty genuine resolve on the things that mattered: tax cuts, judicial nominees, and tort reform. Perhaps the Democrats and Dean will wake up and realize they need to have a plan to govern. That is, unless they like being Guerrillas forever resigned to be in the minority. I'd be fine with that, too.

The Greatest of These Is Love

Christian Evangelist and Apologist Ravi Zacharias has said, I think quite correctly, "A conviction, ungirded by love, will make the possessor of it obnoxious and the dogma he possesses repulsive." The Scriptures tell us "Now abideth faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love," and that "He who loves another has fulfilled the law." With all that is going on in the so-called "culture war," it is time for those of us who are conservative and more important, Christian, to do a gut check and re-examine our approach. Is our political philosophy and is our political advocacy undergirded by love or ungirded by it? Are we reaching out to the people who have fallen victim to the destructive Existentialist philosophy that plagues our nation, or are we standing up like Pharisees and prounouncing judgment and casting the first stone? Jesus did not tell the adulteress "Thou art damned," he said "Go and sin no more." He showed loving compassion to those in spiritual need. It was the Pharisees pronouncing judgment. Christ was the only one who had a right to judge, and yet He did not. Does this mean we should approve of sin? No. But "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not manifested with hateful speech and vitriolic rhetoric. It was Ghandi who said when asked what he thought of Christianity: "I like their Christ, but I don't like their Christian. When I think of a Christian, I see him with a mug of beer in his right hand and a slab of beef in his left." Nietzche, the famed Athetist philosopher, said "I will start beliving in the Redeemer when the Christian looks a little more redeemed." You see, Postmodern Christianity in the Conservative churches teach abstention from alcohol and sex, and if you can do those two things, then you're in good shape. Sad to say, this is far from the truth. The message of the Gospel is far-reaching and radical, and it should infiltrate our every motive, thought, belief, and action. If we are to win this generation to Christ, it will be through showing His love to them through ourselves. We should live each day in the shadow of the Cross, and by doing so will be forced to live humbly, loving one another, and showing mercy to one another. Soli Deo Gloria, that is, To God Alone Be The Glory.

TAFTA

After my last post, I began thinking seriously about the possibility of a NAFTA-like agreement with the free market countries of Europe. I think we should call it the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or TAFTA, and invite Great Britain, Estonia, and all of the other countries who believe that free markets are superior to socialism when it comes to growing an economy. Perhaps the faltering economies of Western Europe, like Italy, will recognize the extreme value of openness and will decide to accede to the agreement themselves. This idea makes sense not only from an economic perspective with economic benefits in mind, but it is imperative that the United States attempt such a project for reasons of political stability. The impending collapse and failure of the EU experiment will leave a vacuum that must be filled, lest the economies of the world slip into autarky again. A period of closure such as that would lead to the same economic decline and thus political nightmare scenarios like those of the Interwar period: Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito.

A Grand Opportunity

The United States should recognize the unique opportunity it has right now to step in and fill the gap that is being gradually created by the incompetent leaders of the European Union. With European government officials publicly speculating about the collapse of the Euro, it seems that the 50 year old dream of the European Utopianists is about to come to an abrupt and bitter end. The United States should sieze this opportunity to reclaim its leadership as the world's maintainer of the liberal international economic order and promote increased trade to head off any moves toward economic closure that might ensue. We should announce our intentions to create a NAFTA-like agreement with Great Britain and the marketizing nations of Eastern Europe like Estonia, whose political economy is much closer to ours (or at least is on a trajectory to be closer to ours) than it is to their Western European counterparts. This sort of economic integration will have tremendous benefits for both sides, as well as further improving political relations between the countries. Western Europe will continue to decline until it realizes that Socicalism is a completely unworkable pipe dream that ignores the realities of economics and human nature. Ironically, Karl Marx was right about one thing. He said history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. The Soviet Union was the tragedy, the European Union is the farce.

Why the French Rejection of the EU Treaty is both Good and Bad

The French people soundly rejected a proposed new constitution for the European Union, which would have further integrated the western part of the Eurasian subcontinent (it is rightly noted by geographers that Europe is not a continent in and of itself, and if history had not developed as it had, Europe would never have been classified as a continent, but I digress).

Europe's bloody thousand-year history was to come to an end after the denoument of the Second World War. So far, it has succeeded. But it is hardly time to make any sort of bold statements about peace in Europe with only sixty intervening years. The French rejection of the new EU constitution, and the impending defeat of the same by the Dutch exposes the deep-rooted, centuries old nationalism and cultural differences that have divided Europe throughout the ages. Without doubt, economic concerns are the overriding reason for the rejection, at least outwardly. But the reality is that the economic sovereignty issues are merely the manifestation of uneasiness the French have in signing over their national autonomy to German bureaucrats in Brussels.

When examining the economic problems of the Eurozone, it is important to recognize that the European economies, particularly in Western Europe, are stagnating rather miserably. They are experiencing little, if any economic growth, and massive unemployment. The situation is so wretched in Italy, that it would not be out of the realm of possibility if the Italians withdrew from the Euro altogether in the next few years. The integration of different economies with different fundamental infrastructures has proved to be a more difficult task in reality than it was in theory. With the widespread inequities in GDP, economic institutions, etc. that separate the countries of East and West Europe, there should be no wonder about why countries are weary of further economic and political integration.

For the United States, this development could be extremely positive, particularly in the short term. Leaders across Europe will now have to turn their attention and focus inward to deal with this major setback, and they will have to engage in serious gut-checking in order to determine the best future course of action in Europe. This strengthens the United States' hand in world affairs, and also puts to rest, at least temporarily, further talk of Europe as a "counter-weight" to U.S. global influence. T.R. Reid and the handful of other American Europhiles who released a flurry of books a few months ago declaring the dawn of a new age with Europe at the helm should now be hanging their heads in shame. The superficial success of Europe has now been proven to be just that, and the picture will begin to dim even further in the coming months.

However, there is a distinct danger in the French rejection of the EU treaty this week. As the Turks continue to overwhelm Germany through immigration, and the Algerians France, and various Arab sects the Netherlands, the possibility of a new bloody Europe emerges. With ethnic conflict continuing to rise in the Netherlands and parts of France, and the inevitable rise of radical elements among the indigenous population in response, the Turk will become to the 21st Century German what the Jew was to the early 20th Century German. The dangerous reality for Europe is that the Jew was not a threat in the 20th Century, but the Muslim is. As immigration control policies increase in Europe, so will Islamic violence and terrorism. A fractured European continent enhances the ability of Islamic factions to take control of smaller political units on the continent through strategic immigration.

Europe is in turmoil. Let us see what comes of it.

The Bankruptcy of Secularism

This is really more the title of a book than a blog post, but I hope the reader will indulge my overly-ambitious title for the thoughts in my post today.

I have not posted in almost a month, as life sometimes catches up with us and we get sidetracked. But today's post will make up for it, as this has been one of the chief topics on my mind in the last few weeks.

Life is filled with little observations, little occurrences, mishaps, coincidences, and contradictions. Much of our experiential knowledge of the world is garnered from these blips in our existence, as they seem to be of no consequence at the moment they happen, but later are often instructive if we take the time to reflect. All around me in the last several weeks I have witnessed these small blips in my existence, and in those near me, and I have come to a firm conclusion that not only is Secularism less than ideal, that is, that it is one system among many which is merely inferior, but that it is utterly bankrupt in every regard.

The world cries out in agony today. It occupies itself with distractions, while convincing itself that these distractions are the goals. Distractions have captured the fortress, and we seem not to know how expel them from our midst, since in their capture of the fortress, they have made us worse than servants to their designs, they have made us their prisoners. And though we may violently shake our prison gates, we call out to the night "Oh darkness where is thy deliverance?" Yet the reply is an eerie, deathly silence.

Our jailors do not feed us, and we shriek with hunger pangs. But the night does not feed us either. Our jailors do not give us water, and we groan in the misery of thirst. But the night does not supply us with drink either. When the morning dawns, we think we have a reprieve, and we play merrily with our jailors, who sport smiles during the daylight hours. They give us chocolates and sodas, and we for a time our lot improves.

We think we have no need to call to the Sun for help when he is breaking on the horizon. But as he flees from the clutches of the twilight, our captors' smiles fade and our shackles are put on us again. The temporality of the chocolates and sodas disappears in an instant, and we are suddenly strapped by our lack of sustenance and nutrition. But the night does not respond to our calls.

This is the likeness of America today. We consort with our captors and we call out to the night. Drunkenness, sex, money, drugs, entertainment, popularity have all become our captors. We think they will provide us happiness, and then they do not. But like the burnt fool's bandaged finger from Kipling's great poem, we go wobbling back to the fire. We are the dog returning to his vomit. We know they do not fulfill, yet we return to check again. "It will be different this time," we tell ourselves. But it is never different this time, and while the moment seems pleasurable, the aftermath is disastrous. Our souls mourn over the pain. Then we go back for another round.

Secular Humanism is the manifestation of true Existentialist philosophy. We are here for but a moment, our lives are meaningless, so we must maximize the pleasures and minimize the pains. Instead, we maximize the pains and minimize the pleasures, and lie to ourselves about the state of affairrs. Each moment in the Existentialist life is infused with anxious anticipation for the next moment. For if the next moment is not more pleasurable than this moment, then what will we have gained? And this moment-to-moment living produces despair. We have no hope for future joy, apart from that we obtain on our own (which we never seem to obtain). The reason Existentialism manifests itself as Secular Humanism is that only in the Secular Humanistic conception are we free from all moral constraints, all impediments to our temporal pleasure.

But Secular Humanism is an unstable philosophy. To the question "Where did we come from?" they say "an accident." To the question "Why are we here?" they say "to enjoy ourselves." To the question "What are the rules?" They say "There are none--but there are--but there aren't." And to the question "Where are we going?" they say "to the grave, and nothing more."

The entire system is Secular Humanism was conceived to annihilate moral restraint. But to the question of objective morality, they insist first of all that there is no objective morality, but the nihilism of this response is unpalatable even to the existentialist, for it would instantly justify rape, murder, and genocide. There can be no response to this problem from the humanist. He may attempt a response, but it will not stand up to scrutiny. If there is some objective moral standard, even as simple as "Murder is wrong," then it had to come from some objective moral law-giver. There can be no other way out.

But even if we make an unnecessary concession to the Secular Humanist and say that "there is no morality or immorality, there is only the pleasure of the self wherein it does not infringe upon others' pleasure" (again this is inconsistent with their philosophy, but I must use it to illustrate a point), we are left with an extraordinarily difficult problem. That is, if this life and its enjoyment is all that there is, how absurd is our meager existence? And since life has more pains than pleasures, how can even the physical fulfillments (which do not fulfill at all) make life less absurd, except by way of distraction?

In God, however, the personal creator of all of the universe, we find meaning. As William Lane Craig has said "God infuses every moment of our existence with his eternal meaning." Only through God does life lose its absurdity. More on this in the coming days...

A Lackluster Beginning

This has been a very disappointing 3 months since the President's Inauguration. Standing behind the Capitol in the frigid conditions of that overcast day, I listened to President Bush rattle off a litany of goals he had for his second term. Among them were Social Security Reform and further Education Reform. He also talked about the importance of spreading democracy across the globe. He should have stuck to foreign policy. The Social Security effort hasn't moved off the starting blocks, and the President's approval rating has sunk to an all-time low. There's just something about 2nd Terms that aren't worth a whole lot. It might just be the only legitimate reason to repeal the 22nd Amendment: no more lame ducks. It hasn't helped that the Republicans in Congress have become the same kind of cowards that the Democrats were when they were in the majority. I'm not talking about all of them, just a whole lot of them. What will it take to get their attention? My fear is that it will take a major defeat at the polls. If things don't change soon, we'll be looking at Speaker Pelosi.

The Perpetual Campaign: The Final Nail in the Republic's Coffin

It's finally here: the perpetual campaign. As our Presidential campaign cycles get longer and longer, and as midterm posturing begins on Election night, we have enough to worry about when it comes to long campaign seasons. But there is another addition to the campaign family: issue campaigning. This is not totally new, but my guess is that it is about to become more prevalent. Social Security, Judicial Nominees, Gay Marriage---all of these issues are becoming campaign issues, that is, they issues that the Administration, members of Congress, and Governors are flying about the country "campaigning for," pushing popular support upward for whatever their position is on the matter.

This is a disaster for our system of government. The Republic has been dying for about a half-century, with more democracy (the bad kind) taking root in the United States. The initial attacks on the Republic came in the form of the 16th & 17th Amendments, as well as the 18th but it was fortunately repealed. The advent of information technology and instant news has allowed the transformation from Republic to Democracy to be complete. Now the majority will rule without protecting the rights of the minority, and they will vote themselves whatever portion of the public treasury that they want. Indeed, Social Security and Medicare are the perfect examples of this, and our nation will crumble as a result.

Some Good News for a Change

Corporate Profits are up, way up in fact. This is good news for the economy, though not necessarily for consumers in the short run. It's not bad news for consumers, it just doesn't do a whole lot for them right now. Many on the Left argue that employment and more money for the "little guy" are the best things for the economy, and that nothing else really matters. Well, we had that during the 1990s, the Clinton Bubble (whose burst was very painful), and it didn't do us much good. It also was a decade of very low capital formation, we were spending our way into prosperity, only to discover that prosperity was soon followed by recession. Corporations, at least most corporations who have long term focus (and corporations that don't aren't around for long) are taking their profits and reinvesting them in capital. That is good news for productivity. Capital investment right now could also mean new alternatives to the oil-driven economy. This could be the shot in the arm that will prevent major economic catastrophe in the near future. Let's just hope the Democrats don't win any elections soon, because Big Corporations are the favorite target of Democrat tax increases (well, Big Corporations and everybody else in the country).

Stagflation Redux

Oil is up, prices are up, employment is shaky--the Fed is responding to all of this with higher interest rates. For those people who were around for the 1970s, the term Stagflation may be unfamiliar, but the realities of it are not. Prior to the '70s, economists believed that Inflation and Unemployment were mutually exclusive phenomena. In other words, there as thought to be a tradeoff: accept a little inflation to have not so much unemployment, and vice versa. This was known as the Phillips Curve in the academic literature. But the '70s broke the Phillips Curve, and economists were standing around scratching their heads. Suddenly there was unemployment and inflation, or stagnant inflation---now known as "stagflation." With oil prices soaring in recent days, and with the job creation numbers out today, it is looking like we could be having a repeat of '70s-style stagflation. The question everybody is asking is "Who do we blame?" Most people want to blame the government. And that works pretty well, but we can't lay it on a single person or group. Everybody is responsible. They are responsible for failing to reduce spending, and further cut taxes. They are responsible for failing to further reduce regulatory burdens on industry and small business. They are responsible for failing to reform the entitlement programs that are sucking the economy dry.

So on this April Fool's day, the only fool is the American public, for buying politicians' lies that more government makes things better. It just isn't so.

Bad News Time

The amount of money the U.S. Government has promised to pay out in Medicare and Social Security benefits in the future that it has no plan to pay for, that is, unfunded liabilities, $75 Trillion.

The price of oil per barrel today, $55.30

The price of oil very soon, $65.00

The price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline very soon, $4.00.

Democrats ignoring these problems and saying that George W. Bush hates the elderly.....shameful.

More Unfunded Liabilities

Exciting news today from the trustees of Medicare and Social Security. These two accounts now have unfunded liabilities totally about $75 Trillion. That's pretty good, it's almost doubled since last year's estimates. I'm not sure what world GDP is, but I'm pretty sure it's not quite $75 Trillion. I'll have to do some checking. The hyperinflation scenario that now looms over our heads is going utterly destroy the U.S. Economy if we do not do something about it soon. Increasing taxes to pay for these massive promises simply won't work. That course of action, too, would crush the economy. The only solution is modifying the promise. Who will be bold enough to do this? My guess is nobody. Alas.

Thugs in Robes

There has been much clamor in recent weeks and months within the conservative movement over "judicial activism," the new red meat issue for ideological conservatives. Taxes, abortion, prayer in school, and all sorts of other issues have been lightning rods on the right for years, and now it seems that the law-trained elite (as Scalia calls them) who occupy our judgeships across the country are the focal point of conservative venom. I cannot think of a more appropriate object of such venom; it's just long overdue. American opposition to judicial activism should have started during the Marshall Court about two hundred years ago. But we let it fester, and now we have such ivory tower ignoramuses as Anthony Kennedy lecturing us about International Law and the Civilized Europeans. If I wanted to live under a European system, I would emigrate. If all Americans wanted to live under a European system, we would change the Constitution. But instead it is being forced upon us by the likes of Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and sometimes Sandra Day O'Connor. It is almost a shock that the Court has not ordered the dissolution of Congress and the Presidency, since the Court now has decided both the make laws and make treaties. A few months ago, I was a little annoyed with the Courts, but after Roper v. Simmons, I am infuriated.

And now, the Thugs in Robes who have refused to allow the death penalty for cold blooded murderers who brutally tortured their victims if only they are under the age of 18, yes, the Thugs have ordered the death penalty for an innocent woman who suffered brain damage under mysterious circumstances, and whose husband wants her dead so he can collect his million bucks. This is worse than hypocrisy, it is depravity.

Easter Sunday

Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you." So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Mark 16:1-8

Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth, reply, Alleluia!

Love's redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Lo! the Sun's eclipse is over, Alleluia!
Lo! He sets in blood no more, Alleluia!

Vain the stone, the watch, the seal, Alleluia!
Christ has burst the gates of hell, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!

Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!

--Charles Wesley

Another Liar, Another Cheat in Washington

Politicians breaking campaign pledges is a time-honored tradition in this and every country, at least those countries fortunate enough to be able to elect their own leaders. Perhaps soon every country will be able to enjoy the pleasures of broken campaign promises.

According to an article by Charles Hurt in The Washington Times today, freshman U.S. Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado has reversed his campaign promise to give judicial nominees an up or down vote. When asked about the issue, Cody Wertz, Salazar's spokesman, said "Senator Salazar has made no decision on any judge," and that Salazar had made no such pledge. When confronted with the evidence, Wertz said "I'm not sure how that question was phrased." What a horrible spinmeister. If I were Salazar, I would send Cody Wertz packing. The best he could come up with was "I'm not sure how that question was phrased." Pathetic.

Well, this is a lesson to Red States who will be voting in the '06 election for a United States Senator. If the candidate has a "D" by his name, he will say anything to get elected, take conservative or moderate positions, and then promptly go to D.C. where Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton will have another lackey in their pockets to order around. You really aren't voting for the person anymore, you're voting for the party, and the Democrats are going to continue playing the same obstructionist games that they have played during the entirety of the Bush Administration.

Tribute to a Great Man and Great Friend

On Saturday, March 19, Dr. Fay Boozman was killed in an unfortunate accident on his farm in Rogers, Arkansas. Fay, or "Bud," as he was known by family and close friends, dedicated his life to the service of the Lord and his fellow man. He was an excellent physician, passionate public servant, and the one of the most dedicated family men I have ever known. For the past five years, he served as the Director of the Arkansas Department of Health, and he had previously been a State Senator here in Arkansas. I remember the first day I met him, back in 1997. It was the day that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban passed the Arkansas Senate; he was the bill's primary sponsor. Over the years, as I got to know him better, I came to admire and respect him very deeply. He was a role model, in the truest sense of the term, and now in his tragic death, his life serves as a testimony to truth that a man can enter politics and not lose his soul. He loved the Lord with all of his heart, mind, and soul, and he loved his neighbor as himself. He truly exhibited the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Thank you, Fay, for the impact you have had on my life. You will be sorely missed.

The Medicare Crisis

Social Security needs reform. I commented yesterday on the real reason for this. But today I want to discuss an even worse crisis that looms on the horizon. Currently, there is a $45 Trillion balance of unfunded liabilities in the United States. That means that the U.S. Government has promised, at some time in the future, to pay out $45 Trillion that it will not have the money to pay out. That is $45,000,000,000,000. That's approximately $155,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States today. In other words, the U.S. Government plans to add $45 Trillion to the $7 Trillion or so it already owes. About $30 Trillion of that is in the Medicare account alone. That number will only rise as new benefits (like the recently added prescription drug benefit) are added. And it is almost guaranteed that such benefits will increase in the next twenty years, since the 60+ crowd makes up the largest portion of the electorate already, and the number of people in that group is set to rapidly expand as the baby-boomers continue to age. They will vote themselves increasing amounts of money from the pockets of the decreasing pool of working-age citizens, and so the unfunded liabilities account is likely to skyrocket. This can be stopped, however. If Congress acts now to cut the annual increases in medicare benefits by only half, we can shave off $15 Trillion from that sum. That is not a cut in benefits, it is only slowing the increase in individuals' benefits. Failing to take action now will lead to dire economic consequences in the future.

Social Security

The Social Security reformers are making a blunder of incalculable magnitude. The real problem with Social Security is not that it will go bankrupt in 2042. The crisis of Social Security reform is 2011, the year that the babyboomers start retiring. When they do, they will begin withdrawing money from their 401(k) accounts and IRAs. The massive amount of capital flowing out of the stock and bond markets, if not replaced by a massive influx of new capital, will cause a steady, strong, and irreversible decline in U.S. equity markets. Partial privatization of Social Security will provide that new influx of capital. Nothing else likely will.