Thursday, December 30, 2010

Interview: Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism

Jack Hunter, the Southern Avenger, provides an informative interview with the American Conservative's Daniel McCarthy on the topic of "neoconservatism" (as opposed to true conservatism) in the video below. Check it out whether you are seasoned or new to the issue. It is well worth the time.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

A Constitutionalist's Perspective on WikiLeaks

By now chances are that you have heard about the latest WikiLeaks release and have either formed an opinion or sought out the opinions of others. Originally, it was my intention to keep my mouth shut regarding the issue because there are plenty of folks out there giving their opinions and demanding you agree with them. Some have offered balanced assessments, while most--I feel--have spouted ridiculous untruths, based on misguided ideological or partisan bias.

(It is not my intention to get into the nuts and bolts of the released WikiLeaks content in this post. For a good overview I recommend this article. It gives a sample of the content and the situation surrounding it.)

To properly inform one's perspective on the issue, one mustn't be taken in with the alarmism being thrown around. Likewise, one must separate the judgment involved in the releasing of the leaks from the legality of the actions. 

The absurdity coming from many opponents rests on a major misunderstanding--one where personal feelings have clouded proper criticism. Many have called into question the wisdom in releasing documents that could harm US-foreign relations. Such questioning is fine, and I believe sensible people can find themselves on both sides of the fence. Some can find the actions of WikiLeaks to be foolish; others can find them harmless or even heroic. I am not asking anyone to fall into either camp. I am just asking for people not to buy into foolishness.

Congressman Peter King is one of the most vocal peddlers of such foolishness. His blatant disregard for reality and the First Amendment is alarming. King's call for WikiLeaks to be classified as a terrorist organization and statement that the releasing of the WikiLeaks files is "worse than a military attack" proves he is a bit off his rocker, operating in a different world that ignores reality and constitutional freedoms. Anyone who has seen the content of the leaks can easily recognize the treat is one of political embarrassment, not military logistics. Moreover, even Secretary of Defense Gates has admitted that the last WikiLeaks release--which actually did pertain to current military action--yielded no casualties or lasting military failures, contrary to the dooming prophecies of neocons, alarmists, and warmongers alike, who made such claims.


Globalists, administration officials, and neocons may very well have reason to be alarmed at the latest round of WikiLeaks releases, but the chances that our men and women in the military have reason to worry over the works is slim to none. Their only worry should stem from leadership in both parties being ever willing to put and keep them in harm's way.

Clearly, if we are to value freedom, we must not compromise it even when the situation proves difficult. We must protect the freedom of speech and press at all costs, especially when doing so is unpopular. This does not mean, however, that we must agree with the content of that speech or press or even the decision of those producing the content to produce it.

What is being lost in the public discourse is that the wisdom of the leaks can be questioned while upholding the right for the information to be made public. We need not demonize to show disapproval. Calling the releases foolish is one thing, calling it terrorism is quite another. That is where many of the critics fail. Instead of merely disagreeing with the decision for the information to be released and offering their reasons why, many critics demonize WikiLeaks and create unfounded claims against the release of said information.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision of WikiLeaks to release the information; there is no right to call their actions terrorism. Once again: calling something unwise or reckless is one thing; claiming terrorism and calling for a suspension of constitutional rights is quite another.

Over the past week I have seen utter hysteria over these new leaks. Looking at them objectively, I laugh at how bent out of shape some are getting over the incident--especially considering how tame the leaks are compared to the last batch. What I find most alarming is how quickly people are willing to label the action of WikiLeaks "terrorism" and completely throw the Constitution out when considering the matter. Moreover, the true colors of many pundits and politicians is being well displayed. We see how globalist many are in their concerns, how deep neoconservatism has imbeded itself into modern political thought, and how much of a battle those of us who desire a humble and constitutional foreign policy still have to fight.

When considering the WikiLeaks issue I was reminded of my hero Thomas Jefferson's words to Charles Yancey where he wrote, "The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."

I think we know where Mr. Jefferson would have sided on the issue.

I leave you with the words of Ron Holland, which echo my own sentiments:
I join with real conservatives not the false neocon war advocates hoping these leaks do not threaten our troops or necessary intelligence operatives. Still Americans must understand it is Washington and economic interests that have actually placed our troops at risks in foreign military wars and occupations not in the real interests of the United States, the nations invaded or civilians killed.

Friday, November 26, 2010

European Small Gov't Advocates Rule!

I've long watched European politics from afar with interest,and I have admired many small government advocates across the pond which refused to pull punches--unlike their American counterparts. When Daniel Hannan broke into the scene with his rousing speech "The Devalued Prime Minister of a Devalued Government," I thought it couldn't get any better. It may not, but below is a new contender for the crown.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

If you vote...

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
~ John Quincy Adams

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Nasty Attacks Are Nothing New

When I hear folks ranting about how "politics have become so dirty," I always point to the election of 1800 as proof that things have been bad since the beginning. In fact, things may have become more civil. Take a look at this great video from Reason that gives us a taste of what was said in our nations first competitive presidential election in the form of would-be ads from 1800.

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Revolution Will be Pumpkinized

This cool carving of a Ron Paul jack-o-lantern topped with Dr. No's famed "What If..." speech is making its way around the net. Check it out! It is quite cool and creative--just like all liberty-lovers.



Title Credit: A.C. Kleinheider

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Change of Heart Over Stimulus and FED

In a grand turn of event's Telegraph reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has reversed his pro-Fed, pro-stimulus position, issued an apology, and is now calling for an end to the central bank. This marks an important milestone for those of us who call for a return to sound money. People are starting to realize that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to fiat currency and interventionist fiscal policy and are waking up from their state-induced dream. Let us welcome these new converts as they join the battle against Leviathan's central banking and fiat currency system. 

My favorite line from Ambrose reads, "My apologies. Mercy, for I have sinned against sound money, and therefore against sound politics."

 I encourage you to read the whole piece. It begins:

I apologise to readers around the world for having defended the emergency stimulus policies of the US Federal Reserve, and for arguing like an imbecile naif that the Fed would not succumb to drug addiction, political abuse, and mad intoxicated debauchery, once it began taking its first shots of quantitative easing.
My pathetic assumption was that Ben Bernanke would deploy further QE only to stave off DEFLATION, not to create INFLATION. If the Federal Open Market Committee cannot see the difference, God help America.
We now learn from last week’s minutes that the Fed is willing “to provide additional accommodation if needed to … return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.”
NO, NO, NO, this cannot possibly be true. (Read the rest here.)

Monday, September 27, 2010

Follow the San Francisco Chronicle's Example?

It is rare that I would advocate anyone following the example of the San Francisco Chronicle, but their editorial board's refusal to endorse in California's senate race commands our consideration.

Claiming that "Californians are left with a deeply unsatisfying choice for the U.S. Senate this year," the Chronicle on Sunday refused to throw their support behind Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina, claiming that Boxer lacks the effectiveness in advocating the liberal causes the editors advocate and Fiorina stands in the way of those very causes. While the paper's reasoning is flawed and differs greatly from my own, they are right to notice that it is unwise to throw support behind candidates that do not share one's values.


Too often we are told to choose the lesser of two evils and support one of the major party candidates even if neither represent the values we desire in a candidate, but this urging is misguided and down right foolish. All we do when supporting the "lesser of two evils" is reward political parties for running "evil" candidates, create a continued cycle of "evil" candidates in each election, and place "evil" people into office. The lie that one party is better than the other is revealed every time a poor candidate is rewarded with victory; they govern in a way not unlike their opponents and we wonder why things never change. It is philosophy, not party, that truly distinguishes candidates.

If we truly seek to advance liberty we must stop blindly supporting major party candidates if they are not worthy of our support. While we will never find someone we agree with 100% of the time, we must be careful to not quickly compromise our principles. Much of the poor situation we find ourselves in can be linked back to similar compromises in past elections. 


Whether it be in primaries or general elections, those of us serious about liberty and a return to a free society must follow the example of the Chronicle--if no one is worthy of our support, let's withhold it.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Friday, September 17, 2010

Happy Constitution Day

Today we celebrate the signing of a document I truly love and cherish--the US Constitution. Though it is far from perfect, our Constitution has brought the quest for human freedom leap and bounds ahead of where it was when adopted. For that I am grateful.

Sadly, our Constitution is continually disregarded and infringed upon. So let's be vigilant and fight to restore constitutional government in this country as we pursue liberty and limited government. 

Now for a little Constitution Day wisdom...

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-- James Madison 


"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson  


"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
-- Patrick Henry

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now."
-- South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
 

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

We Who Dare Say No to the War

I really enjoyed this video of the Mises Institute's Jeffrey Tucker interviewing Tom Woods about his book We Who Dare Say No to War. It's fantastic and worth your time.



A blurb on the book:

The rap on those who oppose war is that they are "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" or not supportive of American ideals. How can this be when war itself has been a main enemy of freedom for Americans themselves? When the war is on, government is unleashed. Those who oppose this are the greatest friends of freedom, especially because they dare to oppose the regime when it matters most.
We Who Dared to Say No to War uncovers some of the forgotten but compelling body of work from the American antiwar tradition speeches, articles, poetry, book excerpts, political cartoons, and more - from people throughout our history who have opposed war. Beginning with the War of 1812, these selections cover every major American war up to the present and come from both the left and the right, from religious and secular viewpoints.
Hat Tip: Young Americans for Liberty 

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Amazing Article on Beck's Rally and Beyond

I beg you to head over to The Humble Libertarian and read Carl Wicklander's latest on the Beck rally and the state of conservatism in America. It is an absolute must read, brilliantly laying out what is in front of us and stating the tough truth. 

Here is a taste of the article:
If there is any question about the status of the conservative movement, it could be found in Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally: it is as alive and kicking as Ronald Reagan himself. Too soon? Either way, despite estimates of hundreds of thousands attending Beck’s rally last Saturday, there was nothing on display to imply that American conservatism has any long-term usefulness.

More than anything, it showed the triumph of "liberalism" over everything in the country, even the purported conservative movement itself.

Heeding criticism that the rally could only be political in nature, the Mormon Beck made it about “god.” Only keynote speaker Sarah Palin, whose presence was derided as proof that the event would just be a Republican rally, treaded into the political muck.

The insufferable opening prayer, led by a supposed descendent of Mayflower passengers, alongside a rabbi and supposed descendants of the Indians er, Native Americans at Plymouth Rock, included a petition about Quaker William Penn and this beauty:

“And you, O God, called us to repentance when we did not live up to our creed, and we did not treat everyone as equal. But Lord, we found out that you are a God of forgiveness, you are a God of covenant, you are a God of restoration, you are a God of healing and you have healed us.”

I’m no professional theologian, but if I understand that correctly, Americans didn’t learn about the forgiveness of God by reading the Bible’s account of Christ’s sacrificial death but only after we had enslaved the blacks and broken our treaties with the Ind-. . . Native Americans. Was this conservative Christianity or the liberal gods of collective guilt and multiculturalism?

This display of multiculturalism isn’t new and it isn’t even unique for Beck. (Continue Here).
 PS: Please check out Carl's personal blog here. I am a huge fan.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Friday, August 20, 2010

Happy Birthday Ron Paul

Today is Ron Paul's birthday! The Texas congressman has been a huge influence in my life. His tireless commitment to liberty and the Constitution is truly inspiring. He is our modern day Thomas Jefferson, and I love him for it.

Happy Birthday Dr. Paul. God bless you. Please keep fighting for us.


Now head over to Ron's son Rand's website and give to his money bomb today.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

My View on the "Ground-Zero Mosque"

I have long avoided this post, even though I've followed the issue before it became such a massive national news story. My reluctance to write is not due to a lack of a clear opinion. Rather, the "mosque" has become such a divisive and sensitive issue, and frankly, I hate talking about it. But due to an overwhelming demand that I come out and discuss the issue, I will do so briefly.

First, it must be noted that this is an issue of property rights more than anything else. As a constitutionalist, I do not budge on this issue. A private developer/property owner has the right to do whatever he wishes with his property as long as it does not infringe on upon the rights of others. (Btw, there is no right to not be offended.) Therefore, it does not mater what the project is. Some say it is a mosque. Some say it is a cultural center. Some say it is both. What the project is should not matter. Rights should not be conditional.

Moreover, anyone weighing in on this issue should be careful to consider it from all possible perspectives. Imagine if this where a Christian project. Would you be just as offended? Would you be offended that others were offended? The point here is that we must be willing to defend the same rights for all, especially the unpopular.

I belong to an increasingly unpopular religion--conservative evangelical Christianity. My faith is already under attack by the politically correct crowd who want to legislate what can and cannot be said from the pulpit. When we start to pick winners and losers in religion, it is  a slippery slope. A Muslim center may be stopped in New York City today, but a conservative Baptist church may be stopped in San Francisco in the future.

I have little problem with social influence affecting construction of this or any other project, but when we start talking legal action, that is where we should take issue. The way that our politicians in both parties have politicized this issue is unacceptable.

Whether the decision to go ahead with the center is tactful or not, there is no denying that those proposing construction have every right to go ahead with the construction and to use the building as they see fit. At this point it probably is in poor taste to go ahead with the project, but is also in poor taste to stand against it. If we are to take the high ground and be the land of the free, let's truly be the land of the free and protect the rights of all.

My personal opinion is best summed up by Young Americans For Liberty founder Jeff Frazee's facebook status a few days ago:

I wish Muslim leaders would choose to abandon their plans for the "ground zero mosque" just as a symbol of sensitivity and friendship with neighbors. I think it would go a long way in inter-religious relations within the US. But, I will defend their right to property if they unfortunately choose otherwise.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Reagan Wisdom--"Those Voices Don't Speak for the Rest of Us"

Below is an extremely well done video that showcases vintage Ronald Reagan applied to our current circumstances. "The Great Communicator's" words are flawlessly delivered and remind me of those of  F. A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom. Every word of it is so true and so on point. I love this video!!!



Hat Tip: Memorandum

Monday, August 16, 2010

I'm Back and Blogging

I am back in the saddle again and will begin blogging daily, perhaps multiple times a day, again.

The last few months of my life have been both hectic and rewarding, working for the gubernatorial campaign of Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey--a man I deeply respect and support.

We lost the primary after putting up a good fight for constitutional principles, and now I am back home with some time on my hands. Therefore, I will be creating new content for you as much as possible. SO please check back daily at the least.

What do I need from you? I need your requests for subjects from you about which I can blog. So please reply back with topic suggestions, and I'll do my best to meet your requests.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Vote Ron Ramsey for Governor of TN!!!!

For the past few months I have worked tirelessly for the campaign of Ron Ramsey for governor of Tennessee, believing Ron Ramsey to be the only right man for the job.

As a constitutionalist and lover of liberty, I am proud to support a man who is truly committed to the principles that our Founders sought to establish. Ron is the real deal. He is the only one ready to do the job on day one after taking office, and he is the only one with the philosophical commitment to govern in accordance with constitutional principles. His voting record proves it. Therefore, I am convinced that he must be our next governor.

The other candidates in the race are not conservatives, libertarians, or small government types at all. They hold flawed positions and have liberty-hostile records on the issues that matter.

Ron Ramsey is the only candidate worthy of my and your vote. So please vote for my boss, Ron Ramsey, in today's Republican primary. Vote Ramsey. Vote the Constitution. 

Thursday, July 22, 2010

CS Lewis on Democracy

C.S. Lewis:
I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.
I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.
The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.
—C.S. Lewis, “Equality,” in Present Concerns (reprint: Mariner Books, 2002), p. 17.

(Hat Tip: Justin Taylor)

Sunday, July 18, 2010

New Article Hightlights Establishment's Disdain for Tea Party

Here is an interesting piece from the Washington Post.

With the Tea Parties starting have an effect on elections across the country, the establishment is not pleased. Why? Because they know that the Tea Party is seeking to hold them accountable. It is my experience that when establishment politicians are upset, something good is happening. Incumbents hate being held accountable, and they will seek any route to discredit their opponents.

With Michele Bachman in the House and Rand Paul soon to be in the Senate both seeking to form a Tea Party caucus, the establishment is squirming, and I am loving every moment of it.

Please read the article here and enjoy such gems as the one below from the oblivious Trent Lott.

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said in an interview. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

But Lott said he's not expecting a tea-party sweep. "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people," he said. 
(Enough to make you sick, right?)

Saturday, July 10, 2010

For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty

 For Liberty is finally out for online viewing. It is a great film to watch even if you are not involved in the liberty movement. I was honestly brought to tears a few times during the film. It is a beautiful movement of which I am thankfully a part.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

A Note on Blogging

If you haven't noticed, my blog content has been sparse for the past few weeks. That is because I am working around the clock in a gubernatorial campaign. Please stick with me and check back daily for new content. I am going to attempt to make more time to blog and provide you with new content.

Monday, June 14, 2010

A Dangerous Republic of Fools

This quotation has been making its rounds and is attributed to someone in the Czech Republic. Regardless of who it belongs to, I believe it is spot on and can be applied to our electoral decisions overall. 

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitudeof fools such as those who made him their president." 

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Freedom Watch Gets Its Debut!

This message just in from Campaign for Liberty:

Judge Andrew Napolitano will take the freedom message to the television airwaves this Saturday with the national debut of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel at 10 am eastern.

Congressman Ron Paul will be a guest on this first show, and the Judge will also be joined by Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann, Dick Armey, and Sarah Palin.

In case you miss the 10 am premier, Freedom Watch will re-air at 7pm eastern Saturday night, as well as 8pm and 11pm eastern on Sunday evening.

Pass the news along and tune in!

Friday, June 11, 2010

Americans Agree: No Tax Money to Bailout Failing Newspapers

Check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian:
It is no secret that printed news sources have been struggling for years and are on their way out as cable and online news now take over the market. A new report from Rasmussen sheds a little light on the public's feelings regarding this reality and also points to the ridiculous measures being considered by our government.

Rasmussen notes:
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering several ways to help the struggling newspaper industry, but Americans strongly reject several proposed taxes to keep privately-owned newspapers going.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 84% oppose a three percent (3%) tax on monthly cell phone bills to help newspapers and traditional journalism.

Similarly, 76% oppose a proposed five percent tax on the purchase of consumer electronic items such as computers, iPads and Kindles to help support newspapers and traditional journalism. Seventy-four percent (74%) oppose the proposal to tax web sites like the Drudge Report to help the newspapers they draw their headlines from.

Each of these ideas was suggested for consideration in a recent FTC report. (my emphasis)
You read that right. We are not dealing with mere hypothetical speculation here. Rather, the FTC has really been suggesting taxing consumer goods to subsidize a failing news medium. That is such a violation of constitutional and free market principles that it seems unthinkable that it could even be considered.

What's even more alarming is the rationale given by proponents.(continue reading here.)

Monday, June 7, 2010

The Politics of Hoarding

The lives of compulsive hoarders have long been a fascination of mine. What would drive some to acquire and hold onto items in such a manner that they lose control of their belongings, their homes, and even their lives? Thanks to the newest slate of hoarding-themed shows on the air, an unprecedented look is being given into the lives of those effected with this debilitating disorder.

Sadly, anyone who has watched any hoarding television programs has witnessed both individuals lives and their governments spiraling out of control.

While it is completely appropriate for landlords to demand hoarders to clean up or get out (they obviously have the right to maintain the integrity of their properties), the government has no right to tell individuals how to manage their property as long as others' rights are not being violated. Sadly, time after time the government steps in and tells adults (without children even!) how they must maintain their homes. This is a massive affront to liberty. In a free society there is no room for such a massive infringement on one's property rights. People should be free to make their own mistakes.

Regretfully, action against hoarders and like offenders is expected and embrace by many today. A common rebut is "It is for their own good." In fact, many times it is the Department of Adult Protective Services that forces hoarders to clean up their act. (The fact that such a department exists is repulsive to any who value personal responsibility and individual liberty.) Perhaps the behavior of hoarders is detrimental to their health. As a neat freak, I definitely am no fan of those types of living conditions. But it is not mine or the masses' preferences, feelings, or beliefs that should dictate how an individual lives his or her life. Property rights are fundamental, and the willing violation of one's property rights negatively affects us all.

If we value the protection of our own rights, we must resist the violation of others' rights.

When we live in a society where the government can tell an individual how he or she can maintain their own property, we see that the biggest mess isn't that of the hoarders. The mess it that of the government.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Sestak and the Obama Administration...The Proper Move

ABC News reports:
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee "urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter."
Though it may appear to be an act of political opportunism, the actions of the GOP committeemen are quite proper and should be encouraged. Sadly, we are dealing with a possible high-profile political crime carried out by the White House. If the Mr Sestak's claim--that he was offered a position in the administration to bow out of the PA Democratic primary--is true, there's been a major breach of the law that must be prosecuted.

Treating federal jobs like thank you cards is bad enough, but using them to intervene in electoral politics is even worse. Not only does it allow for political manipulation and the ability of the executive branch to pick the legislative players, it is illegal. If we are to be a nation of laws, we cannot have the White House leading the pack in the violation of those laws.

All that said, we should be careful to let the eveidence speak for itself.

No one should be too quick to call the president a liar, side with Sestak, and cry foul. The jury is still, out and I will not pass judgment until more evidence is available. Until the facts are in we should give the chief executive the presumption of innocence.

Moreover, even though I despise the president's policies, I hope he is innocent. The ramifications of the White House manipulating elections by offering jobs on this level would be a huge step back in a time that we don't need more trouble. If the allegations are true, however, I hope those responsible will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. None should be spared.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

A Victory for Rand Paul and the Tea Party

The power of the Tea Party Movement manifested itself mightily in yesterday's GOP primary in Kentucky. In what seemed an impossibility just a few short months ago, Rand Paul--a Bowling Green doctor and Tea Party favorite--defeated the establishment-backed Trey Grayson with a margin slightly higher than 2:1.

Lacking the powerful donors and the backing of the establishment machine, Paul's support came primarily from Tea Party patriots, conservative/libertarian groups, and other grassroots activists across the Bluegrass State. Defying the likes of Mitch McConnell and a whole host of neoconservatives, Rand Paul's primary victory proved that the grassroots can still provide electoral victory, and it will be that same grassroots support that will provide general election victory for Paul and other liberty lovers come November.

Looking to the results in Kentucky, we can draw a few conclusions.

1. The establishment should not overlook the possible success of  those they currently do not see as threats. Those minor threats could morph into major contenders who boast major victories.

2. These positive results can and should be replicated in races across the nations. If it can happen for Paul in Kentucky, it can happen for other candidates around the country. (I believe it will happen for Ron Ramsey in Tennessee, personally.)

3. The Tea Party can and will make a difference at the end of the day. The media and others can mock all they want, but they cannot argue with these (and similar) results.

Despite these truths the Tea Party movement should remain vigilant and guard against co-optation. If they are not careful to maintain philosophical consistency and purity, they may be the establishment who is punished years from now.

No Mercy for Incumbents by the Southern Avenger

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Laura Bush's Support of Elena Kagan

Former First Lady Laura Bush voiced her support for President Obama's new Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, on Sunday noting:
"I think it's great. I'm really glad that there will be three [women] if she's confirmed. I like to have women on the Supreme Court."

Bush added: "I think it does make a difference. And you know, I just like women to be represented in all parts of American political and civic life."
Mrs. Bush's statements are ridiculous on two major fronts. One one hand, to support someone based on gender rather than principle is plain foolish. On the other hand, it is a massive double standard that would not be toloerated if the tables where turned.

There is nothing wrong with Mrs. Bush supporting Kagan for the right reasons. Being the wife of a Republican president does not prohibit her from liking Obama's nominee, but being thrilled merely because of the nominee's gender is just plain stupid. Decisions like this should be supported based on factors like judicial philosophy, not mere physical characteristics.


I could care less if the Court was made up of 2 women, 3 women, or 9 women. In fact, I'd rather have 9 constitutionalist women over any assortment of men or women who do not respect the rule of law. Sadly, Laura Bush's preference finds shallower support.


What is really shocking about the former First Lady's statement is the double standard it presents. Imagine if a man said he was thrilled with a male nominee because of gender; the fallout would be huge. Of course, people are free to their opinions, but we should hold each to a uniform standard.


If Mrs. Bush likes Kagan, she should do so based on judicial merit. Sadly, that is not the case. Hopefully, the Senate will show support or opposition for reasons that transcend gender.


(Watch the video here.)

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Progressives Don't Understand Economics...Big Surprise

Wes over at The Humble Libertarian has posted the link to an interesting study. The results found self-described Progressives to be quite ignorant about basic economics.

Some of the results:
  • 67% of self-described Progressives believe that restrictions on housing development (i.e., regulations that reduce the supply of housing) do not make housing less affordable.
  • 51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn’t increase the cost of professional services.
  • Perhaps most amazing, 79% of self-described Progressive believe that rent control (i.e., price controls) does not lead to housing shortages.
The conclusion:
'Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst.'
Check out Wes' full commentary here. (Btw, I had to use his picture...brilliant!)

Monday, May 10, 2010

Opponents Should Be Careful About New SC Nominee Kagan's Lack of Judicial Experience

With famed liberal Justice John Paul Stevens stepping down from the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has been looking far and wide to find what it deems a suitable replacement. For now, the search seems to be over.

The Associated Press reports:
WASHINGTON – Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be nominated Monday to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, pushing the former law school dean toward the pinnacle of her profession and positioning the United States to have three women justices for the first time in its history.

Obama will announce his choice at 10 a.m. in the East Room of the White House alongside Vice President Joe Biden. Kagan will also speak. The room will be filled with Kagan's Justice Department colleagues and other guests invited to soak in one of a presidency's biggest moments.
Unknown to most, Kagan is already being closely investigated before her Senate hearing even begins. One major item that is already receiving much attention is Kagan's lack of judicial experience, having never served as judge. Opponents of the nominee would be wise to not make this a major point of contention.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court justice have previous experience as a judge prior to joining the Court, and a number of justices throughout our history have lacked said judicial experice. Even in the modern age we have seen similar circumstances.

William Rehnquist, who served as our last chief justice, lacked experience as judge before joining the Court, but he was obviously able to excel at the position. Agree with him or not, he performed the technical aspects of the job quite well and was well respected.

Knowing these things, those who find contention with Kagan as a choice should look to her views of the Constitution, judicial authority, and the like when making their decision, rather than hamper on her lack of judicial experience. If they fail to do so, they show their own ignorance of history and unwillingness to do the heavy lifting in vetting the candidate.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

America Owns a Hotel Chain?!?!--Thanks to the Federal Reserve

Here is a must-watch presentation on the House floor in which Alan Grayson (D-Florida) lays out why we own the Red Roof Inn thanks to the Federal Reserve. Clearly, we need an Audit (and ending) of the FED!!!!



Hat Tip: The Daily Paul

Friday, May 7, 2010

Lessons from the Dobson Endorsement Scandal

 My latest post at the Humble Libertarian.
Earlier this week THL reported that Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has officially taken his support away from Trey Grayson and endorsed Rand Paul in the Kentucky Senate race. The implications of this act are vast and reveal a great deal about Dobson, Paul, and the GOP establishment.

After listening to Dr. Dobson's change-of-heart explanation it is evident that he was lied to by Republican Party leadership. In a shameless act of political desperation, leadership within the GOP flat out lied to secure the Dobson endorsement for Grayson. In short, Dobson was falsely told that Rand Paul is, among other things, not pro-life. This led to an understandable opposition to Rand's campaign by the famed social-conservative. But this past week things changed.

Thankfully, after hearing Rand speak on the pro-life issue, an OB/GYN friend of Dobson alerted him to the truth. After looking further into the issue, Dobson uncovered the GOP deception and found Rand to be "my kind of man." He then dropped his support for Grayson, exposed the GOP establishment's lies, and endorsed Rand.

So what lessons can we take away from this? (Continue reading here.)

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

McCain's Unconstitutional Desire for the NY Car Bomber

Unless you have been sleeping under a rock, you're probably aware of the failed terrorist attempt to explode a car bomb in New York's Times Square over the weekend. This act is disgusting in nature, completely unjustifiable, and should be dealt with properly. But, sadly, some in our government are already showing their disregard for the Constitution when discussing the situation.

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain plainly vocalized his views regarding the Justice Department's actions. According to Sen. McCain, "It would have been a serious mistake to have read the suspect in the attempted Times Square car bombing his Miranda rights." The Arizona senator went on to explain that only after receiving "all the information we have" and finding out what the attack is "all about" should we even consider reading the suspect his rights.

So, in essence, the senator would like to gut the rights reading process of all its significance. His approach amounts to the following: Find out if one's rights will get in the way. If they don't, go ahead and let them have them. If they do, let the Constitution be damned.

Of course, the argument over the rights of terrorists is no new one; we have faced it a number of times, including the controversy around last year's Christmas Eve bomber case. But where those cases centered around the issue of whether or not a non-citizen had constitutional rights, this particular case does not.

The Times Square terror suspect is an American citizen, and there is no denying his constitutional rights of due process warrant protection. Making this claim is in no way an act of sympathy toward the would-be murderer or a call to impede justice. Rather, it is a call for justice as required by the Constitution--a justice that doesn't dissolve liberty or the rule of law.

If the suspect is truly guilty, he will face a number of charges that carry with them the death penalty. McCain even admits that he thinks justice will be served through traditional channels. Therefore, his concern is obviously unmerited, if it is justice he seeks. Still, wanting to squeeze information from the suspect without constitutional restrictions, McCain is dissatisfied with granting a US citizen his rights.

In a country gone mad, rights have become the enemy and disregard for the rule of law has become the desired norm. When the desire is for even US citizens to be denied basic rights, we are truly in danger.

I am confident that justice will be served, and I am confident that the Constitution will aid in carrying it out. Otherwise, we will merely see injustice on the part of the state. The Constitution protects liberty for us all. When its protection is eroded, even for undeserving terrorists, we all suffer in the long run.

Monday, May 3, 2010

A Reflection on my Latest Gun Show Attendance

This Saturday, as heavy rain flooded Nashville, I was in the city attending a gun show. My father and I are now handgun carry permit holders in the state of Tennessee, and even though we have a number of guns, we were in the market for something pocket-sized yet powerful. (We found what we were looking for at a great price, in case you are wondering--pictured above.)

In the venue were thousands of guns, knifes, and ammo rounds. Moreover, almost everyone in the room had a gun or two on their person as they walked around. Gun right opponents refer to such as a "war zone," blabbering about the possibility of "blood in the streets" and "senseless loss of life due to the bearing of arms." Needless to say, that wasn't the case at all.

Throughout my hours at the show, I felt nothing less than completely safe--which is not always the case when I am walking around in Nashville. Someone would be crazy to pull a gun on someone with all those lawful citizens packing.

I was thoroughly impressed with the professionalism of the exhibitors, the comradery among the patrons, and of course the libertarian themes on display. It was fun, fruitful, and well worth the trip.

To the surprise of opponents of such events, individuals as well as families were in attendance--both shopping and selling. Likewise, there was diversity across the board regarding attendees. People from all walks of life where there, and all were welcome. In short, it was just law abiding citizens engaging in law abiding activity; no shots were fired, and no lives were lost.

Of course, the politics of the room were one-sided. Obviously, there were more Ron Paul fans than Obama fans in attendance--if any Obama fans was there at all. (He and all others hostile to the Second Amendment were not very poplar, as can be understood.) But my point is that these people were not just some "right-wing wackos." Rather, they were a cross-section of America with a deep concern for the Second Amendment.

Of course, this account should come as no surprise to most of you. But for you surprised that one could walk away unharmed from an event where attendees where armed to the teeth, now you know.

Friday, April 30, 2010

Mandatory Organ Donorship...an Affront to Liberty

Checkout my latest post at The Humble Libertarian.
An alarming movement is afoot in New York. Already New Yorkers are told what they can eat and how they can defend themselves (among other things). Now they may lose total control of their bodies. Legislation is being proposed that will create mandatory "organ donor" status for all residents of the Empire State.

On the surface, this may not seem like a big deal. One may ask , "What's wrong with everyone being an organ donor?" But the issue is more than one of organ donor status; the mandatory nature of the legislation is what makes this bill so appalling. (Continue reading here.)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Goldman Sachs is a Scapegoat for Uncle Sam

Over the past few days I have witnessed behavior in the halls of Congress that makes me sick to my stomach. The Goldman Sachs hearings are nothing short of a crucifixion. Without question the financial giant deserves both scorn and punishment, but this should come at the hands of wronged clients--not government minions. Even former President Clinton noted that while there was no perceived merit in Goldman's behavior, he was "not at all sure they violated the law." So how do we explain the actions of Congress?

What makes the harsh words and congressional ridicule levied at Goldman Sachs so upsetting is the misplaced blame across the board. Listening to the congressional hearings, one would think that the financial giant single-handedly caused the economic collapse. Apparently, Goldman has d-bags working for them; this fuel poor investment; that led to our economic ruin; and now we need to strictly regulate financial markets.

I'm sorry to sound like an apologist for the financial institutions, but their actions were mere symptoms of a greater evil, not the problem itself. Sure malinvestment was to blame, and that malinvestment was fueled by the government.

By continually betraying free-market principles and wedding the actions of these giants of Wall Street with those of the federal government, an atmosphere of poor business practice was created and rewarded. When failed policies are rewarded through bailouts, grants, loans, and unrealistic interest rates, there is little incentive for responsible business practice. And, of course, our old friend the Federal Reserve was the chief actor in causing the the economic turmoil we now face. It kept interest rates at ridiculously low levels, fueled malinvestment, and encouraged poor behavior.

So what is the solution proposed by Congress in the financial reform package before the Senate? More bailouts, more government intervention, and more power to the FED. Such would be a grave mistake!

Michele Bachman comments:
Sen. Reid thinks he can paint Republicans as in the pocket of Wall Street, but that’s not going to cut it because it’s flat out wrong. This bill is seriously flawed and only perpetuates a “too big to fail” mentality through permanent bailouts of Wall Street, with or without the $50 billion reserve fund. Sen. Reid has painted himself into a corner, and I think he is drastically overestimating the American people's support for his approach to financial reform. There are better ways to go about it like those proposed by Republicans that will stop the Democrats’ permanent bailouts, protect taxpayers and create jobs, address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform, and rein in the out-of-control Federal Reserve.
Back to the Goldman Sachs hearings, it is obvious that the timing is a tool to stir up emotional support for the Democrat's reform package. People should be upset at the matter, but they should be upset across the board without letting emotion driving bad policy. Even President Clinton notes the timing of the Goldman Sachs suit is "suspect." He is right, and the approach of those behind this financial reform package is definitely suspect.

Once again we face misdiagnosis of the problem, a bad subscription, and another attempt for a Washington power grab by our "leadership."  

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Ron Paul's Transition Plan

Here is a great video compiling Dr. Paul's words on what his transition plan would look like.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Nothing is Sacred...Except Islam

In this morning's New York Times Op-Ed columnist Ross Douthat offers a great piece on the latest South Park/Muhammad depiction controversy.

For those not up to snuff, the creators of South Park recently received death threats/warnings for depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Facing the possibility of death, the show used alternative and comedic means to avoid showing the prophet's face--including dressing him in a mascot uniform and having him in the back of a U-Haul trailer. Leave it to South Park creators Parker and Stone to make censorship fun!

But the censorship isn't all fun and games. Douthat notes, "In last week’s follow-up episode, the prophet’s non-appearance appearances were censored, and every single reference to Muhammad was bleeped out. The historical record was quickly scrubbed as well: The original 'Super Best Friends' episode [a previous episode that featured the Muslim prophet] is no longer available on the Internet."

This sort of pandering to Islam is nothing new. It seems that time after time each religion is fair game for criticism and mocking, except for Islam. Anti-religious documentaries primarily sling mud at Christianity. The new atheists find their prime opponent in the Christian God. On and on the one-sided offensive behavior is railed. Islam is left relatively untouched, and the forced censorship continues.

It should be noted that the South Park "Super Best Friends" cast includes the leaders of every major world religion, including my savior Jesus Christ. I am often offended by the mocking and misrepresentation of my Lord and my faith in pop culture, but I would never support the censoring of such. I adhere to the classical Christian view regarding freedom of conscience, and I know that it is not my place to forcibly bring change in one's behavior. It is God who brings true, lasting change--not me, not censorship, not force. 

In Psalm 2 the Bible speaks of the heathens raging against God--mocking, disrespecting, and defying. The passage goes on to say that God "sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them [the mocking and self-assured world] in derision. Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury..." Knowing of His own sovereignty and the power of His Son, the LORD is no respecter of persons or their mocks. Knowing this same thing, Christians have no reason to fear the scorn of the world. Islamic fringe elements, on the other hand, lack that surety.

A large part of the censorship and egg shell walking surrounding Islam involves fear, and the only way to break this fear is to defy any attempts to squelch expression. In a country founded on freedom of conscience and expression, we cannot stand for this type of fear-induced censorship.

Douthat concludes:
In a country where the latest hit movie, “Kick-Ass,” features an 11-year-old girl spitting obscenities and gutting bad guys while dressed in pedophile-bait outfits, there isn’t much room for real transgression. Our culture has few taboos that can’t be violated, and our establishment has largely given up on setting standards in the first place.
Except where Islam is concerned. There, the standards are established under threat of violence, and accepted out of a mix of self-preservation and self-loathing.
This is what decadence looks like: a frantic coarseness that “bravely” trashes its own values and traditions, and then knuckles under swiftly to totalitarianism and brute force.
Happily, today’s would-be totalitarians are probably too marginal to take full advantage. This isn’t Weimar Germany, and Islam’s radical fringe is still a fringe, rather than an existential enemy.
For that, we should be grateful. Because if a violent fringe is capable of inspiring so much cowardice and self-censorship, it suggests that there’s enough rot in our institutions that a stronger foe might be able to bring them crashing down.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Ron Paul on Chris Matthews

This is a much watch video in which Dr. Paul defends the principles of liberty as well as the Tea Party movement, and touches on a number of other issues.



Hat Tip: The Humble Libertarian

Friday, April 23, 2010

What to Make of Cheney's Endorsement of Rubio

In what should be a kiss of death, former Vice-President Dick Cheney has officially endorsed Marco Rubio over Charlie Christ in the Florida senate race.

Politico reports:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney threw his support to Marco Rubio in the Florida GOP Senate primary Thursday, warning that "Charlie Crist cannot even be trusted to remain a Republican."

The Cheney endorsement represents the most significant national "get" to date for Rubio, and comes as Crist weighs bolting the Republican Party to run as an independent.

In a statement issued by Rubio's campaign, the former vice president urged Crist to stay in the primary or drop out of the race altogether. "The only winners from an independent bid by Crist would be Barack Obama and Harry Reid," Cheney said.

Crist's plunging poll numbers and open consideration of an independent run have prompted a stampede of previously neutral GOP figures to get behind Rubio. In less than a week, the former state House speaker has won support from 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and now Cheney.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Christian Perspective on Earth Day

Here is a great article from Pastor Kevin DeYoung, reflecting on Christians and Earth Day.
Today is Earth Day, the fortieth anniversary in fact. It’s hard for me to be excited.


Don’t get me wrong, it’s possible for Christians to celebrate Earth Day in the right way. I’m sure many do. We can thank God for the physical world, enjoy the beauty of creation, and think through ways to steward the earth God has put under our dominion.

But the official Earth Day movement rests on several debatable premises, like “the world is in greater peril than ever” and “climate change is the greatest challenge of our time.” More to the point, there are deep assumptions, unspoken assumptions, that too often provide the foundation for our basic thinking about the environment. And unless Christians are building on the right foundation, we will not think about environmental issues in ways that are most helpful and most biblical.(Continue reading here.)

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Policy Over Personality

Here is a great piece by Wes Messamore of The Humble Libertarian from Gary Johnson's Our America Initiative.
A lot has been said of “principle over party” by the tea party movement in the last year. They stuck to their guns so strongly as to support a third party candidate over the Republican candidate in New York’s special District 23 election, because they felt the Republican candidate didn’t align closely enough with the principles they held so dear.
 
Videos on YouTube abound of tea party protesters shouting down and booing Republican speakers who dared come to their events to speak after voting for 2008’s financial bailout package. Over and over again, tea party leaders stress that this is about principles, not partisan politics- they could care less who has what letter next to their name. They only want people who stand for the right principles: limited government, individual liberty, Constitutional rule of law.

But there’s an important aspect of “principle over party” that cannot be overlooked. If the tea party neglects this one important thing, it will be doomed to fail in its attempt to limit and reverse the relentless expansion of government into our lives. That one crucial factor in its success is for the tea party to remember policy over personality. (Continue reading here.)

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

A Victory for Free Expression...Court Upholds Unpopular Expression

The Washington Post  reports on the latest victory for free expression:
The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.

Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs. 
"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it." 
The law was passed in 1999 in an attempt to prevent the sale of "crush films"--fetish films in which animals are crushed. The law, however, is so overly broad that it could be used against hunting videos and mere depictions of violence toward animals.

Writing for the Court, the Chief Jusice noted that as written the law “creates a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.”  The SCOTUS blog reported, "Noting that the government had given assurances that it would enforce the law only against commercial portrayals of “extreme cruelty,” the Chief Justice wrote that the Court would not uphold an unconstitutional law “merely because the government promises to use it responsibly.”"

The Cheif Justice is right to call into question reliance on responsible usage of the law. Any chance for abuse must be nipped in the bud when its knowledge arises. 

It should be noted that the Court's ruling was not against the ability of the federal government to legislate against animal cruelty. Rather, the ability to ban videos depicting such was called into question. The Court thankfully took the right stand refusing to further gut First Amendment protection.

It has long been noted that the First Amendment is not needed to protect popular expression. Rather, it is the unpopular which warrants protection. Indeed, those of us who value liberty are oft in need of the First Amendment's protection.

I find animal cruelty despicable, but so is the violation of First Amendment protection. If states want to enact laws against cruelty to animals, that is their prerogative. But banning a form of expression is outside the pale of acceptability. If we are to maintain a free society, let us fix these problems by changing the culture, not by changing the law.

In his magnum opus On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote, "Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being "pushed to an extreme", not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case." Write he was then, and so he is today. 

Smells Like Ron Paul Spirit by the Southern Avenger

Monday, April 19, 2010

What Is A Libertarian?

Checkout my latest at The Humble Libertarian.
Libertarians are those weird little guys who lurk in their parents’ basement—spouting out conspiracy theories, smoking funny things, and reading books many have never even heard of, right?

Well...some libertarians are those odd little guys and gals. But even more libertarians are average men and women, grandpas and grandmas, artists, business professionals, blue-collar workers, teachers, students, and people from all walks of life. Libertarians are everywhere you look. Some openly identify as such; others need to be alerted to the fact.

I am convinced that the average person on the street is open to libertarian principles. And many of them are libertarian to one degree or another. Perhaps it would take some explanation and flushing out of the issues for folks to identify as libertarian, but liberty is a popular idea. Most people want liberty and the government out of their business, however many do not realize that this is libertarianism. (Continue reading here.)

Federal Court Shows Establishment Clause Ignorance


On Thursday a federal judge in Wisconsin  ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, claiming it to be a call for religious action that violates our nation's supreme law. Needless to say, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb could not be farther off the mark in her ruling.

According the the Associated Press, Judge Crabb "wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic."

Actually, the government could do all of those things and still fall within the pale of the Constitution. Regretfully, the judge's ignorance of the Constitution's meaning is glaring. The First Amendment to the US Constitution merely forbids laws respecting the establishment of religion--an understandable concern for a nation founded as a refuge for religious liberty. Anything that falls short of an establishment of a national church/religion is not the least bit unconstitutional. Of course, the Court has over the years attempted to set up arbitrary barriers around Church-State interactions, but whether or not these barriers are good policy is beside the point. It is constitutionality, not the effects of policy, which should be the Court's concern.

I think it is personally bad policy for the event to happen, but that does not mean I can call such unconstitutional. I believe the National Day of Prayer is a superficial act which does nothing to further the Gospel or health of the Christian faith. To me it is an event that has turned into one big DC charade, therefore, I could care less if it was done away with. But, when it faces cancellation based on false rulings by a federal court, I will be quick to call foul.

Whether or not one agrees with prayer in a political setting is of no concern in the matter. The simple question is "What does the Constitution mean, and is this particular act a violation of such?" If properly approached, a ruling contrary to the Wisconsin court should be the result.

I hold to the classical evangelical position that goes beyond a forbidding of establishment and calls for a lack of mingling the business of church and state, believing that such causes harm to both and a compromise to the Gospel. But even if I think something is in poor taste, I would never be as foolish as to call such unconstitutional.The court system would be wise to follow suit.

Almost as bad as the misguided ruling of the court is the cry of many conservatives.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented 31 members of Congress who joined the federal government as defendants, called Crabb's ruling flawed and promised to appeal.

"It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, issued a statement saying Crabb's ruling undermines American tradition dating back to the nation's birth.
Completely missing the mark, these opponents of the ruling point to tradition for support. Tradition is not the final word; the Constitution is. The document's actual meaning should be their source of strength.

What we see in this case is failure on both sides to respect the Constitution. The court appeals to a need for a "significant secular purpose" to constitute prayer. (What could that even be?!?!) And the defendants point to tradition. I would merely like to see the document given the final say; apparently that is too much to ask.

PS: In case you were wondering, the Obama administration is not backing down and intends to go ahead with the National Day of Prayer.