Graham Needs To Be Replaced With Someone Like Sen. Jim DeMint

Lindsey Graham SC Graham Needs To Be Replaced with Someone like Sen. Jim DeMint

When the Palmetto State elected Lindsey Graham, we got the moderate GOP senator we didn’t want. He has been the poster boy, along with John McCain, for unprincipled leadership and represents everything wrong with the modern Republican Party. In the past few months alone, he’s irritated people across the political spectrum with numerous actions from helping pen the recent amnesty bill to advocating boycotting the Olympics if NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden wasn’t turned over by Russian authorities. When all is said and done, Graham needs to be unseated and replaced with someone like Senator Jim DeMint.

The one consistent aspect of Graham’s voting record is his opposition to conservative issues. He can vote for whatever sounds good at the time and change the next time if public outcry is strong enough, but he doesn’t come to the table with ideas on how to make things better.

DeMint clearly did, and that helped him enjoy the kind of success he did as a Senator and now as head of the Heritage Foundation. He could stand for something and vote on his principles rather than side with what is popular that day.

South Carolina state senator Lee Bright said, “Graham has let us down on so many issues. A lot of folks thought he would follow in the footsteps of Strom Thurmond (R), but instead, we got another Fritz Hollings (D).” Except I would argue that Hollings was more conservative on fiscal issues than Lindsey Graham is. He has not done what we thought he would do. He is not the Graham who went after Bill Clinton at the impeachment hearings. He is the Graham who has fallen under the tutelage of John McCain.

Next year will be the first time since the formation of the Tea Party that Lindsey Graham will be up for reelection, and South Carolina conservatives want to replace Graham with someone who will side with a Jim DeMint or Tim Scott and not oppose them for another 6 years.

Graham has made it clear by his voting record and his behaviors that he is no DeMint Republican, much less a Ronald Reagan conservative. Jim DeMint was until then South Carolina’s answer to Graham, and one of the Senate’s most consistent conservatives who came from the same state as the ultimate GOP moderate. Polar opposites, the two actually had an ongoing, overt confrontation.
Graham has been very vocal in his criticism of the South Carolina GOP for defending the Republican platform: In October of 2009, Graham was publicly quoted making derogatory statements about the South Carolina Republican Party, including “We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys.“ Graham vowed to continue working with Democrats in building bipartisan coalitions to address global warming, health care, Afghanistan, and other key challenges, and told Republicans who resisted his policies that “If you don’t like it, you can leave.” For a person intent on “broadening the base,” he certainly is callous about dismissing his current base.

Social Issues
While both DeMint and Graham claim to have a 100% pro-life stance on the surface by voting on the same on issues from unborn children being eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (both voted yes) to preventing minors from crossing state boundaries to get an abortion (yes) to expanding research to embryonic stem cell lines (no), social conservatives have criticized Graham for his support of Supreme Court nominee confirmations who were radical activist judges, while his support, if any, of conservative judges has been much, much weaker.

National Security
In August 2007, in response to a Democratic effort to enact legislation granting amnesty to illegal aliens, DeMint was a leader in opposition, while Graham supported the bill (even though it did not prevent new illegal immigration or provide for any sort of border security.) Graham not only voted for the bill; he actually thanked Ted Kennedy for his work on it and stated that he was “going to tell the bigots to shut up.”

More recently, in June 2013, Graham acted as part of the infamous “Gang of 8” and helped to pen an immigration bill that provides effective amnesty to illegal aliens without taking action to close the border first (and allows repeated felons to not only become citizens, but have their records wiped clean.) The bill was seen as a destructive one even for those who support the idea of amnesty for illegal aliens. Graham joined the Democrats in invoking cloture and supporting the bill, while Senator Tim Scott (DeMint’s replacement) voted in opposition.

Economy
On budget and economic issues, the two strongly differ. DeMint steadfastly opposed any spending increases, bailouts, modification of bankruptcy rules, and other fiscally liberal legislation. He voted for reduced spending, paying off the debt, and limiting federal spending growth to the per-capita inflation rate; and he sponsored a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Graham, in contrast, has exhibited a pattern of voting on economic issues that opposes the philosophy of free enterprise and conservative principles.

In March 2012, Senator DeMint voted to uphold the principles of free enterprise and an economy free of government manipulation by voting against providing funding for the Export-Import Bank. Graham, on the other hand, voted for the funding, in violation of those principles.

In July of 2008, Graham voted for the TARP “big bank bailout” bill that DeMint opposed. He also supported unconstitutional bailouts for independent mortgage institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Graham’s record of opposing DeMint’s conservative agenda is striking. But even Graham understands that he is not in good standing with most conservatives and expects a challenger next year.

When asked why there is such a passion nationally to replace Graham with a true conservative, Sen. Lee Bright answered, “Conservatives feel that South Carolina should help and not hurt. And they expected a U.S. senator from a ‘Red State”’to help the conservative cause and not be an impediment to it.”

Addressing Voter Fraud – A 14 Point Plan For 2013

voter fraud Addressing Voter Fraud – A 14 Point Plan for 2013

The sheer number of voter fraud stories in the 2012 elections the media refuses to investigate is staggering. Hundreds of legitimate concerns potentially impacting thousands of votes have been both raised and ignored. There are, however, many examples proven and confirmed by Mainstream Media sources. They are well-documented examples such as:

-160 counties across the U.S. have more voters on their voter registration rolls than live voters living in their district.

-Well over 100 % of registered voters casting votes, and statistical “miracles” of 100% of 59 precincts (known as divisions in Philadelphia) voting unanimously for only one candidate.

-And more statistical “miracles” occurred where only one candidate received 100% of the vote in dozens of urban precincts in Ohio, nine of them in Cleavland.

Please note that while these statistics may seem like a small percentage of the vote, they are in the crucial swing states. These “small” issues can decide the election outcome when they occur in such states that carry critical electoral votes.

Currently, only three states require proof of U.S. citizenship to vote: Georgia, Alabama, and Kansas. Arizona’s attempt to enact citizenship proof was invalidated by the U.S appeals court in San Francisco prior to the 2012 election. The invalidation came after the people of Arizona approved the requirement in a 2004 vote. The U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments early in 2013 and make it’s ruling in June 2013 on the issue of all States’ ability to enact such laws. That same 9th Circuit Court stated that a 1993 law bars the Arizona registration requirement. The federal measure establishes a national voter application and requires every state to “accept and use” it. The law “does not give states room to add their own requirements” to the federal application. The 1993 law was known as the Motor Voter Law, a separate provision that requires states to let residents register to vote when applying for a driver’s license. County Supervisors of elections in Florida claim these Motor Voter laws prevent them from verifying citizenship. The only way for them to investigate is if they receive a tip, according to an NBC-2 investigative report.

Additionally, only fifteen states require photo ID; and thirty five states have no photo requirements. Again, no proof of citizenship is required in the combined total of forty seven of the states.

The refusal of activist judges and certain states to require ID to vote is disenfranchising to all US citizens who vote legally. Fraudulent votes cancel out real votes.

Americans from all political parties have spoken in an overwhelming majority for the need of proof of identity when voting.

A poll by the Washington Post in 2012 indicates that “Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections, according to a new Washington Post poll.”

“Q: In your view, should voters in the United States be required to show official, government-issued photo identification — such as a drivers license — when they cast ballots on Election Day, or shouldn’t they have to do this? 74% – Should be required vs. 23% Should not be required.”

If the Democrat Party leaders were truly interested in a legitimate election, they would have advocated to give out free ID to all those who they claim would be “disenfranchised” if forced to prove their identity to vote. The UN election observers/poll watchers in 2012 made comments about how surprised they were that the U.S. voting system is purely based on trust and that voters are not required to prove their identity.

The fact is, the Dems are not interested in a “true vote.” What exists today is an organized strategy edge they are not willing to give up; it gives them just enough edge to win elections. Why is there a propensity and advocacy by some to give away almost everything for free, except for legitimate ID’s? In our society, a valid ID is a necessity to function; it is a basic need of every citizen.

Conservatives are not typically the party of free handouts. However, in this case, I recommend a national program of free Photo ID for anyone who claims they can’t afford one. This would be a program funded by the federal government to all states.

This program would end the debate over a “poll tax.”

1) The program would have guidelines to meet and restrict standards of proof of citizenship prior to issuing the ID. The ID’s must be issued at least 100 days prior to any election in order to be used in an election to vote. This is to allow a bi-partisan team to complete an examination of all ID’s issued before elections. This bi-partisan team will consist of certified “ID watchers” from both political parties; this program would work much the same as poll watchers. The “ID watchers” would be given complete access to all documents used to issue ID’s, including the photos to match the age of the ID holder.

2) Each respective political party could promote new government-issued IDs the same way they drive voter registrations. They would be responsible for ensuring their constituents become legally able to vote in elections. There would no longer be claims of disenfranchisement of anyone.

3) If any ID is found to be issued fraudulently, the individual in question would be flagged at their precinct and removed from the voter rolls; and criminal charges would be filed. If any ID issuer in the state’s ID center is found to be issuing ID’s that are not accompanied by legitimate proof of citizenship, serious federal criminal penalties would be charged.

4) The department that would address these criminal sanctions would be be run by a bipartisan team, not the DOJ, and have 100% transparency. This transparency would be available to the public via a website. All discrepancies would be reported on the website for anyone to review. All questionable documents would be scanned and available on the website; with the individual ID applicant name redacted, protocols would be developed to create a check and balance system.

These would be federal dollars well spent. The program would cost virtually nothing, as there is almost no legal citizen in this country who does not already have a government-issued state ID. However, the number of legitimate voters who are being disenfranchised by fraud canceling their vote is likely beyond our belief. We have only scratched the surface of the fraud reports.

5) All states should be required to end all ID-issuing to non-citizens without labeling them as such.

A driver’s license is all it takes to vote. Some states are issuing drivers’ licenses to non-citizens, which enables them to go to the polls and cast votes. I suggest that drivers’ licenses issued to non- citizens must be stamped on the front with any politically correct name the left finds to be inoffensive. Of course, they will find the stamp offensive in and of itself. However, we must find a way to allow only US citizens to vote. Many states currently issue a non-standard ID for those under the legal drinking age. We propose the same for non-U.S. citizens.

Any state issuing ID’s to non-citizens within a margin of more than .5% without marking those ID’s appropriately would lose its ability to cast electoral votes in a general election. It would also lose its ability to send representatives from their state to participate in the federal government for a minimum of 1 year.

6) The double vote: Prior to the elections and after elections, a cross-reference list is to be compiled of all who are registered or have voted in all of the states. Currently, there is no such requirement. If anyone was found to have voted more than once, within or outside of their state, severe criminal charges would be imposed, to include mandatory jail time. Anyone who is registered in more than one state or county or precinct will be sent a notification to choose their precinct; if there is no response, they will be removed from all rolls other than their last identifiable and known address. Conspiracy to commit voter fraud by any party official advocating or directing others on how to circumvent the system would also be prosecuted in a similar manner to the full extent of the law.

7) Absentee ballots: Choosing to vote absentee is a right that is imperative to retain. This right also creates concern, as it is the ripest for fraud. A photocopy of the voter’s ID would have to accompany the absentee ballot. That ID information would be crosschecked upon receipt for legitimacy, including death records. Should the ID raise any red flags, the bipartisan team would contact the voter to ensure legitimacy. A protocol for disputes would be put in place for deciding any questionable ballots.

8) Provisional Ballots: All standard ID requirements would apply. No affidavits would be accepted for sole proof of eligibility.

9) The dead vote: Any person on the voter rolls over 80 years of age would be verified for legitimacy by the “ID Watchers”, by home visit if necessary. Absentee ballots would be matched to live individuals and cross-referenced to death records. All suspect registrations and/or ballots would be investigated by the nonpartisan committee.

10) Military vote: All ballots would be sent out to military personal far in advance of elections, within one week of the official ballot being established. Any state that does not monitor their own counties for this standard would be denied representation in DC for a one year.

11) The mentally challenged or criminally insane vote: Any setting where votes are cast without consent from the family or legal guardian from institutional settings housing the mentally challenged would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Convicted criminals (where the law applies) would have their vote tossed out, cross-checking all relevant criminal records to ballots. All participating staff would be charged criminally if found to be helping those individuals to the polls or requesting absentee ballots on their behalf.

12) Technology vs. Paper Ballots: Technology and software have the ability to be manipulated by programmers without the ability to verify results or fraud. If states choose to use electronic voting machines, those votes must accompany paper ballots for verification. Similar to random drug tests, precincts and counties with known past issues, recent concerns raised by reports from individuals, and random sampling of others would be used to monitor the integrity of the system. Any state opting out of this system would be ineligible for representation in the federal government. Those states not in compliance may continue to have local elections in their desired manner.

13) All software programs utilized to tabulate votes at the state and county levels are to be checked by the bi-artisan team. This will take place before elections, spot-checked during and after elections. If any program is found to be intentionally written to change outcomes, those involved will be prosecuted; and that company and all individuals involved would be barred from any further software production or participating in any election process. All bids for voting machine upkeep and programming would be put out for bids. No contracts would be awarded at any gov’t level without a fair bidding process to be overseen by the bipartisan teams.

Only U.S. companies would be allowed to participate in voting tabulation or software used in any of the operations in this system. This is to ensure all standards are met and to ensure U.S. laws prevail and will be enforced if any irregularities occur.

14) Lastly, any state, county, or precinct that does not allow certified poll watchers to actively observe the voting process and ballot counting would be denied the ability to submit their results to be counted.

The 2012 election debacle should be the last time we as citizens of the USA see this type of alleged fraud perpetrated on our great country. There should never be a question in any U.S. citizen’s mind that an election was fair or legitimate. Even the perception of fraud is unacceptable. While there is no claim that the 2012 election would have turned out differently, it is imperative that the U.S. maintains the utmost concern for voter integrity from here forward. There is no justifiable excuse for any concerns over the legitimacy of the elections in the U.S.A.

The goal is to ensure that all citizens feel their vote counts; this will also drive greater participation in the voting process.

If you want to see this plan set in motion, forward this information to all your representatives and governors. Email it to all your friends and family. And don’t forget to post it on social media sites or blogs. Please help to get the word out. We demand our votes be counted!

http://pleasecountmyvote.com

(Edited by Jim Griffin.)

Black Judge Commutes Four Killers’ Sentences Based On Race

Flickr Creative Commons Scott Justice is Blind statue Black judge commutes four killers’ sentences based on race

An activist judge in North Carolina said prosecutorial racism was the reason he commuted the sentences of four convicted killers.

Described as three of the state’s most notorious death row killers, among the group’s victims are three law enforcement officers, two women and a teenager. The judge was able to overrule the first sentence under the state’s controversial Racial Justice Act.

Commuting a black man’s death sentence to life in prison, the judge cited “the persistent, distorting role of race in jury selection in North Carolina.”

He never argued the man – found guilty of kidnapping and robbing a teenager before shooting him in the face – might be innocent. Since the Racial Justice Act gave him the discretion, he simply declared prosecutors were racist and gave a murderer a get-out-of-death-row-free card.

Republicans subsequently gained control of the state’s legislature and enacted a new, pared down, version of the act. Apparently, that didn’t present an obstacle for the black judge who commuted the sentences of three more murderers – including two cop killers – later the same year.

Concluding race was a factor in jury selection, he presented some handwritten notes supposedly proving prosecutors tried to eliminate blacks from jury pools to back up his claim.

One killer is a Lumbee Indian convicted of murdering two women and shooting another in a gang initiation; the other two are black men who killed a total of three law enforcement officers in separate incidents.

“This conclusion is based primarily on the words and deeds of the prosecutors involved in these cases,” the judge ruled. To the casual observer, though, it seems his conclusion might have roots in his own idea of racial justice.

Some in the courtroom expressed vocal disagreement to the ruling, including the brother of one murdered state trooper who shouted an expletive as the judge spoke. As about sixty uniformed police officers left the courtroom, a woman in attendance yelled at them, urging them to shed their badges because the legal system could not protect them from criminals.

Activist judges from the Supreme Court down can cause significant damage to our system of law. Although prosecutors plan to appeal the judge’s ruling, this case proves America’s justice system is not immune to moral relativism and race baiting tactics.

B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Photo credit: Doug (Creative Commons)

Black Judge Commutes Four Killers’ Sentences Based On Race

Flickr Creative Commons Scott Justice is Blind statue Black judge commutes four killers’ sentences based on race

An activist judge in North Carolina said prosecutorial racism was the reason he commuted the sentences of four convicted killers.

Described as three of the state’s most notorious death row killers, among the group’s victims are three law enforcement officers, two women and a teenager. The judge was able to overrule the first sentence under the state’s controversial Racial Justice Act.

Commuting a black man’s death sentence to life in prison, the judge cited “the persistent, distorting role of race in jury selection in North Carolina.”

He never argued the man – found guilty of kidnapping and robbing a teenager before shooting him in the face – might be innocent. Since the Racial Justice Act gave him the discretion, he simply declared prosecutors were racist and gave a murderer a get-out-of-death-row-free card.

Republicans subsequently gained control of the state’s legislature and enacted a new, pared down, version of the act. Apparently, that didn’t present an obstacle for the black judge who commuted the sentences of three more murderers – including two cop killers – later the same year.

Concluding race was a factor in jury selection, he presented some handwritten notes supposedly proving prosecutors tried to eliminate blacks from jury pools to back up his claim.

One killer is a Lumbee Indian convicted of murdering two women and shooting another in a gang initiation; the other two are black men who killed a total of three law enforcement officers in separate incidents.

“This conclusion is based primarily on the words and deeds of the prosecutors involved in these cases,” the judge ruled. To the casual observer, though, it seems his conclusion might have roots in his own idea of racial justice.

Some in the courtroom expressed vocal disagreement to the ruling, including the brother of one murdered state trooper who shouted an expletive as the judge spoke. As about sixty uniformed police officers left the courtroom, a woman in attendance yelled at them, urging them to shed their badges because the legal system could not protect them from criminals.

Activist judges from the Supreme Court down can cause significant damage to our system of law. Although prosecutors plan to appeal the judge’s ruling, this case proves America’s justice system is not immune to moral relativism and race baiting tactics.

B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Photo credit: Doug (Creative Commons)

Related posts:

  1. Obama Administration Proposes Race-Based School Discipline System The Obama White House thinks that schools are providing too…
  2. Black History Month: A Race Hustler’s Dream by Suzanne Eovaldi, CoachIsRight.com “White America still owes us,” is…

2012: An Irrational Devotion To Secularism

Obama Big Government SC 2012: An Irrational Devotion to Secularism

Pundits say that Hispanics, single women, young people, and blacks delivered a victory for President Obama’s re-election. However, these are only external differences that do little to explain the internal unity that each group shares in their irrational devotion to secularism. The devotion is irrational because the reduced economic fruits (and social decay) it brings cannot be sustained, thereby threatening its ultimate survival.

Secularism is the worldview that elevates the state as a source of redemption. Secularists strongly adhere to a moral construct based upon moral relativism. Secularists favor government intervention in markets. They also believe in legal positivism (the Constitution is a living document that evolves based upon the interpretation of activist judges.) They also believe in social justice, a state intervention that exchanges freedom for outcome equality. This exchange has never ended well throughout history. It invites a form of utopianism. Students of history understand that utopianism always leads to tyranny.

The irrational devotion to secularism in the 2012 Presidential election can be seen from the following facts:

1) When President Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.9 percent and stayed there for his term.

2) Real median household income has decreased over $4,000 during Obama’s term.

3) When Barack Obama took office, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $1.85. Today, the average price of a gallon of gasoline is over $3.71.

4) Since becoming president, the number of long-term unemployed Americans has risen by 2.5 million.

5) For the first time in the post-World War II era, the employment-population ratio has not recovered after a recession. The percentage of working-age Americans with a job has been below 59 percent for three years in a row. The labor participation rate plummeted to almost 50-year lows.

6) The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 31.9 million to approximately 47 million.

7) The U.S. government has run a budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars every year under Obama.

8) The U.S. credit rating was downgraded from AAA status for the first time ever.

9) Since Obama took office, the U.S. national debt has increased by almost 60%.

10) The combination of high unemployment, increased debt, division based upon identity politics, establishment of an unprecedented number of czars that circumvent congressional review, the appointment of two progressive Supreme Court justices, the inability to submit a budget, the reverence for redistribution, the bowing before other heads of state, the denial of America being a Christian nation, the radical associations before taking office, the radical appointments after taking office, etc. all clearly suggest that President Obama is a secularist who believes that man was born good and simply requires the state to perfect his existence. He has even stated that he believes his salvation is tied to “collective salvation” based upon a utopian secular ideal. Despite stating that he is a Christian (with the doctrinal requirement that salvation is through Christ alone), President Obama has stated he believes his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (an avowed atheist), is in heaven and that Christ may not be the only way to heaven. Obama’s theological confusion arises from the fact that he is a secularist. He believes in the state.

Given the foregoing record of failures, it is difficult to make a case that this president has a better plan for the next four years than he did for the last four. Certainly, his re-election does not solve the problems in the economy. Why would people rationally vote for more of the same? The reason that he won the election is that a majority of Americans have now embraced the philosophical construct of secularism with its component attributes of government intervention and entitlements, as well as moral relativism. Some say it is a devotion to the man. Facts indicate it is a devotion to his worldview. This is why the Democratic leadership wrestled with the inclusion of God in its platform, elevated abortion to a state-funded right, and attacked the capitalism of the Republican nominee. This is why a secularist-controlled state of California just raised their state income tax rate to 13.3%, a decision likely to stimulate emigration, slow growth, and serve as a catalyst for economic despair. The Obama strategy is not about addressing the economic challenges overwhelming the country. It is not about targeting different demographics. It is about the promises of the secularist worldview, which is the unifying principle of these different groups. This strategy always leads to economic and social decline.

Unfortunately, this strategy was pursued by Europe over the past few decades with disastrous results. Secularism destroyed economies (and people) throughout the 20th century. America, for its part, had a brief affair with secularism after the Revolutionary War when the church-going population dropped substantially, prompting Thomas Jefferson to state that the evangelical religion would be replaced by Unitarianism. Within a short time of Jefferson’s flawed prophecy, America entered the Second Great Awakening. Jefferson was largely secular in his worldview and was clearly no prophet.

Recent Barna Group research indicates that approximately 19% of Christians have a biblical worldview, and Pew says that 73% of Americans are Christian. If 19% of 73% have a Biblical worldview, this equates to approximately 14% of Americans with a Biblical worldview. Recent Pew survey data indicates that approximately 20% of Americans are “secular.” Consequently, it is clear that secularists (20%) exceed the number of Christians with a “Biblical worldview” at 14%. This explains why secularists are driving national elections and why Obama won re-election. It is also supported by the fact that secularism is pervasive in the Northeast and West Coast. Coincidentally, it is those two regions that substantially delivered a second Obama presidency. Furthermore, an increasingly secular education establishment, supported by media and judiciary institutions hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview, explains why a troubled America has an irrational devotion to secularism. Secularism promises what it can’t deliver, and the historical record confirms that freedom always declines in the face of secular advance.

Future success for conservatives does not depend upon targeting the “externals”, i.e. the demography of different groups and making promises that can’t be kept. It is about focusing on the “internals”, i.e. worldview-graphics that reflect the common worldview of the many groups. The problem arises in that if Americans are truly secular in their worldview, it will be difficult for conservatives to win national elections from a population that is in the process of abandoning the Judeo-Christian worldview (which has dominated America for more than the past two centuries.) There may be local and state elections where conservatives can still enjoy electability, but they are unlikely to dominate the national election unless either concessions to secular interests are offered or the electorate returns to a biblical worldview.

There are many similarities between the formation of Israel and the formation of the United States. Both countries were established under the guiding principles of a transcendent and sovereign God. The Old Testament of the Bible is clear in its teaching regarding the relationship between God and Israel. The pattern goes something like this. Israel rebels. God intervenes with retributive justice. Israel repents. God rewards their repentance with restoration. Rebellion brings judgment, which yields repentance followed by restoration. If you believe that model is true and that America has become increasingly secular, it should be no surprise that God’s judgment may be the next step in America’s journey. Questions about what form would such a judgment take and when will it happen cannot be answered here and are for the reader to ponder.

The secularism that enabled President Obama to win re-election from so many groups interested in their own secular agenda (immigration amnesty, abortion rights, social justice, utopianism, etc.) may actually be his own undoing. He will not be able to satisfy their expectations. In fact, economic conditions are likely to deteriorate in a way that resembles other European countries such as Greece, Spain, etc. Economics has a way of sustaining or destroying a nation. The study of civilizations shows a relationship between economics and morality. Even the founding fathers knew that freedom required virtue, and virtue required morality. Secularism rejects absolute morality in favor of moral relativism.

Conservatives would be prudent to consider worldview analysis in their political strategy if they seek to return to national prominence. All Americans would be prudent to examine their own moral condition and ask if the Bible is correct in Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.” It is unlikely that secularists (who survey the national landscape) would state that our nation is a healthy and righteous one. Secularists live off the social and economic capital that those with a Judeo-Christian worldview have built. Some argue that secularists are better stewards of the environment given to them rather than the social and economic capital they inherit. The latter clearly take precedence when examining the success and viability of civilizations.

Faith in secularism has reached a tipping point in America. Yet, it is a blind faith that secularists expressed in their re-election of President Obama. A successful faith depends upon the object in which the faith is placed. Placing that faith in a second Obama term, for economic and social advance, represents long odds that even gambling addicts would be hard-pressed to justify.

Photo credit: Dan Jacobs (Creative Commons)

Related posts:

  1. The Perfect Political Storm: 2012 Election Analysis (Editor’s note: The opinions expressed here are solely those of…
  2. Media Show Viciousness Early In 2012 Campaign Why did the media chicken cross the road? Because it…