How America Can Stand By Arizona
Email Russell Pearce
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg
Sign-Up I knew Arizona’s SB 1070 would be controversial when I introduced it, but I did not expect the national immigration debate to revolve around a state law.
While the anti-American open borders Left attack me and the law as “racist,” “nativist” and their other empty smear words, the vast majority of the people of Arizona and America support the law.
Naturally, politicians of both parties on the state and local level are trying to jump on the bandwagon as the election approaches.
On the state level, dozens of gubernatorial and attorney general candidates are campaigning to enact SB 1070 style legislation. Even Democrats like Georgia’s Roy Barnes say they’d sign such a bill. Of course a politician’s promise isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Even if they would in fact sign the bill, they must also pledge to fight the Obama administration and its far left buddies like the ACLU and Mexican American Legal Defense Fund who are sure to file lawsuits and do whatever they can to block implementation of the law.
On the federal level, just saying “I support SB 1070” is even emptier without any commitment to fight the open borders agenda of the Obama administration and the courts.
Any Senate candidate who supports SB 1070 needs to guarantee that they will vote against any activist judge. Any RINO who voted for a board member of “LatinoJustice” (which filed an amicus brief against SB 1070) like Sonia Sotomayor knew how she would vote on immigration cases.
Additionally there is legislation that can affect the legal challenges against SB 1070.
Sen. Robert Menendez’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 would try to nullify every single state and local law that fights illegal immigration. Congressman Luis Gutierrez’s CIR ASAP Act with over 100 Democratic co-sponsors does the same thing.
Menendez’s bill also restricts the 287(g) program to allow state and local law enforcement to enter into formal agreements with federal immigration authorities to fight illegal immigration. Gutierrez’s bill completely repeals it.
287(g) is a useful program, but it is unfortunately viewed by many as a permission slip that must be granted by the federal government to allow states and localities to enforce immigration law. Former INS Commissioners Doris Meissner and James W. Ziglar wrote an Op Ed in the Washington Post claiming that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because it goes beyond what is permitted by 287(g).
Obama and Janet Napolitano restricted the agreement so that it can only be used to enforce the law against illegal aliens who also commit other crimes, and unfortunately many local law enforcement agencies stopped pursuing the law.
When Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio cracked down on illegal immigration without getting permission from Obama, they threatened to revoke his 287(g) status. When Sheriff Joe refused to balk, they filed suit against him with a frivolous civil rights claim.
The truth is that Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly acknowledges that states have the inherit authority to enforce immigration law stating:
"Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement . . . in order for any officer of a State . . . to communicate with the [Secretary of Homeland Security] regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or otherwise to cooperate with the [Secretary] in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States."
Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal [CLEAR] Act further clarifies the states’ rights over immigration by “reaffirming the existing inherent authority of States…to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States…for the purposes of assisting in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States in the course of carrying out routine duties. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by Congress.”
I’m flattered that my law has become a litmus test on immigration, but I hate to see Democrats and RINOs pretend to defend it to win votes. In Arizona a number of vulnerable Democratic Congressmen including Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick tried to sound tough by opposing the federal lawsuit with much fanfare. Yet these same Democrats opposed SB 1070 initially, and they refuse to defend Arizona’s right to enforce the law. Rather they simply demand that the federal government take action (i.e. amnesty.) Needless to say, they have not co-sponsored the CLEAR Act.
With friends like these, SB 1070 does not need enemies. Any candidate or politician on the federal level who claims to support SB 1070 needs to put their money where their mouth is. This means supporting the CLEAR Act and acknowledging a state’s inherit right to enforce the law, opposing activist judges, and demanding that the federal government enforce all laws.
Of course the federal government needs to enforce its own laws and secure the border. But until they do, the least we can ask of them is not to interfere with states that care about the rule of law.
Russell Pearce
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce represents Arizona’s 18th Legislative District and is the author of SB 1070.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
FROM PROPHECY NEWS WATCH
Muslim Professor at PA University Calls for Destruction of Israel
http://www.theblaze.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaukab Siddique believes strongly that the Holocaust was a hoax and that Muslims must “rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.” While his rhetoric is concerning, even more worrisome is that Siddique is an associate professor of English at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. And while the university acknowledges his comments are troubling, it says it can’t take action partly because Siddique is tenured.
Over Labor Day weekend, reports CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck, Siddique addressed radicals at an anti-Israel rally in Washington, D.C. There, his anti-Semitism was on full display.
“We must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel — if possible by peaceful means,” Kaukab Siddique said. “Perhaps, like Saladin, we will give them enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people.”
“For the Jews, I would say see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up,” Siddique warned. “And I say to the Muslims, dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.
“It is obvious to us that Zionism is racism,” he adds. “It is obvious to us that Zionism is genocide. It is obvious to us that Zionism is terrorism. But somehow the man living in the White House does not seem to know that. His silence is grim and dismal.”
CBN also uncovered e-mail exchanges posted online in which Siddique called the Holocaust “a hoax” that was “invented,“ saying there is ”not even one document” proving it happened. Jews have “taken over America” by “devious and immoral means,” he adds.
“This [Labor Day event] is not a one off deal,” Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Ray Locker told CBN. “This is something he has said at similar events over a period of at least a dozen years, as far as we can tell.”
Lincoln University, the school’s website boasts, is the world’s oldest historically African-American college. CBN reports it has received almost $200 million in Pennsylvania state money since 2003.
Michael Hill, the school’s executive vice president, told CBN that the University in no way agrees with or supports Siddique’s comments on Israel. But, he added, Siddique is tenured and has freedom of speech, and the school cannot control his private life. He added that the school will ensure his personal views do not seep into the classroom.
In an e-mail to CBN, Siddique denied that he was anti-Semitic and said his “speaking out” about Israel, “conform(s) to the ideals and principles that founded Lincoln University.”
He explained: “When I refer critically to the ‘Jews’ I am referring to the current leadership of the ‘State of Israel’ and to their major supporters, not to the Jewish race as a whole.”
Yet his message in Washington failed to make the distinction. “There’s no question of just removing the settlements,” he yelled, “These settlements are only the tentacles of the devil that resides in Tel Aviv.”
____________________
THEY (MUSLIMS) KEEPS TELLING US THEIR PEACEFUL?????
http://www.theblaze.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaukab Siddique believes strongly that the Holocaust was a hoax and that Muslims must “rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.” While his rhetoric is concerning, even more worrisome is that Siddique is an associate professor of English at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania. And while the university acknowledges his comments are troubling, it says it can’t take action partly because Siddique is tenured.
Over Labor Day weekend, reports CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck, Siddique addressed radicals at an anti-Israel rally in Washington, D.C. There, his anti-Semitism was on full display.
“We must stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel — if possible by peaceful means,” Kaukab Siddique said. “Perhaps, like Saladin, we will give them enough food and water to travel back to the lands from where they came to occupy other people.”
“For the Jews, I would say see what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up,” Siddique warned. “And I say to the Muslims, dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.
“It is obvious to us that Zionism is racism,” he adds. “It is obvious to us that Zionism is genocide. It is obvious to us that Zionism is terrorism. But somehow the man living in the White House does not seem to know that. His silence is grim and dismal.”
CBN also uncovered e-mail exchanges posted online in which Siddique called the Holocaust “a hoax” that was “invented,“ saying there is ”not even one document” proving it happened. Jews have “taken over America” by “devious and immoral means,” he adds.
“This [Labor Day event] is not a one off deal,” Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Ray Locker told CBN. “This is something he has said at similar events over a period of at least a dozen years, as far as we can tell.”
Lincoln University, the school’s website boasts, is the world’s oldest historically African-American college. CBN reports it has received almost $200 million in Pennsylvania state money since 2003.
Michael Hill, the school’s executive vice president, told CBN that the University in no way agrees with or supports Siddique’s comments on Israel. But, he added, Siddique is tenured and has freedom of speech, and the school cannot control his private life. He added that the school will ensure his personal views do not seep into the classroom.
In an e-mail to CBN, Siddique denied that he was anti-Semitic and said his “speaking out” about Israel, “conform(s) to the ideals and principles that founded Lincoln University.”
He explained: “When I refer critically to the ‘Jews’ I am referring to the current leadership of the ‘State of Israel’ and to their major supporters, not to the Jewish race as a whole.”
Yet his message in Washington failed to make the distinction. “There’s no question of just removing the settlements,” he yelled, “These settlements are only the tentacles of the devil that resides in Tel Aviv.”
____________________
THEY (MUSLIMS) KEEPS TELLING US THEIR PEACEFUL?????
FROM PROPHECY NEWS WATCH
Canadian Church Group Helps Fund Anti-Israel Organization
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Church of Canada has donated travel expenses to a new Jewish organization that hosted Muslims at a convention backing a boycott of Israel, according to the National Post.
The Protestant church group admitted that it donated $900 to the organization but said that officials did not need to authorize the donation because of its small size. However, United Church officials told the National Post that the description of the event that led to the creation of the Independent Jewish Voices was “consistent with our overall policy that the end of the occupation must come in order to bring peace and justice.”
The expenses were earmarked for a two-day Alliance of Concerned Canadians conference which provided the catalyst for the formation of the new group. Among delegates who were invited and whose travel expenses were defrayed were “members of Jewish-Muslim, Jewish-Arab and Jewish-Palestinian groups."
The Canadian Jewish Congress is furious over the donation, calling it “shocking, outrageous, shameful and scandalous.” The group’s director Bernie Farber declared, “Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and the Canadian Jewish Congress or another mainstream Jewish organization were to have funded a Christian group to be critical of the United Church of Canada.”
Church spokesman Bruce Gregersen emphasized that the money was for travel expenses and was not intended to help get the new anti-Zionist group off the ground, but Farber said, “It is a horse by the same name. The United Church provided funding to establish an organization whose goal it is to target and attack the mainstream Jewish community.”
He asserted that “the average United Church member will be as shocked as am I to discover that money from their church has gone to help create an anti-Zionist organization.”
Among those attending the two-conference in Toronto was Rev. Vicki Obedkoff, who signed a letter in 2007 aimed at pressuring the Rolling Stones not to appear in “apartheid” Israel. Also present were delegates from the Canadian Arab Federation.
__________________________
JEW'S SHOULD ALWAYS BE PICKED UP OVER MUSLIMS
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Church of Canada has donated travel expenses to a new Jewish organization that hosted Muslims at a convention backing a boycott of Israel, according to the National Post.
The Protestant church group admitted that it donated $900 to the organization but said that officials did not need to authorize the donation because of its small size. However, United Church officials told the National Post that the description of the event that led to the creation of the Independent Jewish Voices was “consistent with our overall policy that the end of the occupation must come in order to bring peace and justice.”
The expenses were earmarked for a two-day Alliance of Concerned Canadians conference which provided the catalyst for the formation of the new group. Among delegates who were invited and whose travel expenses were defrayed were “members of Jewish-Muslim, Jewish-Arab and Jewish-Palestinian groups."
The Canadian Jewish Congress is furious over the donation, calling it “shocking, outrageous, shameful and scandalous.” The group’s director Bernie Farber declared, “Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and the Canadian Jewish Congress or another mainstream Jewish organization were to have funded a Christian group to be critical of the United Church of Canada.”
Church spokesman Bruce Gregersen emphasized that the money was for travel expenses and was not intended to help get the new anti-Zionist group off the ground, but Farber said, “It is a horse by the same name. The United Church provided funding to establish an organization whose goal it is to target and attack the mainstream Jewish community.”
He asserted that “the average United Church member will be as shocked as am I to discover that money from their church has gone to help create an anti-Zionist organization.”
Among those attending the two-conference in Toronto was Rev. Vicki Obedkoff, who signed a letter in 2007 aimed at pressuring the Rolling Stones not to appear in “apartheid” Israel. Also present were delegates from the Canadian Arab Federation.
__________________________
JEW'S SHOULD ALWAYS BE PICKED UP OVER MUSLIMS
FROM PROPHECY NEWS WATCH
"Evangelicals" who are turning the church against Israel
http://www.theird.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“With God on Our Side,” the new anti-Israel movie produced by an evangelical pastor and aimed at evangelical audiences, is touring America this month, with anti-Israel British Anglican priest Stephen Sizer in tow. On October 27, it was originally going to be screened in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, doubtless hoping to appeal to young evangelical Congressional staffers, whose numbers and influence likely will increase in the new Congress. Now, for whatever reason, it instead will screen at a Lutheran church on Capitol Hill.
The Evangelical Left is anxious to neutralize evangelicals as America’s typically most pro-Israel demographic, especially by focusing on the plight of Palestinian Christians, who are portrayed as victims exclusively of Israeli oppression. “With God on Our Side,” predictably, portrays pro-Israel Christians as mindless zealots indifferent to Palestinian suffering and exploiting Israeli Jews as merely tools for precipitating the Second Coming. Hapless quotes from Christian Zionists are contrasted with thoughtful articulations from Palestinian Christians and other pro-Palestinian advocates.
Anglican priest Stephen Sizer, prominently featured in the film, bewails Christian Zionism on his website: “Aspects of this belief system lead some Christians in the West to give uncritical support to Israeli government policies, even those that privilege Jews at the expense of Palestinians, leading to great suffering among Muslim and Christian Palestinians alike and threatening Israel’s security as a whole.”
Rev. Sizer essentially advocates a Helen Thomas sort of theology. His blog even acclaimed Thomas for exclaiming that Jews need to “get out of Palestine” and go back to Poland or wherever. “Bring it on,” Sizer enthused in response to Thomas’s promise to keep speaking out. He has further explained:
“With God on our Side” is a direct challenge to the foolish idea that Christian Zionism has any biblical or moral foundation. It is an oxymoron, as absurd as to suggest that biblical Christianity and apartheid are in any way compatible. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa tried and failed and eventually repented. Would that Christian Zionists did the same.”
Sizer is incredulous that Christians would “justify on theological grounds the theft of land, the demolition of homes, the destruction of property, the creation of ghettos and the denial of fundamental human rights, in order to create what is increasingly becoming a racist state.” He insists in his blog that Christian support for Israel challenges “our understanding of the gospel, the centrality of the cross, the role of the church, and the nature of our missionary mandate, not least, to the beloved Jewish people.” And he deplores Christian Zionism as a “heresy conclusively refuted by the New Testament.” Sizer and “With God on our Side” are unwilling to accept that many evangelicals and other Christians have substantive reasons for supporting Israel other than a grimacing expectation of the End Times. Israel’s democracy, pro-Western stance, and resistance to Islamist terror are just a few reasons that many Americans, Christian or not, affirm Israel against its many enemies. But Sizer and his film are largely uninterested in the transgressions, and inferior human rights records, of Israel’s primary foes. Nor are they usually willing to critique radical Islam.
“With God on our Side,” with Sizer and producer Porter Speakman of Colorado as the chief promoters, is gaining an audience among some evangelicals. They screened their film at prestigious evangelical Wheaton College earlier this year. (The film features a Wheaton professor.) And “Christianity Today,” a flagship evangelical magazine, favorably reviewed the film this Summer. “A Christian pastor, Speakman asks such Zionists to reevaluate their absolute support of Israel,” the review observed. “He presents historical context, theological perspective, and on-the-ground impressions.” Agreeing with the film that “Palestinians’ claims to the land cannot be easily dismissed,” the reviewer uncritically accepted the film’s premise that “ordinary Palestinians, including fellow Christians, are being hurt by Israel’s policies,” without examining other more potent threats to Palestinian Christians. Admitting that “some” might see the film as “slanted,” the reviewer defended the film for ostensibly “telling a story” that its “intended audience has not heard.”
That audience is supposedly naïve and mindless evangelicals who have been insulated from any criticism of Israel until exposed to “With God on our Side.” It’s not clear what caves or compounds those pious fools live in. But this film, no less propagandistic and vapid than it alleges its Christian Zionist targets to be, offers a simplistic counter narrative that portrays Israel as the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa. The tiny percentage of Palestinians who are Christian are useful props for this film and its advocates who, like much of the Evangelical Left, are not typically interested in persecuted Christians unless Israel is the villain.
Anti-Israel activists often especially fault U.S. evangelicals for America’s pro-Israel tilt. But polls usually show that pro-Israel sentiment in America includes not just evangelicals but also Mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews. End times scenarios do not motivate the pro-Israel beliefs of most Americans or even most evangelicals. But “With God on our Side” constructed a cheap straw man based on stereotypes, maybe because it could not proffer more substantive arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL IS GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE
http://www.theird.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“With God on Our Side,” the new anti-Israel movie produced by an evangelical pastor and aimed at evangelical audiences, is touring America this month, with anti-Israel British Anglican priest Stephen Sizer in tow. On October 27, it was originally going to be screened in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, doubtless hoping to appeal to young evangelical Congressional staffers, whose numbers and influence likely will increase in the new Congress. Now, for whatever reason, it instead will screen at a Lutheran church on Capitol Hill.
The Evangelical Left is anxious to neutralize evangelicals as America’s typically most pro-Israel demographic, especially by focusing on the plight of Palestinian Christians, who are portrayed as victims exclusively of Israeli oppression. “With God on Our Side,” predictably, portrays pro-Israel Christians as mindless zealots indifferent to Palestinian suffering and exploiting Israeli Jews as merely tools for precipitating the Second Coming. Hapless quotes from Christian Zionists are contrasted with thoughtful articulations from Palestinian Christians and other pro-Palestinian advocates.
Anglican priest Stephen Sizer, prominently featured in the film, bewails Christian Zionism on his website: “Aspects of this belief system lead some Christians in the West to give uncritical support to Israeli government policies, even those that privilege Jews at the expense of Palestinians, leading to great suffering among Muslim and Christian Palestinians alike and threatening Israel’s security as a whole.”
Rev. Sizer essentially advocates a Helen Thomas sort of theology. His blog even acclaimed Thomas for exclaiming that Jews need to “get out of Palestine” and go back to Poland or wherever. “Bring it on,” Sizer enthused in response to Thomas’s promise to keep speaking out. He has further explained:
“With God on our Side” is a direct challenge to the foolish idea that Christian Zionism has any biblical or moral foundation. It is an oxymoron, as absurd as to suggest that biblical Christianity and apartheid are in any way compatible. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa tried and failed and eventually repented. Would that Christian Zionists did the same.”
Sizer is incredulous that Christians would “justify on theological grounds the theft of land, the demolition of homes, the destruction of property, the creation of ghettos and the denial of fundamental human rights, in order to create what is increasingly becoming a racist state.” He insists in his blog that Christian support for Israel challenges “our understanding of the gospel, the centrality of the cross, the role of the church, and the nature of our missionary mandate, not least, to the beloved Jewish people.” And he deplores Christian Zionism as a “heresy conclusively refuted by the New Testament.” Sizer and “With God on our Side” are unwilling to accept that many evangelicals and other Christians have substantive reasons for supporting Israel other than a grimacing expectation of the End Times. Israel’s democracy, pro-Western stance, and resistance to Islamist terror are just a few reasons that many Americans, Christian or not, affirm Israel against its many enemies. But Sizer and his film are largely uninterested in the transgressions, and inferior human rights records, of Israel’s primary foes. Nor are they usually willing to critique radical Islam.
“With God on our Side,” with Sizer and producer Porter Speakman of Colorado as the chief promoters, is gaining an audience among some evangelicals. They screened their film at prestigious evangelical Wheaton College earlier this year. (The film features a Wheaton professor.) And “Christianity Today,” a flagship evangelical magazine, favorably reviewed the film this Summer. “A Christian pastor, Speakman asks such Zionists to reevaluate their absolute support of Israel,” the review observed. “He presents historical context, theological perspective, and on-the-ground impressions.” Agreeing with the film that “Palestinians’ claims to the land cannot be easily dismissed,” the reviewer uncritically accepted the film’s premise that “ordinary Palestinians, including fellow Christians, are being hurt by Israel’s policies,” without examining other more potent threats to Palestinian Christians. Admitting that “some” might see the film as “slanted,” the reviewer defended the film for ostensibly “telling a story” that its “intended audience has not heard.”
That audience is supposedly naïve and mindless evangelicals who have been insulated from any criticism of Israel until exposed to “With God on our Side.” It’s not clear what caves or compounds those pious fools live in. But this film, no less propagandistic and vapid than it alleges its Christian Zionist targets to be, offers a simplistic counter narrative that portrays Israel as the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa. The tiny percentage of Palestinians who are Christian are useful props for this film and its advocates who, like much of the Evangelical Left, are not typically interested in persecuted Christians unless Israel is the villain.
Anti-Israel activists often especially fault U.S. evangelicals for America’s pro-Israel tilt. But polls usually show that pro-Israel sentiment in America includes not just evangelicals but also Mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews. End times scenarios do not motivate the pro-Israel beliefs of most Americans or even most evangelicals. But “With God on our Side” constructed a cheap straw man based on stereotypes, maybe because it could not proffer more substantive arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL IS GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE
Friday, October 22, 2010
RABBI YECHIEL ECKSTEIN
By My Spirit
October 22, 2010
"So he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." — Zechariah 4:6
Imagine if the state where you are living right now were surrounded entirely by enemies intent on your total destruction — just because you happen to live in Florida, or Kansas, or Colorado. How would it feel to live under that tension, that fear, 24/7? How would that affect how you looked upon yourself, others, the world?
Of course, you know where I'm heading with this. Israel is that state, the Israelis are those people. Living in a country no bigger than the state of New Jersey, throughout her history, Israel has been surrounded by enemies who share one goal — wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Within a day of its inception, five of Israel's surrounding "neighbors" declared war on the fledgling state and attacked from all directions. As a result, the Jewish population, some 600,000 people, was outnumbered 20 to 1! Yet, we prevailed.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this. We need only to remember the biblical accounts of Gideon and Midianites, where the people of Israel routed their much stronger enemies with only 300 men. Or remember how Nehemiah and the people rebuilt the wall around Jerusalem in 52 days, despite opposition from her enemies. Over and over again, we see the people of Israel succeed, despite being outnumbered, outmanned, and out-equipped.
The one thing we were never without, however, was God. Remember what God told Gideon: "With the three hundred men… I will save you and give the Midianites into your hands" (Judges 7:7). And when Nehemiah and the people completed the rebuilding project in record time, the nations around them realized, "that this work had been done with the help of our God" (Nehemiah 6:16). The prophet Zechariah reminds us of this as well, in God's words to His people: "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit."
There was opposition to God's plans in biblical times; there is opposition to God's plan for His people today. But what people of faith can depend upon is that God's Word will endure. He remembers all His promises that He makes to His people. He cares for His people and will deliver them from all opposition.
Despite what enemies we face, Christians and Jews alike, we know that we have God on our side. As you live for Him, determine not to trust in your own strength and abilities, but in His Spirit.
With prayers for shalom, peace,
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
October 22, 2010
"So he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." — Zechariah 4:6
Imagine if the state where you are living right now were surrounded entirely by enemies intent on your total destruction — just because you happen to live in Florida, or Kansas, or Colorado. How would it feel to live under that tension, that fear, 24/7? How would that affect how you looked upon yourself, others, the world?
Of course, you know where I'm heading with this. Israel is that state, the Israelis are those people. Living in a country no bigger than the state of New Jersey, throughout her history, Israel has been surrounded by enemies who share one goal — wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Within a day of its inception, five of Israel's surrounding "neighbors" declared war on the fledgling state and attacked from all directions. As a result, the Jewish population, some 600,000 people, was outnumbered 20 to 1! Yet, we prevailed.
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this. We need only to remember the biblical accounts of Gideon and Midianites, where the people of Israel routed their much stronger enemies with only 300 men. Or remember how Nehemiah and the people rebuilt the wall around Jerusalem in 52 days, despite opposition from her enemies. Over and over again, we see the people of Israel succeed, despite being outnumbered, outmanned, and out-equipped.
The one thing we were never without, however, was God. Remember what God told Gideon: "With the three hundred men… I will save you and give the Midianites into your hands" (Judges 7:7). And when Nehemiah and the people completed the rebuilding project in record time, the nations around them realized, "that this work had been done with the help of our God" (Nehemiah 6:16). The prophet Zechariah reminds us of this as well, in God's words to His people: "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit."
There was opposition to God's plans in biblical times; there is opposition to God's plan for His people today. But what people of faith can depend upon is that God's Word will endure. He remembers all His promises that He makes to His people. He cares for His people and will deliver them from all opposition.
Despite what enemies we face, Christians and Jews alike, we know that we have God on our side. As you live for Him, determine not to trust in your own strength and abilities, but in His Spirit.
With prayers for shalom, peace,
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
Thursday, October 21, 2010
FROM PATRIOT POST
Alexander's Essay – October 18, 2010
Third Party Conservatives: Fixers or Spoilers?
"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue ... the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." --James Madison
In the years following the resolute conservative leadership of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party became indolent, more reactive than proactive. Making matters worse, the party supported the infiltration of so-called "big-tent moderates," those whose policy positions are almost indistinguishable from their Democrat challengers. Consequently, conservative third-party candidates have become significant players in national and state elections.
Conservatives voters have mixed opinions on support for third-party candidates. Thanks to the Tea Party movement, the question of constitutional integrity has been reinvigorated, and there are more outstanding third-party candidates in this midterm election than ever before.
Many Patriot readers have asked: "How should one vote when a third-party candidate is more conservative than the Republican offering? Should one vote for the lesser of two evils on the major party tickets? Is a vote for a third-party conservative a wasted vote or, worse, one that takes votes from a moderate on the ticket, and seats a Leftist?"
The answers, of course, depend on one's affinity for purism versus pragmatism, and the particular circumstances and consequences of each political contest.
Purists are those who rigorously and steadfastly adhere to established traditions and principles in the conduct of their affairs, in application both to individual and societal matters.
Pragmatists, on the other hand, are those who take a practical approach to arriving at solutions, even if that means supporting the lesser of two evils. They thus try to strike a balance between principles and practicality rather than take a strict ideological line.
So, how to vote? By way of an answer, let's consider the following.
One of the issues challenging some incumbent Republican candidates is their vote for the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which many conservatives begrudgingly supported and which was signed into law with similar enthusiasm by George W. Bush at the end of his second term.
A conservative purist would argue that the government should have no role in the regulation of free enterprise, other than ensuring the exercise thereof, and that the economy, if left to its own devices, is self-regulating, and that self-regulation is the most efficient means to achieve economic prosperity. In the case of TARP, the purist objects to the intervention, and if the economy collapses as a result, the notion is that it will eventually recover and be stronger for what it was allowed to endure.
The conservative pragmatist, on the other hand, while concurring with the academic principles held by the purist, understands the consequences of the purist's position, and weighs that outcome against the consequences of striking a compromise. Thus, the pragmatist holds his nose and votes for TARP, understanding that averting an unprecedented economic collapse is more important than upholding an academic principle.
I consider myself a purist in regard to the government's TARP intervention, disagreeing with it in principle. However, while I did not live through the Great Depression, I have learned much about its causes and consequences from those who did, and thus I supported a pragmatic compromise in the matter of government intervention to prevent the cascading failure of our banking system, assuredly taking the economy down with it.
Now, whether you agree or disagree with this compromise, the bottom line is that government intervention created the crisis of confidence that led to the near collapse of our economy and, in my humble opinion, government intervention was the solution.
I will always be conflicted over my position on TARP. Fortunately, however, the original bailout cost to taxpayers, estimated to be $356 billion, has proven to be less than 10 percent of that loss and, in terms of our GDP, less than a third the loss due to the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s. TARP should not be confused with Obama's so-called "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" which is going to cost taxpayers more than a trillion dollars. (Many thanks to the Red Chinese for underwriting this DemoDebt, while growing their own economy at a 10 percent clip.)
How does this help answer the questions about voting for third-party candidates?
The purist will vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot, regardless of the consequences. The notion here is that if such votes end up seating a liberal (as votes for Ross Perot may have done for Bill Clinton in 1992), this ultimately will be for the good of liberty.
The pragmatist will vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the liberal, even if that candidate does not comport with all, or even most of, the purist's principles. The pragmatist thus believes that the consequences of seating a liberal will be more injurious to freedom and liberty than seating a moderate.
The above debate is as contentious as the consequences of each approach, and it has been raging for as long as third-party candidates have been on ballots.
The consummate conservative protagonist, William F. Buckley, concluded that the best rule was to vote for the most conservative electable candidate.
A case in point would be last month's Delaware senate primary.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, a pragmatist, wrote that the election of third-party conservative candidate Christine O'Donnell "was a bad day not only for Republicans but for conservatives." He doubts that O'Donnell can defeat her liberal opponent in the upcoming general election, but believes her moderate Republican opponent Mike Castle would have.
"The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama's social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda," argues Krauthammer.
"Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican," he says. "What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That's batting .667. You'd rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate? Castle wasn't only electable. He was unbeatable."
Whether Krauthammer is right about O'Donnell's electability is yet to be determined, but his conclusion should be weighed carefully by all of my likeminded conservative purists.
To be sure, we are in a unique political cycle this year. Other third-party candidates have already defeated numerous establishment Republican Senate candidates in the primaries. Joe Miller defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Marco Rubio so frightened Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida that Crist became an "independent" and now stands to be pounded by Rubio in the general election. And there are strong conservatives running with an "R" next to their name: Rand Paul in Kentucky, Mike Lee in Utah, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Ken Buck in Colorado.
Additionally, post primary, there are almost 20 House seats with strong Republican contenders in which third-party conservative challengers are pushing those Republicans to the right. Will those challengers split the conservative vote and give the seat to Democrats in the process?
There's plenty of consternation within the ranks of the Republican establishment as to what to do with third-party conservatives. Here's one idea for the GOP: Back strong conservative candidates on the big ticket so as to obviate the need for third-party candidates.
In Tennessee's 3rd congressional district where I will vote, we face a dilemma similar to that in many House districts. I supported a longtime colleague and strong conservative primary contender, Robin Smith, an outspoken advocate for the Rule of Law, with a proven political record. Yet one of Robin's six Republican opponents, wealthy lawyer Chuck Fleischmann, a political unknown, defeated her by 1,409 votes. He did so by infusing his campaign with more than $100,000 of his own money, running negative ads and landing a last-minute endorsement from populist Fox News infotainer Mike Huckabee. (Fleishmann's campaign manager had run Huckabee's abysmal presidential bid and called in a political favor.)
It was a stinging defeat for Robin and all conservatives in our district. But, hey, I'm not bitter.
In the upcoming midterms, I must decide whether to support Fleischmann, whose campaign tactics were abysmal but who promises he's a conservative, or vote for one of his authentic conservative third-party opponents and risk giving the seat to Fleischmann's ultra-Leftist Democrat opponent.
What criterion will I use?
Fleischmann has a strong lead over his opponent and none of the third-party contenders are polling beyond single digits. So I will likely cast my vote for Savas Kyriakidis in order to fire a round across Fleischmann's bow, and give him notice that if he breaks his conservative promise, he will serve only one term. Of course, if things change over the next two weeks and I detect a risk of seating the Leftist, I'll hold my nose on Election Day, knowing that this election marks but one battle to restore constitutional integrity, not the end of the war.
My advice to our readers: Vote, and make your vote count! If you are faced with a choice between a third-party conservative and a Republican moderate, and you can vote for the most conservative candidate without seating a Leftist as a consequence, do so. If not, hold your nose and vote for the most electable conservative on the ticket.
(Footnote: Regarding all the media polling in the final weeks of this midterm election, don't be lulled into overconfidence. Resolve to vote on 2 November, and bring your like-minded friends and family with you to the polls. In the meantime, please revisit the essay "Pollaganda -- Political Polling as Propaganda for a full understanding on how the media uses polls to influence elections.)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Third Party Conservatives: Fixers or Spoilers?
"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue ... the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." --James Madison
In the years following the resolute conservative leadership of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party became indolent, more reactive than proactive. Making matters worse, the party supported the infiltration of so-called "big-tent moderates," those whose policy positions are almost indistinguishable from their Democrat challengers. Consequently, conservative third-party candidates have become significant players in national and state elections.
Conservatives voters have mixed opinions on support for third-party candidates. Thanks to the Tea Party movement, the question of constitutional integrity has been reinvigorated, and there are more outstanding third-party candidates in this midterm election than ever before.
Many Patriot readers have asked: "How should one vote when a third-party candidate is more conservative than the Republican offering? Should one vote for the lesser of two evils on the major party tickets? Is a vote for a third-party conservative a wasted vote or, worse, one that takes votes from a moderate on the ticket, and seats a Leftist?"
The answers, of course, depend on one's affinity for purism versus pragmatism, and the particular circumstances and consequences of each political contest.
Purists are those who rigorously and steadfastly adhere to established traditions and principles in the conduct of their affairs, in application both to individual and societal matters.
Pragmatists, on the other hand, are those who take a practical approach to arriving at solutions, even if that means supporting the lesser of two evils. They thus try to strike a balance between principles and practicality rather than take a strict ideological line.
So, how to vote? By way of an answer, let's consider the following.
One of the issues challenging some incumbent Republican candidates is their vote for the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which many conservatives begrudgingly supported and which was signed into law with similar enthusiasm by George W. Bush at the end of his second term.
A conservative purist would argue that the government should have no role in the regulation of free enterprise, other than ensuring the exercise thereof, and that the economy, if left to its own devices, is self-regulating, and that self-regulation is the most efficient means to achieve economic prosperity. In the case of TARP, the purist objects to the intervention, and if the economy collapses as a result, the notion is that it will eventually recover and be stronger for what it was allowed to endure.
The conservative pragmatist, on the other hand, while concurring with the academic principles held by the purist, understands the consequences of the purist's position, and weighs that outcome against the consequences of striking a compromise. Thus, the pragmatist holds his nose and votes for TARP, understanding that averting an unprecedented economic collapse is more important than upholding an academic principle.
I consider myself a purist in regard to the government's TARP intervention, disagreeing with it in principle. However, while I did not live through the Great Depression, I have learned much about its causes and consequences from those who did, and thus I supported a pragmatic compromise in the matter of government intervention to prevent the cascading failure of our banking system, assuredly taking the economy down with it.
Now, whether you agree or disagree with this compromise, the bottom line is that government intervention created the crisis of confidence that led to the near collapse of our economy and, in my humble opinion, government intervention was the solution.
I will always be conflicted over my position on TARP. Fortunately, however, the original bailout cost to taxpayers, estimated to be $356 billion, has proven to be less than 10 percent of that loss and, in terms of our GDP, less than a third the loss due to the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s. TARP should not be confused with Obama's so-called "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" which is going to cost taxpayers more than a trillion dollars. (Many thanks to the Red Chinese for underwriting this DemoDebt, while growing their own economy at a 10 percent clip.)
How does this help answer the questions about voting for third-party candidates?
The purist will vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot, regardless of the consequences. The notion here is that if such votes end up seating a liberal (as votes for Ross Perot may have done for Bill Clinton in 1992), this ultimately will be for the good of liberty.
The pragmatist will vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the liberal, even if that candidate does not comport with all, or even most of, the purist's principles. The pragmatist thus believes that the consequences of seating a liberal will be more injurious to freedom and liberty than seating a moderate.
The above debate is as contentious as the consequences of each approach, and it has been raging for as long as third-party candidates have been on ballots.
The consummate conservative protagonist, William F. Buckley, concluded that the best rule was to vote for the most conservative electable candidate.
A case in point would be last month's Delaware senate primary.
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, a pragmatist, wrote that the election of third-party conservative candidate Christine O'Donnell "was a bad day not only for Republicans but for conservatives." He doubts that O'Donnell can defeat her liberal opponent in the upcoming general election, but believes her moderate Republican opponent Mike Castle would have.
"The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama's social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda," argues Krauthammer.
"Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican," he says. "What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That's batting .667. You'd rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate? Castle wasn't only electable. He was unbeatable."
Whether Krauthammer is right about O'Donnell's electability is yet to be determined, but his conclusion should be weighed carefully by all of my likeminded conservative purists.
To be sure, we are in a unique political cycle this year. Other third-party candidates have already defeated numerous establishment Republican Senate candidates in the primaries. Joe Miller defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Marco Rubio so frightened Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida that Crist became an "independent" and now stands to be pounded by Rubio in the general election. And there are strong conservatives running with an "R" next to their name: Rand Paul in Kentucky, Mike Lee in Utah, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Ken Buck in Colorado.
Additionally, post primary, there are almost 20 House seats with strong Republican contenders in which third-party conservative challengers are pushing those Republicans to the right. Will those challengers split the conservative vote and give the seat to Democrats in the process?
There's plenty of consternation within the ranks of the Republican establishment as to what to do with third-party conservatives. Here's one idea for the GOP: Back strong conservative candidates on the big ticket so as to obviate the need for third-party candidates.
In Tennessee's 3rd congressional district where I will vote, we face a dilemma similar to that in many House districts. I supported a longtime colleague and strong conservative primary contender, Robin Smith, an outspoken advocate for the Rule of Law, with a proven political record. Yet one of Robin's six Republican opponents, wealthy lawyer Chuck Fleischmann, a political unknown, defeated her by 1,409 votes. He did so by infusing his campaign with more than $100,000 of his own money, running negative ads and landing a last-minute endorsement from populist Fox News infotainer Mike Huckabee. (Fleishmann's campaign manager had run Huckabee's abysmal presidential bid and called in a political favor.)
It was a stinging defeat for Robin and all conservatives in our district. But, hey, I'm not bitter.
In the upcoming midterms, I must decide whether to support Fleischmann, whose campaign tactics were abysmal but who promises he's a conservative, or vote for one of his authentic conservative third-party opponents and risk giving the seat to Fleischmann's ultra-Leftist Democrat opponent.
What criterion will I use?
Fleischmann has a strong lead over his opponent and none of the third-party contenders are polling beyond single digits. So I will likely cast my vote for Savas Kyriakidis in order to fire a round across Fleischmann's bow, and give him notice that if he breaks his conservative promise, he will serve only one term. Of course, if things change over the next two weeks and I detect a risk of seating the Leftist, I'll hold my nose on Election Day, knowing that this election marks but one battle to restore constitutional integrity, not the end of the war.
My advice to our readers: Vote, and make your vote count! If you are faced with a choice between a third-party conservative and a Republican moderate, and you can vote for the most conservative candidate without seating a Leftist as a consequence, do so. If not, hold your nose and vote for the most electable conservative on the ticket.
(Footnote: Regarding all the media polling in the final weeks of this midterm election, don't be lulled into overconfidence. Resolve to vote on 2 November, and bring your like-minded friends and family with you to the polls. In the meantime, please revisit the essay "Pollaganda -- Political Polling as Propaganda for a full understanding on how the media uses polls to influence elections.)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
