I Don't Know Tiger Woods...

The Publican's Prayer

Posted: December 11, 2009

1:00 am Eastern

WorldNet Daily Exclusive Commentary

© 2009

I don't know Tiger Woods. And as a rule I avoid public comment on the private travails of others, even when their fame or notoriety inevitably makes them the subject of public attention and comment. For a long time, though, I have pondered the significance of the publican's prayer, the simple prayer Jesus recommends by contrast with the self-righteous conceit of the scrupulous Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14). As we come to know the dark passage of such an admired and popular public figure, the thoughts it inspires seem particularly timely and appropriate.

The Pharisee thanks God "that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." He cites his strict observance of the law to justify his sense of righteousness. Yet Christ makes clear that it is not the Pharisee but the publican, who "would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be thou merciful to me a sinner" who "went down to his house justified."

The Scriptures tell us that Christ directed this account particularly at those who "trusted in themselves that they were righteous" and were so preoccupied by that conceit that they held the rest of humankind in contempt because of it. Yet on close observance of the text, we see that their attitude toward other people is not the only thing it affects. The publican's certainty of sinfulness makes him feel more fully the awesomeness of the presence of God. It weighs so heavily upon his brow that he cannot lift his head. As the Pharisee's confident self-righteousness makes him feel distant from other men, it also cuts him off from the salutary burden that signifies the near presence of God, the fear that marks and constitutes the birth of wisdom.

Perhaps the essence of this wisdom was conveyed by Christ at another time, when "a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? None is good save one, that is, God" (Luke 18:18-19). All goodness depends entirely on the existence and presence of God. There is therefore no self-sufficient righteousness in the law, or in the will or actions of any human beings. As we cannot be good except by way of God's presence, our good actions belong rather to God than to us. So we are accounted righteous, as the Apostle Paul repeatedly reminds us "Even as Abraham believed [i.e., trusted in, relied on] God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness" (Galatians 3:6). Of course, Abraham's belief was more than a state of mind. It was a consistent pattern of actions that were the consequence or fruit of that state of mind.

Continue reading here...

Dr. Alan Keyes--The Enemy of my Enemy is...

THOUGHTLET--The Enemy of my Enemy is ?

by Dr. Alan Keyes

http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I've never been sure the old maxim made much sense. It gives your enemies rather too much control over the identification of your friends. What's more, it allows people who really aren't your friends to identify themselves as such just by opposing your enemies. Doesn't that make it easier for your enemies to plant agents in your midst with no more effort than it takes to stage a phony brawl?

Because they live in such a hostile media environment, conservatives are all too willing to embrace any media voice that seems to take on their left wing opponents. But this means that at critical moments (particularly when it comes to personnel choices) they will be susceptible to information provided by people who have only been fighting with their enemies in order to get into a better position to do in the people whose sincerity, ability and leadership offer conservatives the greatest promise of success.

In this regard I have observed that the most important information conservatives can get from Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel is silence: the things and people Fox positively ignores. You can be sure someone you know to be conservative is standing firm for what's right when you can't remember the last time you saw or heard anything positive about them on Fox News. Think of all the reporting they've done on the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency.

Listen to the silence.

Better yet, learn from it.

The Label Promises Remedies, But The Box Contains Poison

Dr. Alan Keyes

Friday, September 18, 2009

Alan Keyes is Loyal to Liberty!

As conservative voters approach the 2010 elections, they might consider heeding the wisdom of this simple slogan: Don't Trust The Party Label. In particular, the Republican Party label is being abused as part of a conscious effort to deceive them.

Consider as evidence yesterday's report by Josh Kraushaar at politico.com. Under the direction of Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), the GOP's National Senatorial Committee is backing a slew of left-leaning candidates for the 2010 primaries. The plan is to give them special advantages in the primaries, while bad mouthing the prospects of conservative candidates.

The best, and perhaps most controversial, example of the NRSC's muscle-flexing is in Florida, where Cornyn quickly got behind the campaign of popular moderate [sic] Gov. Charlie Crist, despite growing conservative resentment over Crist's support of [alleged] President Barack Obama's stimulus plan and environmental policies.

The NRSC's open support for the governor has stifled the fundraising ability of former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, an attractive candidate in his own right who has been winning the support of conservative activists across the state.

"The speed with which the national party and national Republicans took sides in this race has presented challenges," said Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos. "Speaker Rubio never envisioned a day that a conservative in the Republican primary would be the underdog―and wouldn't be given a chance by the national party.

Conservatives considering Rush Limbaugh's contention that there's no hope outside the GOP need to ponder deeply the significance of this fact: the GOP leaders won't give a conservative a chance. Their excuse for stacking the deck against conservatives is that they are backing "electable" candidates. But they consistently define "electable" as "moderate" or "not conservative." According to the politico.com piece this logic "makes perfect sense to GOP strategists, who view it as a necessary exercise in political Darwinism.

"The job of the party committee is to help people with an 'R' next to their name; it doesn't matter what their ideology is," said Carl Forti, who headed the National Republican Congressional Committee's independent expenditure efforts in 2006 [with such good results]." "That's the mentality Cornyn has now―you want to find people that can win, and if you cater to much to the extremes, you'll be in trouble."

In fact Cornyn's intervention in primaries isn't about helping people with an 'R' next to their name. It's about making sure that in the general election those people aren't conservatives. As for the claim of electability, the notion that conservatives won't win is a purposely self-fulfilling prophecy.

The conservative heart of Americans everywhere is being roused by Obama's push to overthrow Constitutional government and install a national socialist regime in its place. But this is simply an accentuation of a longstanding reality. Consider the Battleground polling data reported by Bruce Walker in this article at americanthinker.com.

The Battleground Poll is different. It is bipartisan. A Republican polling organization, the Terrance Group, and a Democrat polling organization, Lake Research Partners, collaborate in picking the questions, selecting the sample population, conducting the surveys, and analyzing the results. The Battleground Poll website, along with the raw data, is "Republican Strategic Analysis" and "Democratic Strategic Analysis." There are few polls that are bipartisan. No other polling organization asks the same questions year after year, none that reveal the internals of their poll results so completely, and none ask anything like Question D3 in every survey. What is Question D3 and what were the results to Question D3 in the August 20, 2008 Battleground Poll? It is this:

"When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...?

Very conservative
Somewhat conservative
MODERATE
Somewhat liberal
Very liberal
UNSURE/REFUSED"

In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.

Sixty percent of Americans considered themselves conservative. Does this mean that most Americans do not know what "conservative" means? No: The question specifically provides an out to people who are not sure about their ideology; it provides an out to people who want to be considered "moderate." Americans reject those choices. They overwhelmingly define themselves as "conservative." This is a huge political story - except that it is not "new" at all. Look at the thirteen Battleground Poll results over the last six years, and how do Americans answer that very question? Here are the percentages of Americans in those polls who call themselves "conservative" since June 2002: 59% (June 2002 poll), 59% (September 2003 poll), 61% (April 2004 poll), 59% (June 2004 poll), 60% (September 2004 poll), 61% (October 2005 poll), 59% (March 2006), 61% (October 2006), 59% (January 2007), 63% (July 2007), 58% (December 2007), 63% (May 2008), and now 60% (August 2008.)

The percentage of Americans who define themselves as "somewhat liberal" or "very liberal" has always been puny. In thirteen straight polls, this percentage has never been higher than 38% (June 2004) and it has usually been much lower. The gap between self-defined conservatives and self-defined liberals has been as high as thirty percentage points and as low as twenty-one percentage points. What does that translate into in electoral politics? If conservative presidential candidates simply got all the conservative votes - if virtually all moderate voters, uncommitted voters, and liberal voters went for the liberal candidate - then the conservative candidates would win a landslide bigger than Ronald Reagan in 1988. Have you ever wondered why liberals like Obama never call themselves liberals? Maybe their advisers have read the Battleground Poll internals.

Are these remarkable results skewed? This has always been the argument, but it is a hopelessly flawed argument. The poll results are incredibly consistent over time. These results are the same when President Bush has poll numbers at rock bottom and when Republicans were facing electoral disaster, like in October 2006 when 61% of Americans called themselves conservatives. The very consistency of these percentages is powerful evidence of their inherent validity....

Voters heavily identify themselves as conservative. Only a miniscule percentage of them identify themselves as "moderates." Yet in primary elections the GOP leaders now stack the deck in favor of so-called "moderates." This isn't a hard-boiled preference for winners. It's an ideological preference for left-leaning candidates. Once the leftists win the GOP nomination, the leftist GOP leaders exploit the conservative cachet of the Republican label (carefully bolstered and preserved by media Judas goats) in a conscious effort to deceive conservative voters into supporting people who will surely betray them. In effect, the GOP leaders do exactly what the leftist Democrats do. They hide or lie about their candidates' left-leaning views in order to hijack the seats of power. And they've been doing so at least since Ronald Reagan left office. If a conservative chances to get a GOP nomination, the same GOP forces usually go to work behind the scenes to insure the nominee's defeat in the general election. Their claptrap about uniting to defeat the leftist Democrat bogeyman only matters to them when there's another leftist bogeyman behind the Republican mask. Though they pretend to be all about winning without regard to ideology, they are in fact committed to the leftist ideology and working to assure the victory of national socialism. They therefore don't disagree with Obama's leftist goal. They disagree with his up front and hasty pursuit of it.

I have to hope that people like Rush Limbaugh are not consciously part of this national GOP strategy of deception. The currently roused conservative heart of America could lead to a restoration of the Constitutional Republic. This could usher in an era of revitalized strength and renewed dedication to the principles and practices of liberty. Or it will again be hijacked by a conscious strategy intended to assure that Americans who love liberty and the constitutional sovereignty of the people are once more deceived and betrayed. Given that the leftist elite faction thinks it has already pushed America irretrievably over the cliff into national socialism, this time may be the last time. Conservative voters beware. The byword of the day is clear:

DON'T TRUST THE PARTY LABEL

Conservatives Should Make 2010 the ‘Passover’ Election

[One of my absolute favorite conservative thinkers is Alan Keyes. I think his thoughts are cogent and timely.]

http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/
by Dr. Alan Keyes
September 16, 2009

I hear that Rush Limbaugh is telling people that they have no choice but to drink the Republican Kool-Aid in the 2010 elections. Given the track record of the forces still in control of the Republican Party, this is tantamount to saying that we let the American republic go gently into the dark night of National Socialism. It also implies surrendering the sovereignty of the American people on the altar of the economics-without-borders money powers whose machinations terrorized the nation into the arms of the Obama faction in the fall of 2008 (with a telling, indispensable assist from G. W. Bush.)

Now Obama's socialist putsch is rousing the conservative instincts of the American people. The Bush-Michael Steele Republicans see it as their job to exploit this reaction for political purposes, but without letting power fall into the hands of any true conservatives. It's a delicate maneuver, in which media Judas goats have an indispensable role. (Wikipedia has an excellent definition of Judas goat that's worth reading at this point. In essence, "The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards the Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared.")

Predictably, Rush Limbaugh (like the media personalities at the supposedly conservative Fox news network) is going about the work of herding angry grassroots Americans into the Republican sheep-pens, where they will be shorn of their character and liberty more slowly, but just as surely, as at the hands of the Obama faction. To accept his analysis, however, requires that we forget that G. W. Bush's surrender to socialism in 2008 was the culmination of years of missed opportunities and betrayals by Republicans to whom well intentioned conservative voters delivered control of the White House or the Congress (or both) from 1994 to 2006.

I know that some of these well intentioned conservative voters want desperately to believe that it was the bad old media or the wily bad Democrats who not only kept the Republican leaders from making good use of those years, but forced them to preside over the biggest spending spree in the nation's history up to that time. The Bush Republicans threw fiscal conservatism to the winds and paid no more than incompetent lip-serve to the agenda of restoring the nation's moral principles. Meanwhile, in the critical areas of education and national sovereignty they betrayed bedrock conservative principles by promoting the national government's liberty destroying control of our schools and colluding in the sovereignty destroying neglect of its Constitutional responsibility to secure our national borders.

Is the charitable view of the Republican leadership's sins justified? It might be, if we could believe that the violation and neglect of conservative ideas and principles was unintentional. Knowledgeable people have a hard time doing this, however, since they know that the Bush wing of the GOP has a long and consistent history of opposition to conservatism. In light of that history the failure to respect conservative ideas and principles during the years of Bush ascendancy looks suspiciously like reversion to type.

I was reminded of this today as I read this piece by Byron York on the washingtonexaminer.com website. York reports about "a revealing moment in a new book, scheduled for release next week, by former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer."

Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.

Latimer got the assignment to write Bush's speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.

"What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?" the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement -- the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

"Let me tell you something," the president said. "I whupped Gary Bauer's ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement."

Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement -- the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater's disastrous defeat in 1964 -- with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

"Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say," the president said, "but I redefined the Republican Party."

This suggests that G. W. Bush prided himself on the fact that the Bush ascendancy in the Republican Party eliminated the conservative movement as a viable force in American politics. Now, with so many Americans boisterously asserting their belief in conservative ideas and principles, the apologists for the Republican Party would surely prefer that this intended aspect of the Bush legacy be locked out of sight for safekeeping. "We're your only hope against Obama," they proclaim. "Give us the power." In true Machiavellian fashion they won't say to conservative Americans "Give us the power; we want to continue destroying you." They just say "give us the power."

Through fear of Obama some conservatives will follow the Judas goat media leaders into the political slaughter pens one more time. Like the panic of a drowning victim, their fear actually makes them fight against those who try to offer them real aid. It blinds them to the fact that the Republicans now promising deliverance set conservatives up for failure in the first place. They don't really oppose Obama's goal. They just think he's moving toward it too hastily.

Keeping all this in mind, I must disagree with Rush Limbaugh. I see a desperate need for a third alternative for America. Whether you call it a party or not is immaterial. My advice is to put no faith in the Republican Party label, the Republican Party leaders, or the Republican Party candidates. That doesn't mean voting against all Republicans. It just means voting for no one just because of the Republican label. Right now, if the label says anything to conservatives, it reeks of duplicity and betrayal. The election of 2010 should be like the Passover recounted in the Bible. Only the politicians bearing the mark of true conservatism should be passed over by the conservative angel of political judgment.

But what will signify, like the lamb's blood that marked the dwellings of the Israelites, the presence of a commitment to conservative ideas, principles and policies? For my part, I look for a proven dedication to the principles on which the United States of America was founded, starting with the self-evident truth that we are all endowed with unalienable rights by the will of the Creator God. Every element of real conservatism can be deduced and articulated as a logical consequence of that truth. So by looking for the people determined to conserve American liberty I will find the only conservatives worthy of the name. What about you?