Massad Ayoob - THE DESPAIR OF THE ONE-ISSUE VOTER

I try to stay out of politics. Ain’t my job. Here at Backwoods Home, I’m the resident gun guy, and because I’m the only staffer who also works in the criminal justice system, I sometimes go there too.

A hugely important Presidential election looms upon us. The next four years will see new appointments to the United States Supreme Court, with obviously great implications for those of us who believe in the Constitution and have sworn an oath to uphold it. As has been discussed here before, the one-issue voter isn’t necessarily wearing blinders. Rather, he or she recognizes that no citizen can be on top of every critical issue in our society, but our leaders must be. Therefore, we pick one issue we DO know inside and out, and use that as the litmus test to determine the candidate’s reasonableness, fairness, and logic in the other matters we will vote to entrust to him or her.

This is not to say that we don’t have other issues which are important to us. I am sadly watching the Republican Party, whose platform is much closer to my One Combined Issue of the civil rights of gun owners and the right to self-defense, walk perilously close to the cliff of unelectability on other issues. 47% of people voting for Obama so they can suck on the public teat? I know a lot of taxpayers who are very productive to our society who are going to vote to re-elect the current President for other reasons.

It’s not my place to talk about those things here. It is my place to talk about my corner of the Backwoods Home blogs. In those areas, the choice is starkly clear.

The Democratic Party has chosen to support a reinstatement, presumably permanent this time, of the totally failed and Draconian “assault weapons ban” dumped on us for a decade by Bill Clinton when he was President. Don’t believe me? Look here: http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

The Republican Party, on the other hand, isn’t buying that crap and instead, is for the first time endorsing national reciprocity for concealed carry, that is, the right to carry a loaded, concealed handgun in every state to protect yourself and your family when you’re traveling. Don’t believe me? Look here: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/.

Yeah, I know: “the lesser of two evils.” There are two ways to look at that. One, of course, is that “the lesser of two evils is still evil.” Cynical pragmatist that the decades have made me, I go with the other view: “the lesser of two evils is still…LESS EVIL.”

For the one issue voter, if the issue is gun owners’ civil rights and the right to protect self and family, Romney is the indisputable choice.

Massad Ayoob

Massad F. Ayoob is an internationally known firearms and self-defense instructor.

Massad Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns.

Massad Ayoob was former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.

http://massadayoobgroup.com/

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Matt Barber - Atheists’ and Muslims’ Cross to Bear

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

While America mourned the 11th anniversary of the Islamic attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, atheist radicals were throwing fuel on the fire. While millions were praying for the friends and families of precious souls lost, self-styled “progressives” were preying upon the most significant symbol of hope to which many of the grieving clung.

The 17-foot steel-beam cross, found amid the rubble of the once towering World Trade Center, is at the center of a lawsuit filed by the American Atheists Foundation. While nearly the entire 9/11 memorial site remains purely secular in nature, these secular absolutists complain of unequal representation. Such a bizarre measure of inequality could arise solely in the blinded mind of a “free-thinking” relativist.

Fortunately, these Christ-hating heathens don’t have a legal leg upon which to be hopping mad. In cases like Abington v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court has noted repeatedly that “religion has been closely identified with our history and government.”

In fact, the high court ruled explicitly in Lynch v. Donnelly that religious elements within a larger government display are perfectly constitutional where both a religious and a “secular purpose” are represented. There could be no better example than the case at hand.

The relic cross was dedicated to the World Trade Center Memorial. Workers, volunteers, indeed most of America, saw it as a profound symbol of hope after it was discovered amongst the debris. The cross, which many believe miraculous, brought tremendous comfort to those who lost loved ones in the cowardly, Islamo-fascist attacks.

American Atheists’ complaint reads like a bad joke. The group’s president, David Silverman, insists that he and his fellow God-deniers are experiencing debilitating physical reactions from simply witnessing the rubble cross. Such reactions allegedly include “inter alia, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish.”

These materialist martyrs complain that the cross makes them “feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack.” (Well, cry me a river, princess. Suck it up and go see the school nurse.)

To be sure, our atheist flowers – like other living dead – are evidently so insecure in their lack of faith that the mere glimpse of a cross provokes a hiss, a dramatic cape-whirl-twirl and an abrupt retreat to the cold sanctuary of moonlit coffin (or Starbucks; whichever has Wi-Fi).

Am I trying to vilify David Silverman and his anti-Christian American Atheists? Not at all. I’d no sooner try to “milkify” milk. Actions define character. It’s at once both refreshing and instructive to see the godless left cast off its Apollyon mask.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel civil-rights firm, said of the case: “Atheist groups would like to see a total collapse of the free exercise of religion in America. The cross is a symbol of hope amidst the total destruction at Ground Zero. The lawsuit is further evidence of the war on Christianity in America. The 9/11 cross survived the terrorist attack by Muslim extremists, and it will survive the cultural attack by radical secularists.”

Indeed, radical secularists’ war on Christianity has reached biblical proportions. We saw it on full display at the Democratic National Convention. It was surreal. There, thousands of Democrats, with a unified voice, denied God three times and then booed His inclusion after shell-shocked party officials rammed Him back into the platform – this, despite an obviously failed voice vote. (The democratic process and the Democratic Party: Neither the twain shall meet.)

The uncanny symbolism was not lost on Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WND: “It’s reminiscent of the denials of Jesus by Simon Peter on the day He was arrested for a sham trial before the Sanhedrin,” he wrote. “I didn’t hear a cock crow at the Democratic convention, unless you count Bill Clinton’s speech.”

Benjamin Franklin once observed, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it?”

We know what we’d be. We’re becoming it.

Yes, liberals’ desperate attempts to secularize America and eradicate her rich, Judeo-Christian heritage must be vigorously combatted. The left’s militant crusade to exorcise public recognition of God must not go unchallenged.

As Muslim radicals’ conduct murderous assaults on U.S. embassies around the world, secularist radicals are no less determined to kill freedom. There is, you see, a tie that binds. Both groups hate – with a visceral, all-consuming kind of hatred – the one true God. They hate all things Judeo-Christian.

But they also share a common goal. God-deniers want to destroy the America of our founding – the America of which George Washington said in his inaugural address: “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Millions of Muslims, on the other hand, simply want to destroy America.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - LBJ's Great Unjust Society - The Tax Code Undermines Churches and the First Amendment

From a tax code that limits the free speech of churches, to a welfare state that destroys families, Zo tells you why the Democrats and the Great Society are agents of oppression.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Is the Republican Party the Party of God?

The Democratic Party Platform contains just one reference to “God,” and the inclusion of that single reference was famously booed by many delegates at the Democratic convention. In contrast, the Republican Party Platform contains 12 references to “God,” and candidate Romney has emphatically stated, “I will not take God out of the name of our platform. I will not take God off our coins and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation that’s bestowed by God.” Does this make the GOP the party of God?

The Democratic Platform certainly stands in stark contrast with the Republican Platform. The former is radically pro-abortion, endorses same-sex marriage, and is decidedly weak on Israel. The latter is strongly pro-life, in favor of natural, organic marriage, and unashamedly pro-Israel.

All this is readily seen in Liberty Counsel’s Voter’s Guide, which contrasts 10 categories in both platforms: Abortion and Human Life; Family Values; First Amendment, Liberty, and Responsibility; ObamaCare; Gun Rights; Fiscal Reform; Israel as an Ally; Government Oversight; Judiciary; Word Use Comparisons.

Starting with the last category, as already noted, the Democratic Platform (from here on DP) used the word “God” once; the Republican Platform (from here on RP) spoke of “God” 12 times. But is this more semantics than substance? Apparently not.

The DP did not mention the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. The RP condemned them.

The DP did not mention the protection of individual conscience in healthcare; the RP explicitly supported it.

The DP did not mention the right to publicly display the Ten Commandments; the RP explicitly endorsed it.

The DP favored the so-called Fairness Doctrine; the RP opposed it.

The DP did not encourage abstinence-only education for teens; the RP encouraged it.

The DP did not mention the enforcement of laws against pornography and obscenity; the RP did.

The DP did not support a constitutional amendment that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nor did it support the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); the RP supported both.

The DP did not mention euthanasia and assisted suicide; the RP opposed both.

The DP supported taxpayer-funded/subsidized abortion; the RP opposed this.

The DP did not mention the Human Life Amendment in defense of the unborn; the RP supported it.

And Romney continues to ratchet up the God talk, stating, “I will not take God out of the public square,” and “we are [a] nation under God.” But that does not mean that the Republican party is the party of God. Not by a long shot.

Both parties have more than their share of cronyism, compromise (if not outright corruption), ungodly alliances, hypocrisy, blind spots, and poor role models. It would be a terrible mistake to invoke some kind of divine sanctity on the Republicans. (For the record, it would also be a terrible mistake to think that there are no godly Democrats out there.)

To be perfectly clear, as a religious conservative, I strongly support the GOP Platform when it comes to family, life, and Israel. And I find it interesting that individuals, religious organizations, and political parties which invoke God and the Bible as authorities tend to be pro-life, pro-traditional family, and pro-Israel (which does not necessarily mean anti-Palestinian). In contrast, individuals, religious organizations, and political parties which either marginalize God and the Bible or reject the plain sense of the Scriptures tend to be pro-abortion, in favor of same-sex marriage, and anti-Israel (or, at least, not strongly pro-Israel).

And I do understand why conservative pundits have referred to the “godless Democrats” and why conservative politicians have runs ads highlighting the Democratic “booing of God.” But even if many (or most) Democrats are “godless,” that does not mean that the Republicans, for the most part, are godly, nor should we look at them as the Party of God. (For the conservative Christians reading this, do you think God would appoint a Mormon to head up his party?)

Let’s not forget how many Republican candidates have used “God language” to win the votes of conservative Christians (especially evangelicals) only to disappoint those very voters once in office.

Let’s not forget that marriage was redefined in New York State because four Republican senators caved in. (It’s true that the bill was driven and supported by Democrats, but the Republicans certainly failed to hold the line.)

Let’s not forget that the Republican Party of Massachusetts has not embraced the national platform as its own.

And let’s not forget the fundamental error we make when we exaggerate the goodness and godliness of a large and diverse political party.

Without a doubt, the Republican Platform is far closer to conservative Judeo-Christian values than is the Democratic Platform, but let’s not get carried away. The only true, political “party of God” is sitting in heaven right now. Here on earth, the political scene is mixed, and the ones calling themselves the “party of God” are groups like Hezbollah. (In case you didn’t know, that’s what Hezbollah means in Arabic.)

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Bill Whittle - Number Six

There are Seven Deadly Sins. So why is our tax code, and the rhetoric of the Democrats in the House, Senate and especially the White House becoming ever more shrill about the sixth of these Seven Deadly Sins? Bill Shows who pays their fair share and who doesn't in this latest edition of FIREWALL

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Star Parker - An alternative to Democrats' moral bankruptcy

Maybe Democrats have some slick salesmen, like Bill Clinton and our current president, who can sell you swampland and have you convinced that you've bought choice beachfront property.

But the omission of any mention of God and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital from the Democratic Party platform, which were in it in 2008, and then the almost-failed attempt to add them after the fact, showed the clear truth about the 2012 Democratic Party.

It took three boisterous floor votes to add these principles to the platform. Listening to the ayes and nays on the third vote, it is questionable that they actually got the two-thirds that were needed.

The omission of these key principles from the Democratic platform was the party equivalent of what journalist Michael Kinsley calls a political gaffe -- when a politician inadvertently says what he really believes.

Democratic Party operatives panicked when they realized that the platform, as initially drafted, showed today's Democrats exactly for who they are: the home base for the nihilism, radical moral relativism and welfare statism that define today's far left.

But the Democrats are the party of the entertainment industry. They know how to create fiction and appeal to fantasies.

So the party of the radical left brands Republicans as extremists.

The United States is still a religious nation.

According to a 2010 Gallup poll, 43 percent of Americans attend church regularly. However, just 39 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of liberals do.

The alignment of the culture of the Democratic Party with that of bankrupt European welfare states provides a powerful hint where they are taking this country.

In a Pew Research Center survey last year, 50 percent of Americans said religion is "very important," compared to 22 percent in Spain, 21 percent in Germany, 17 percent in Great Britain and 13 percent in France.

Of the 50 percent of Americans who said religion is very important, 67 percent were conservative and 29 percent liberal.

Regarding Israel, in a Gallup poll done this year, 61 percent of all Americans -- 78 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Democrats -- said their sympathies lie with the Israelis rather than the Palestinians.

Back in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, 30 percent of federal spending consisted of payments to individuals. Today it's almost 70 percent.

In 1965, 24 percent of black babies and 3 percent of white babies were born to unwed mothers. Today 73 percent of black babies and 29 percent of white babies are born out of wedlock. More than half of births today to women under 30 are outside of marriage.

Unfunded liabilities of Medicare, plus those of Social Security, are $63 trillion, according to their trustees' latest report. But underlying the fiscal bankruptcy is a moral bankruptcy.

But you wouldn't know it, listening to La-La Land Democratic liberals.

Not only are we killing the goose that lays the eggs, but with 50 percent of Americans now living in a household getting government benefits, we're losing perspective that you even need a goose to get eggs.

God-fearing, family- and church-centered American values created the American prosperity that opened the door to entitlement programs.

Now Democrats brand those traditional American values as cruel and "on your own."

If you think debt, government dependence, broken families and moral relativism form the path to a strong and prosperous America, sign on with the Democrats.

But Republicans need to do a better job embracing and articulating the alternative.

Republicans need to step up to the plate and start talking about our nation's real crisis -- our moral crisis. The nation's searching middle class will understand the truth when they hear it.

But they need to hear it.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michael Brown - Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem

We all know about the shocking, Democratic waffling on the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s (undivided) capital in the current party platform. But there’s another important issue that no one seems to be talking about: If Jerusalem is really Israel’s capital, why haven’t we moved our embassy there?

To be sure, this is not the first time that Jerusalem has been at the center of controversy. Twenty-five hundred years ago, when the returning Jewish exiles were attempting to rebuild the city, their opponents sent a letter of warning to the king of Persia. (At that time, Judah was a province of Persia). “Be it known to the king,” the letter stated, “that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. They are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations. Now be it known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be impaired.” (Ezra 4:12-13)

They even urged the king “that search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers. You will find in the book of the records and learn that this city is a rebellious city, hurtful to kings and provinces, and that sedition was stirred up in it from of old. That was why this city was laid waste.” (Ezra 4:15)

How interesting that more than two-and-a-half millennia ago, Jerusalem had a bad reputation (at least to its enemies). It was already branded “rebellious and wicked,” a hotbed of sedition, and a bane to rulers and nations.

The warning even went one step further: “We make known to the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls finished, you will then have no possession in the province Beyond the River” (Ezra 4:16) In other words, once the Jews rebuild Jerusalem, you will lose the entire province of Judah in Trans Euphrates.

Five hundred years later, Jesus himself referred to Jerusalem as “the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!” (Matthew 23:37) And the ancient prophet Zechariah predicted that at the end of the age, “all the nations of the earth will gather against it.” (Zechariah 12:3)

But as fascinating as these texts are, given the current controversy about the status of Jerusalem, they do not answer the question I have raised: From a political perspective (as opposed to a biblical perspective), why haven’t we moved our embassy to Jerusalem? If we truly recognize it as the undivided capital of Israel, as affirmed now in both party platforms, why haven’t we relocated our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

Considering the fact that Jews have been saying, “Next year in Jerusalem” for the last 20 centuries, it’s no surprise that Jerusalem was declared Israel’s capital in 1950. And the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, “passed by overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate,” states that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.”

We have now passed the 13th anniversary of that Congressional deadline, and yet our embassy remains in Tel Aviv (along with the embassies of virtually all other countries that recognize the State of Israel). How has this happened? As noted on the United with Israel website, “since the congressional act allows the President to implement a waiver at six-month intervals, that’s exactly what has happened every six months since 1995.”

But why? Why pass the Jerusalem Embassy Act – note that word “Embassy” – in such overwhelming, bipartisan fashion and then not move the embassy? Even Ron Paul, not known as a staunch supporter of Israel, once said, “If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that. How would we like it if some other nation said, ‘We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there’?”

In 2008, candidate Obama declared that any agreement with the Palestinians “must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state with secure, recognized, defensible borders. And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”

In July, candidate Romney declared, “A nation has the capacity to choose its own capital city, and Jerusalem is Israel's capital. I think it’s long been the policy to ultimately have our embassy in the nation's capital of Jerusalem.” And now, both party platforms reaffirm Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

So why not move the embassy? Mr. Obama (or Mr. Romney), will you do it? If not, why not?

Dr. Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is the author of 20 books. He has served as a professor at a number of seminaries and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.