On Sunday, I noticed an article in the Washington Times that actually surprised me, Sharp Elbows in Republican primaries, but first a little background.

Supposedly, Barbara Comstock is the front-runner in the GOP’s firehouse primary to replace Congressman Frank Wolf.  Her problem? She has the GOP Establishment’s blessing. Check out her endorsements and judge for yourself. Some look good, but many do not.

Does that mean Comstock is the worst candidate and we should not support her if she gets the nomination? No, but there is no point in expecting her to resolutely fight big spending government. Establishment candidates don’t rock the boat. That’s why they get all the money.

So what struck me as odd? This paragraph.

“They feel she’s the anointed one and no one should stand in her way,” said Howie Lind, a former Navy commander and one of Comstock’s opponents. Lind has blasted Comstock for voting for President Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, as well as for supposedly supporting expanding Medicaid eligibility, which Comstock has voted against multiple times.

She really voted for Obama? Well, supposedly she had an excuse.

The campaign defended the vote for Mr. Obama by arguing that it was part of Operation Chaos, a movement spearheaded by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh in late February 2008 as Mr. Obama’s campaign was picking up steam and had won several consecutive primaries over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Fairfax Republican “had participated in Rush Limbaugh’s 2008 ‘Operation Chaos’ to keep the Democrat primary going and nominate who she thought was the weakest candidate who Republican John McCain could beat,” campaign managerSusan Falconer said in a statement.  (from here)

The problem is that if Comstock was participating in Operation Chaos then she should have voted for Hillary Clinton (see Rush the Vote: Operation Chaos). In any event, if you don’t intend to vote Democrat in the General Election, it is really not ethical to vote in the Democrat Party’s primary. As much as I like Rush, I still don’t think every idea he has is a good one, and voting in the other party’s primary is just plain dishonest.

Is Comstock in favor of expanding Medicaid as Lind suggested? Yes and no.  Here is a link to Howie Lind’s radio ad, but various folks point out Lind seems to be distorting the issue. Here are a couple of examples.

Nonetheless, Comstock effectively supports Medicaid expansion.

Delegate Comstock supports Medicaid reform before trying to expand what is currently an inefficient and broken system that does not serve those intended as well as it should. (from here)

That is from her website. Comstock just insists upon reforming Medicaid first. What is the problem with that? Look at our government’s track record. After decades of gross mismanagement – an ever more expensive health care system — what reason do we have to believe anyone can reform a government-run healthcare system? Isn’t about time we accepted the fact that private healthcare, with all its evils, still works better than government-run healthcare (that is, socialism)? Yet here is Comstock, another establishment candidate who promises to make government-run healthcare work.

On his website, Bob Marshall just promises to dismantle and defund Obamacare. There is no baloney about fixing what we all know is a ridiculous mess. If we want to get rid of Obamacare, what is the point in sending someone who is double-minded to Congress?

Posted in 2014 Election, Delegate Bob Marshall, Health Care Nationalization, Republican Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“I missed my damn plane!” REALLY???

Citizen Tom:

This post illustrates Kenneth Justice’s knack for taking a coffee bar conversation and generalizing what one person is feeling to rest of us. Here the focus here is on children and the family and the growing isolation of people from each other in Western societies.

Ken talks about disintegration of the nuclear family. What I fear too few of us stop to think about is the extent to which the relationships our forebears had with their extended families have almost disappeared. There was a time most people would grow up, live and finally die in the company of brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, sons and daughters, grandchildren, aunts, uncles….. Now many experience relatively little of that. We consider ourselves fortunate if we grow up in a two-parent home.

Think about the meaning of that word, “disintegration.” Look it up.

Disintegration is the opposite of integration, and what is the origin of the word “integrate”?

integrate (v.)Look up integrate at Dictionary.com1630s, “to render (something) whole,” from Latin integratus, past participle of integrare “make whole,” from integer “whole” (see integer). Meaning “to put together parts or elements and combine them into a whole” is from 1802. Integrate in the “racially desegregate” sense is a back-formation from integration, dating to the 1948 U.S. presidential contest. Related: Integratedintegrating.

If the extended family has almost disappeared, and now the nuclear family is disappearing, what have we left upon which we can build a society? Individuals? That will not work. Societies form from relationships, not from isolated people. Friendships? Perhaps, but can we count upon broken homes to produce people who understand how to form sound relationships? Don’t we learn from the example of others? What do children learn in broken homes?

Originally posted on The Culture Monk:


By Kenneth Justice

God I hate my life!

~ I was sitting at an airport terminal on Friday and the mid-30ish woman sitting next to me was clearly in a bad mood,

Not having a good day?” I asked

Not at all!” she said, “I got to the Airport two hours before my flight was supposed to leave and after I went through security I figured I had plenty of time to sit and get a drink. So I had a couple cocktails, and then twenty minutes before my departure time I walked up to the gate and they told me that my plane had already left!

It seemed a tad bit strange to me that she missed her flight while she was sitting at the airport but as we talked longer it became apparent that she isn’t a regular traveler whatsoever…

View original 736 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Thanks to the Census Bureau, #Obamacare has a shiny new yardstick

Citizen Tom:

Here is another funny video. MSNBC expresses surprise that the White House’s effort to cook the books was not well executed.

Originally posted on Two Heads are Better Than One:

Over the weekend, Politico said that Conservatives were “suspicious” of the White House over the following issue. But that’s wrong: we’re not “suspicious” in the slightest.

Suspicion indicates doubt, …and anyone with two synapses still firing should have zero doubts about this White House.

Obamacare - New measurement - Eric Allie - 4-16-2014

We mentioned the topic in a post last week, but with the Easter Holiday and vacation days, etc…, I’m guessing you might have missed at least part of this. So in addition to Eric’s perfect cartoon, we’ll also include a few links to what he’s referring.


View original 237 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bunkerville Bundy debate with Chris Hayes and GOP Assembly woman, Hayes loses

Citizen Tom:

This is a funny video. Instead of actually trying to discuss the merits of each side’s case, Hayes plays the usual Liberal game of trying to accuse a Conservative of extremism, and Fiores catches him in his own trap.

Originally posted on BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!:

If you haven’t caught this, it’s worth a watch.  Why can’t we have more politicos who can tangle with the libtards?  Chris Hayes wants desperately to portray her as a domestic terrorist. He just can’t get there. Fiore for Senate 2016!

Via Hot Air:

This story comes to us courtesy of The Right Scoop. (Which makes sense since I don’t watch any of the cable news evening lineup and haven’t seen Chris Hayes on the small screen in ages.) While people gathered at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in protest of the BLM’s handling of affairs there, the protesters were joined by Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore. This prompted MSNBC host Hayes to interview her, and the Scoop captures the video for us.

Let’s just say that Fiore wasn’t about to have the conversation steered to any Left side talking points.

 Hayes repeatedly tried to get Fiore to admit that the Bundys are…

View original 77 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment




Why This Post

When I got a comment that began as follows from a commenter who calls himself “scout”, I decided to write this post.

Your last comment blazingly illustrates another major difference between our disparate “conservatisms”: the place of religion in secular political discourse. One, of course, can be some kind of “conservative” in a religious context. Bin-Laden and his murderous brigands can be said to be conservative Islamists, I suppose. But my political conservatism is very much an American (derived from 18th Century English) conservatism based on a constitutional secular government and economic theory. It has nothing to do with my discernment of Scripture.  (continued here)

Why This Title

At first I thought to give this post this title: BLAZINGLY ILLUSTRATING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISPARATE “CONSERVATISMS”. Then I read an editorial: Easter 2014: Hope for the dead by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. Here is the new title in the context in which I found it.

When the government takes away our free will, the government steals a gift from God; it violates the natural law; it prevents us from having and utilizing the means to the truth. The moral ability to exercise free will to seek the truth is a natural right that all humans possess, and the government may only morally interfere with the exercise of that right when one affirmatively has given it away by using fraud or force to interfere with the exercise of someone else’s natural rights. (from here)

When I was young, I was persuaded of the danger of mixing religion with politics. However, I have since learned of the danger of not resting our political beliefs upon the sound foundation of Biblical truth. Hence, when Napolitano makes the connection between Easter and slavery, I no longer have to be persuaded of what Truth Jesus manifested with his death and resurrection.

On Easter, three days after He died, that manifestation was complete when He rose from the dead. By doing that, he demonstrated to us that while living we can liberate our souls from the slavery of sin and our free wills from the oppression of the government, and after death we can rise to be with Him. (from here)

Why Not The Gods Of This Age

In The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to build our house on the Rock.

Matthew 7:24-27 English Standard Version (ESV)

Build Your House on the Rock

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Instead, we have built upon the truths promoted by those who worship the idols of our age. John Stonestreet briefly describes those idols in The Gods We Worship.

I often wondered why, when I saw the flannel graph pictures of Old Testament idols, would someone carve an ear into wood and then talk to it? It’s a good question. But the idols of our day are just as contrived aren’t they? We are tempted by the god of stuff as if it will meet our deepest needs; the god of sex as if it could replace a Divine relationship; the god of state as if it will solve all our problems; and the god of self as if we could be a law until ourselves and there were no one else before us. (from here)

Jesus taught that to be free we must be freed from sin (see WHEN DO THE PEOPLE STEAL THEIR OWN FREEDOM?). And to be freed from sin, we must each learn to trust in the Rock, our Lord and savior, Christ Jesus. And while government cannot bring us closer to Him, when government seeks to prevent us from learning of Him and living as He commanded — prevents us from having and utilizing the means to the truth – those who rule trample on our God-given rights. Hence, these lines in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (from here)

When Conservatives advocate God-given rights, Conservatives rest the foundations of our republic upon a fundamental Christian teaching. To be free, we must each learn how to love God and our neighbors, and no one can make any of us love either God or our neighbors. To those who will listen Christians can preach the Gospel, but only Jesus can save men’s souls.

Why We Don’t Have To Vote For “Christians”

Does basing our politics upon a Christian foundation mean we should only elect Christians to public office? No. Because we can only judge a candidate’s record, and not his heart, whether a candidate labels himself a Christian or an Atheist may not especially relevant. It is an unfortunate fact, but some candidates who label themselves Christian behave more poorly than those who do not.

The problem is one of truth in labeling. A candidate can label himself anything, but we can only judge what a man will do based upon what he has done in the past. Therefore, when we go to the polls, what should matter to us is each candidate’s record and his stance on the issues.

What we must strive to avoid are candidates who promote the worship the gods of our age. Because they are ultimately based of upon the pride of a mere man, when we bow to the gods of our age –stuff, sex, state, and self — we build both our lives and our republic upon a foundation of sand. When the floods come, those who place their trust in such gods, gods of their own making, will be washed away.

Is Mixing Our Religion With Our Politics An Extreme Position?

Think of the irony contained in that question. Doesn’t the founding document of our nation, the Declaration of Independence, mix religion with politics? Wasn’t King George III trying to deny the American colonials of their God-given rights?

We can argue all we want about the purpose of government, but in the final analysis we come down to one question: what is the right thing to do? For most of us, the difference between right and wrong — good and evil — is a religious question. Therefore, when people insist upon separating religion and politics, we should be suspicious. What do they have against our religious beliefs? If religion is an issue, then is it possible they wish to impose their own religious beliefs using the power of government?

Other Posts That Relate Christianity and Conservatism

Previously, the post I wrote that probably came closest to addressing the topic of this one was THE MYTH OF THE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. Others include:

Posted in Culture War, Declaration of Independence, Philosophy, religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments