Speaking of patriots I'm nominating former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan for 'Patriot of the Week'.

In his new book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong With Washington, Scotty says:
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."
With Scott McClellan's new testimony, I expect Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will reopen the Valerie Plame / Scooter Libby case and we can finally remove this gang of treasonous criminals from our government.

Posted by: justintime | November 21, 2007 1:18 PM

Our religious patriots should remember the answer of the Captain of the Lord's hosts to Joshua (Joshua 5:13-14). The Israelites were going up against people at least as bad as Saddam.

Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | November 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Amen! Is it true patriotism to refuse to look at the shortcomings in one's country and seek to address them?

Posted by: Bill Samuel | November 21, 2007 3:10 PM

These comments undoubtedly are about Bush/Cheney.etc. because, at this point, they are the U.S. as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Implicit in the above comment is that the same commentary would not have been made had there been a Democratic administration in power, e.g. during the Clinton administration. While I certainly cannot speak for Mr. Hendericks, from my perspective, I would apply the same standard to any administration. Blind patriotism is not a good thing, regardless of the viewpoint from which you approach it.

I hope all have a wonderful, blessed, and restful Thanksgiving.

Posted by: Bob B. | November 21, 2007 3:57 PM

I remember realizing at some point as a kid, still growing up, that patriotism and nationalism are pretty potent temptations, or substitutes for religion, or distractions from healthy spiritual life. There's lots of history to offer evidence that people can do some remarkably evil stuff in the name of their country. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your love of country causes you to justify massacring Indians, or justify the evil of Nazism, or justify napalming villages.....

In any case, as I've grown older, I continue to see that in America we Christians are most often Americans first, and Christians second. There is not anything (yet) in the area of military practice that most folks can't find compatible with their Christian faith and acceptable as the Way of Jesus. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: Todd | November 21, 2007 4:00 PM

That's patriotism I can get behind.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 21, 2007 4:32 PM

These comments undoubtedly are about Bush/Cheney.etc. because, at this point, they are the U.S. as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Implicit in the above comment is that the same commentary would not have been made had there been a Democratic administration in power, e.g. during the Clinton administration.

That's probably correct, because no Democrat would have pulled a Bush/Cheney and challenged the patriotism of people who didn't agree with him/her.

I really don't get this liberal desire to use this day to pick our scabs so to speak.

I am one of those "scabs." That's why.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 21, 2007 6:10 PM

We don't have thanksgiving in Australia. If we have a change of government this weekend then we might get a 'Sorry Day.' But I like the idea of calling it 'Pick our Scab Day.'

Be Blessed

Posted by: Trent | November 21, 2007 6:32 PM

I would be very thankful if our system of justice would prosecute and convict the Bush administration for just one of the injustices they have perpatrated upon the American people and the world community.

Justice in that form would give all of us much to be thankful for.

Posted by: Lonnie | November 21, 2007 8:43 PM

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. - Oscar Wild
Religion is the opium of the world - Karl Marx
Justice, it limps along, but it gets there all the same - Gabriel Garcia Márquez
It's a wise dog that scratches its own fleas. There is no god.

Posted by: Bealzey | November 22, 2007 4:45 AM

I am sure Scott McLellean is now a prophetic truth-teller for making an obscure charge against the President to, in his words, "Create interest in his book." He lied before for alterior reasons for which he was a poor, powerless, helpless, lad. Now he is boldly speaking obsure words. And this is headline news???

Posted by: fullofturkey | November 22, 2007 9:28 AM

Doug wrote: "The question is this- What does it take to get into heaven? Your answer will speak volumes."

I heartily agree that the questions one asks speaks volumes. It is also vital to ask the right questions. And... it matters Who is asking the questions.

God: Adam, where are you? (Genesis 3:9)

God: Jonah, should I not be concerned about Nineveh (the city of your mortal enemies), that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals? (Jonah 4:11)

God: He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)

Jesus: What shepherd leaves the 99 to look for the one until it is found? What woman searches for 1 coin until it is found? Won't you come in and join our party? (Luke 15)

Answer to your question about what it takes to "get to heaven": it takes God to become flesh, live among, be lifted up on a cross, and draw all people to Himself.

Note: Jesus taught us to pray, not getting to heaven, but heaven coming to earth. (Matthew 6, Luke 11)

Note: God is the Subject of the "getting to heaven" sentence, not us!

What Jesus' (God made flesh) asks of us: To love as He loves. (John 13:34)

Test for who is a disciple= if we love one another as He loves us. (John 13:35)

Test for constructive patriotism: see above questions and answers.

That's how I see it.

Duh-sciple Tim

Posted by: Duh-sciple | November 22, 2007 11:10 AM

Doug

The only one living in a alternate reality is you. But thanks for the laugh. I have not laughed that hard in a couple of days.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 22, 2007 3:23 PM

Aaron,

I am one of those people you may be referring to but for the record, I am so much more liberal than the democratic party. In my opinion, there is not much difference between the two except that the democrats are the lesser evil. Since there is no viable alternative in the US political landscape, that is the only choice I have.

Aaron, my guess is that although I would say I have all of the same hopes and dreams for our country, if we sat down and discussed these ideals one by one, you would say I am the enemy.

Prosperity, freedom, liberty, and justice for all says nothing. It is how one defines these terms that causes the struggle.

Posted by: Lonnie | November 22, 2007 8:19 PM

Don't kid yourself, the site, postings and discussions here are being monitored by homeland security.

Posted by: Jay Edgar | November 23, 2007 2:15 AM

To Rick Nowlin:

Thank you for your excellent post. I always appreciate your insight and I am pleased that you never back down.

Jim

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 23, 2007 7:11 AM

Prophetic vision? Hmmm, what do pacifists/"constructive patriots" do with these passages?

Jeremiah 48:10 -

"A curse on him who is lax in doing the Lord's work! A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Referring to those who were appointed to destroy Moab - the prophets strongly denounced Moab - sounds like "us" vs. "them".)

Psalms 72:4 -

"He will defend the afflicted among the people, and save the children of the needy; he will CRUSH THE OPPRESSOR."

So it looks like violence is indeed part of instituting prophetic justice. But SoJo is too busy cherry-picking to notice.

Posted by: Brent | November 23, 2007 9:39 AM

The point I was trying to make with my question was this- You and I can not earn or do anything to get into heaven. It is a gift given by God who sent his only son Jesus to die for our sins. When you get a gift you do have accept it though otherwise it is not a gift. So in order to "get into heaven" when you die one must while living on this earth accept the gift God has given us.

There is one point to this that the church in America does not do a good job with and that is that uou must make Jesus your Lord as well. What does that mean? In a nutshell it means you now take your orders from jesus not from anyone else. Is this hard to do? You bet and it is why so few actually do it.

I am not saying that liberals are not belivers or not saved but I do wonder how people that have the same Lord can have such different belief systems. One of our belief systems is wrong and that means one of us is actually following the devil and not God.

The way I see it is this way- It is not about republican or democrat but about right and wrong or good and evil. When you take liberalism and what it claims to believe in you come up with policies that are taken right out of socialism, marxism, and communism to name a few. What I just named are all very evil and anti-god. Also when you look at liberalism's policies you can see by the results that they have never actually ever solved any problems but made things worse.

As a Christian the truth should be the only thing that matters because the God we believe in is Truth. Truth is something liberals have a hard time grasping therefore a christian should want nothing do with such an evil ideology. Yes God talks about helping the poor and feeding the hungry. Believe it or not conservatives do like helping the poor as well but there is a difference. Conservatives like to help others because they want to do and not because they are forced to. Show me in the bible where Jesus advocated helping others by stealing from someone else.

I know the Bush bashers will come out in full force saying he lied and all that garbage. It has never been proven. Funny thing though everything our president has ever said has been utttered by every democrac at one time or anonther.

Rick the truth is not dead. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. It has to do with the truth. As the bible says The truth will not only win out but it already has. I believe that the policies out in place by liberals are evil and will what lead to the second coming of Christ. That is a good thing but before that happens the world will get much much worse and the Ant-Christ will come. He will fool many and his policies will be evil. I heard a sermon once that said it is easy to control when you pit people against each other. Exactly what liberals do with their class envy and racial warfare.

All these reasons are why I think liberalism is line with the devil and not with God.

Posted by: Doug | November 23, 2007 10:28 AM

Amen Rick Nowlin! keep testifying brother.

As for "class warfare," the prophet Amos has some very insightful observations about the oppressive upper class warring on the poor.

Posted by: carl copas | November 23, 2007 12:16 PM

I am done trying to convince libs that there policies are evil. Rick if you don't believe in only one anti-christ then you truly do not your bible. In case you did not know the Republican party is and was always against slaverly. Not so with the Democratic party.

James,
I did not realize that healthcare was a moral issue. I must have missed that in the bible. I also did not realize that people who break the law and think they should not be held accountable is alright with God. Much be reading a different bible. Contrary to what what you might think Jesus is not a pacifist. If you think that he is you really do not know the bible. This is exactly what I mean by people calling good evil and evil good.

Posted by: Doug | November 23, 2007 3:32 PM

Lonnie,

I am a Partisian Conservative Republican but I do not view people whom I disagree with as my enemy. Unless you plan on doing me,my family, or my country and/or her allies harm (which I doubt) then you certainly are not my enemy. If we were to sit down together and go back and forth on the issues we probably would agree on very little solutions wise, but I do not see how that would make you my "enemy". I would proably find you to be misguided but with your heart in the right place (as you would probably feel about me hopefully).

I am not some young idealist dreaming of a koombayah era, but I have found in my short life that partisianship and hardline ideology, 9 times out of 10 is a losing proposition for bothsides and for the country as a whole since nothing meaningful can be accomplished. I am a "play the ball not the man" kind of guy.

Partisianship/ideology can be as dangerous as blind unthinking nationalism.

I hope you had a great Turkey Day by the way.

Posted by: Aaron | November 23, 2007 4:53 PM

Just a few thoughts on topics being discussed here;

Healthcare:

I do believe we have a divine obligation to ensure that all of God's Children have adequate healthcare. I do not however believe that that translates into a single-payer Canadian style system however. I do believe that there is a role for Government to play, but on a State level, not a federal one and not as the primary provider or financer either.

I think states like Mass. and CA have the right idea (though admittadly I lean more towards the Massachussets plan then the one Gov. Schwarzzenegger is proposing) on healthcare (note also, both proposed by Republican Governors).

Alas, I believe there is going to be somekind of Federal Plan, so I favor John McCains plan the best (equitable tax treatment and tax credits for the uninsured). As for the Democratic candidates plans, I think they involve to much coersion but I could live with them if they became law (also note that John Edwards and HRC's plan looks awfully similar to the ones being proposed by Republicans in the Seventies).

On Immigration,

I favored McCain's plan and I support the dream act. A lot of Republicans do, we were just drowned out by a vocal minority. I would also point out that there were those on the left who are not keen on a soft touch approach to Illegal Immigration, mainly the Labor Unions.

Posted by: Aaron | November 23, 2007 5:08 PM

Jimmy Paravane!

With all do respect, what the heck are you talking about LOL?

I am not an "alien" of anykind (I presume you mean immigrant) and I have not even talked about the Anti-Christ.

I could be confused (which is quite possible)but what are you talking about?

Posted by: Aaron | November 23, 2007 6:51 PM

"I am not saying that liberals are not belivers or not saved but I do wonder how people that have the same Lord can have such different belief systems. One of our belief systems is wrong and that means one of us is actually following the devil and not God."

So you changed your tune from earlier huh? Earlier you did say we could not possibly believe in God. My point is that all human systems are imperfect. Your conservative agenda is far from perfect. My green party agenda is not a bed of roses either. But you seem unable to understand this. So let me make this clear, no worldly system is God's alone. he uses them all. So stop thinking that your conservative ideology is God's only vehicle.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 23, 2007 7:28 PM

So you were perfectly objective in your study of the Bible. Then you should have no problem answering, rather than avoiding the hard questions.

Correction -- I know the right questions to ask.

God is moving in ESA, I agree, but that is less a political organization and attempts to help people. I know conservatives who are active in ESA, and there isn't a whole lot that would make them feel uncomfortable. Ron Sider, though I may disagree with him, is a solid evangelical committed to the authority of scripture.

I've been a member of ESA for about 20 years. Even today, however, some conservatives are breathing fire against Sider -- years ago I was at a men's Bible study and the leader, a dedicated conservative ideologue whom I eventually broke with, said that Sider was promoting "poverty theology," which I knew was outright false. And BTW, Sider is on the board of Sojourners.

SoJo is a liberal political organization who is every bit as partisan, and usually more silly, than Pat Robertson. And evangelicals still remain largely conservative, and there is no reason to think that this will change (Tony Campolo admitted as much in a book a few years ago).

Oh, it's not partisan at all -- you will never hear Jim Wallis openly support the Democratic Party or endorse Democratic candidates (if you read "God's Politics" you would know that he's taken the Democrats to task as much as the Republicans). The difference is that, until recently, the GOP was in total political control and prophetic ministry by definition is adversarial. And did you also know that Sojo has been around far longer than any "religious right" organizations?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 23, 2007 10:38 PM

Ah, folks, as to whose politics are of the devil, and whose aren't, always remember, the devil is in the details. whatever politics is involved!

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, whether you take the fork to the left or right.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 23, 2007 10:55 PM

Everyone!! Run!! The 'elephant-in-the-room' is awake.

Although we may have a herd of elephants in this living room.

Rick and readers, I think it fine if SoJo has partison moments. They attempt to work out Faith in a political town and apply Faith in an arena where the choices are between two partisan positions. I often 'plug my nose' when I cast my November ballot. But I do not lose my prophetic calling because I have fulfilled my stewardship responsibilities as a citizen.

I appreciate Doug's challenge as to why, if we are obedient to our Lord, that we come out with different positions? I believe this question is often behind some of the frustrations, ill-considered words, etc. that appear here.

Doug, I think the journey with our Lord includes a host of questions with no apparent conclusive answers. Jesus seemed to be a master of obscure answers (from His disciples viewpoint) much of the time. You are probably very wise to ask the question here because our journeys are not solely independent journeys--but a corporate one.

But as we seek answers, will we do so with a focus on the Lord or with a focus on each other. Do we not walk out the question with each other with our eyes set on Jesus who both authored and is perfecting our faith?

Doug, you have a brother named Rick, who made a response to you. Please accept the response as a gift; lay it quietly before the Throne of Jesus and ask if there is anything within the response the Lord would have you receive.

I do not know if nations have original sins, but if they do, then slavery must be one of the most grievous outworkings of the 'original sin' of this nation. If we could walk the path to racial reconciliation/justice we might deal a blow against the 'principalities and powers' against which we struggle.

But this journey (as an example of why Believers have not all reached the same conclusion) is a process of love and relationship through which we have to all lay down a whole bunch of stuff. We could arrive at the same conclusion together. The Lord could accomplish that quickly. It is called, 'falling into the hands of an angry God.' I think it safe to say that if we had a slightest hint of what that would mean, we would welcome with open arms the opportunity to walk a difficult journey together.

Our apparent differences are gifts. But of course it is pretty ugly when a person takes a gift and hurls it at another accompnied with an insult. It also hurts to pick up a gift given by another and toss it away with disgust.

So my issue is not that we land in different places, it is that we are so weak at stewarding our conflicts so as to advance along the journey in relationship with each other. We can either grow in gace and unity or disintegrate into a street fight. When conflict becomes too severe we define our oppponent in demonic terms.

Blessings on the journey. John 17

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | November 24, 2007 4:32 AM

Rick,

I agree w/ most of what you said. I think that the right feels attacked here. I think they are not used to being challenged on their ideology and I think they take it personally. How dare you challenge my philosophy especially when it's wrapped up in western nationalistic Christianity.

The left can be confused w/ the same. I see it happening ever so slowly, the merging of political power and religion. I have seen it here. Hell I endorse some of it. But the church must maintain it's power to critique the state. The problem is that the right forfeited that power along time ago. Many on the right have asked us on the left to critique ourselves before we cast stones. Well I do all the time. The Democrats are spineless and w/o conscience more concerned w/ getting elected than ending this war in Iraq. Whoops did I say this out loud? They have lost their way. It's time someone on the left says it.

When we critique the right for it's failed policies and poor leadership it does strike a nerve. I can understand why. But I don't why the right worship power so much as to not critique and oust people that don't live up to their own ideals. Has power become such an intoxing mistress that their own accountability has been compromised?

We on the left need to learn to cut out people that are doing our causes and the people they represent harm. We are not good at it. Hell we don't even follow our own oversite and accountability functions (well my party does a decent job) but others don't. So i guess for this conversation to go forward we must be willing to point out our own shortcomings while we critique our right wing brothers and sisters on theirs.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 24, 2007 12:09 PM

When we critique the right for it's failed policies and poor leadership it does strike a nerve. I can understand why. But I don't why the right worship power so much as to not critique and oust people that don't live up to their own ideals. Has power become such an intoxicating mistress that their own accountability has been compromised?

The trouble was that the right's MO from the get-go always was cutting everyone else out out of power. You will notice that its campaigns were generally negative -- "against" someone/something else, notably but not exclusively "big government" -- as opposed to the positive things they thought they could accomplish; in fact, in his book "Blinded by the Right," David Brock mentioned that someone told him, "Conservatism needs an enemy." In such an atmosphere the idea of looking inward was deemed unnecessary because that kind literally lives to fight.

The war in Iraq, if it has done nothing else, has put an end to conservative invincibility, which is why the GOP took a bath last year. Remember, Jesus said, "Live by the sword, die by the sword." In a strange way it gets back to the topic of unbridled patriotism that leans toward idolatry.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 24, 2007 12:58 PM

Mick Sheldon says

"But Thanks Giving , I am not using this day as a reason to look at my countries short comings , its a day I look to GOd who has blessed us all DESPITE all our short comings . To Thank Him for the people he allowed in our lives , I really don't get this liberal desire to use this day to pick our scabs so to speak . Why not use April 13th , no one else is using that day for anything . Call it PIck our Scab day , have a list of all our warts , get it out of your system on that day

I'm with Mick! How come everything good has to be negative too. Can't we just use this day( thanksgiving) to give Thanks. Not say....Let's give thanks...but let's also remember all our shortcomings. That is not giving thanks!

Posted by: Anon | November 24, 2007 2:55 PM

"Correction -- I know the right questions to ask."

And which inconvienient ones to avoid. You're still dodging.

"I've been a member of ESA for about 20 years. Even today, however, some conservatives are breathing fire against Sider -- years ago I was at a men's Bible study and the leader, a dedicated conservative ideologue whom I eventually broke with, said that Sider was promoting "poverty theology," which I knew was outright false. And BTW, Sider is on the board of Sojourners."

True - conservative critques of Sider have not always been fair. Sider has still had sharp disagreements with Wallis over homosexuality.

"Oh, it's not partisan at all -- you will never hear Jim Wallis openly support the Democratic Party or endorse Democratic candidates (if you read "God's Politics" you would know that he's taken the Democrats to task as much as the Republicans)."

I've read it, and no, he doesn't take them equally to task. His critique of Democrats is largely about a secular mentality, not over actual policy positions. His message to them is "Hey, liberals, you can really use Christianity to promote your agenda." Except he's against smut in pop culture. That's a long way from being a centrist. Plenty of what he rights isn't even mainstream liberalism - it's Daily Kos/Huffington Post extremism. And in the 70s and 80s he was firmly supportive of the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas - once again, pretty extreme positions. No, he's taken a liberal (or far-liberal) position at least 90-95% of the time.

"The difference is that, until recently, the GOP was in total political control and prophetic ministry by definition is adversarial."

Prophetic ministry should be about truth. Wallis made a very telling comment one time. He said that he was a 19th century abolitionist born in the wrong century. (Or something like that). Someone truly prophetic would be glad to be living in a time when slavery has been abolished, and would be fine with the fact he wasn't needed to acheive it, and would see nothing wrong with being born now. But SoJo-types seem to need the mantle of prophet. While they do say something worthwhile once in a blue moon, what we usually see is an endless parade of phony injustices of America, Israel, and capitalism supported by half-truths and distortions. Is being adversarial for the sake of being prophetic more important than being factual?

"And did you also know that Sojo has been around far longer than any "religious right" organizations?"

But has never garnerned a large following - Praise the Lord!!!

Posted by: | November 24, 2007 3:09 PM

I've read it, and no, he doesn't take them equally to task. His critique of Democrats is largely about a secular mentality, not over actual policy positions. His message to them is "Hey, liberals, you can really use Christianity to promote your agenda."

Well, some Democratic policies are indeed Biblically justifiable -- in fact, more so than the Republicans'.

And in the 70s and 80s he was firmly supportive of the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas - once again, pretty extreme positions. No, he's taken a liberal (or far-liberal) position at least 90-95% of the time.

From what I've read you exaggerate greatly. I don't know what was said about the Viet Cong, but what the "religious left" said about the situation in Nicaragua must be placed in context that the autocratic Somoza regime that was overthrown by the Sandinistas had been wrongly backed by the American government. We had no business backing the anti-Sandinista "contra" rebels.

Someone truly prophetic would be glad to be living in a time when slavery has been abolished, and would be fine with the fact he wasn't needed to acheive it, and would see nothing wrong with being born now.

With all due respect, because it points out wrongs prophetic ministry by definition is adversarial, so in fact Jim is far closer to the truth than you are. And Jim can live with the fact that you don't take him seriously; after all, true prophets rarely are in their time. (Last year I picked up a book by the late revivalist Vance Havner, certainly no liberal, and he dedicated an entire chapter to the prophet -- Wallis fits the bill almost to a T.)

And as for Wallis never garnering a large following, his message is never going to be popular, and I'm sure that's OK with him. But I recall a segment on ABC News "Nightline" about a small Ohio group of "religious left" activists juxtaposed against the well-run organization of Columbus "patriot pastor" Rod Parsley, who even bragged about the numbers his people would turn out. Well, as you may remember, the GOP was slammed in Ohio.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 24, 2007 3:30 PM

Rick Nowlin,

1. Clinton did win fair and square, I would not deny that, however if it was just a race between him and GHWB, Clinton more then likely would have lost or at the very least it would have been a nail biter.

2. Republicans may not have been lap dogs for President Clinton, but they certainly did work with him, especially in the second administration. How else could Welfare Reform, SCHIP,and many other bills have happend without the votes of the Republican Majority LOL?

3. President Clinton's administration was ripe with scandal and deserved the investigations that transpired, as does the Current Bush administration. I don't care who is in charge, if there is even a hint of impropriarty I want an investigation.

4. Democratic Leadership under Reagan was certainly not deferential. Tip O'neil and Gang was always giving the Reagan administration a hard time (which as the opposition they should) and President Reagan had a ton of battles from the MX Missile, His Tax Cuts, the Millitary Build Up, SDI, Budget Cuts, Judicial Appointments, etc.

5. This is like my fourth post here so I am kind of new to this forum, but I have enjoyed the differing viewpoints and debate I have recieved here. I post mainly on Republican sites, but I do enjoy a friendly round of spirited debate every now and then.

Posted by: Aaron | November 24, 2007 3:41 PM

Rick,

What is a conspiracy? Was there a "vast right-wing conspiracy?"

Is there a "vast left-wing conspiracy?"

There's always, in American politics, a paranoid style that arises to see evil monolithic conspiracies. Whether the Council for Foreign Relations or the Bilderburgers, or equivalent bogeymen, or even various foreign or domestic enemies - dittoheads? - people just love to have someone else to attribute to all their problems to - even if those people are not salt and light. In truth, there are a legion of conspiracies real and imagined out there, but fortunately, no one can agree enough to really be master of the world successfully as they degenerate into schism after schism.

But conspiracies - a word wielded against political opponents for its connotations of treason and overthrow of legitimate authority - need to be secret, and as you pointed out, who was involved or supportive in the usual political way was hardly a deep dark secret about this "conspiracy."

Hillary had her own secret meetings on health care, in which her status as First Lady somehow conferred on her quasi-officialdom but no corresponding legal oversight - or so the executive claimed - shades of Dick Cheney and the unaccountable Energy Task Force.

We can forgive, but can't forget, that Hillary also tried to make homeschooling illegal, by imputing, along with Edelman, that it was an egregious form of child abuse requiring home school parents to be placed on a child abuse registry. Legislation outlawing it encouraged by her and sponsored by George Miller of California passed first reading, but after Dick Armey revealed the stealth nature of the legislation, which shut down Congress' phone banks, no one else did except Miller on second reading.

Years later, our homeschooled are enrolled at a state university after having exemplary SAT scores far above those of the majority of their publicly schooled peers. Public schools are worthy of support, but they don't necessarily make the best choice for particular minority-race individuals who've been poorly served by them historically, as Native American children have been.

I also recall instances of overzealous agents arresting people for asking unrehearsed questions at those phony "town hall" meetings - just like current staged events.

I personally believe Bill Clinton had a lot to offer - he had been, after all, the youngest Governor in America - but just as in the Biblical records, he was a deeply flawed leader. If he had ruled Judea, would his epitaph have read, "He did right in the sight of the Lord"?

I suppose we ought to be thankful that some Presidents, in the more humbling circumstances after the Presidency, actually go on to accomplish so much more good. Some of those could be Hoover, Carter - even Nixon in retirement as a writer of statecraft - and Clinton.

It would be a shame to have him taken from his real calling and become a resident of the White House again!

Love ya, Rick, I really do.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 24, 2007 3:59 PM

So you consider formulating strategy a conspiracy? Of course those groups met and strategised on how to defeat President Clinton either at the polls or his policie proposals in Congress, that is what the opposition does.

Except that these folks were willing to do illegal or immoral acts in the process; as I mentioned, even slanderous right-wing media were involved. The impeachment was part of it -- Linda Tripp hooked up with Ken Starr and lawyers for Paula Jones to entrap Clinton in a perjury trap. Besides, most of these groups were not part of the Republican Party and were funded privately. One group went to a Federal judge in Arkansas in 1992 and sued to have Clinton thrown off the ballot; other groups filed frivolous lawsuits against him. That's more than just partisanship; that's sheer hate. That's not happening on the other side, even against Bush.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 24, 2007 4:55 PM

Aaron -- First of all, conservatism was never about "less government," which is more accurately libertarianism; that's only how it was sold for the sake of votes. Rather, it was ultimately about building an aristocracy and overturning established jurisprudence to do so. It had three targets, all related to each other: the New Deal, the civil-rights movement and the "Great Society," all of which threatened the authority they craved. I find specifically despicable its use of Christianity in the process, and I'm glad this blog exists so that it can be exposed and addressed.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 24, 2007 5:04 PM

The christian right is a relative newcomer to politics, in fact religiosity was used quite often by the left, and in fact the first modern evangelical president was Jimmy Carter not GWB.

In fact, it goes back as an organized force only back to 1978. But Carter never supported the "cultural issues" in any strong way, which is part of the reason conservative white Christians abandoned him for Reagan.

Conservatism in the American sense, is about limited government, Liberterianism in it's modern form is practically anarchistic in it's views of Government.

What you describe as conservatism my libertarian roommate would call libertarianism.

If conservatives were about trashing the New Deal, we sure are doing a poor job of it, figuring we have only expanded entitlements not ended them.

That was down the road, to be truthful -- the idea was to shift all that burden to the states, where they would be threatened. Politically, simply getting rid of "New Deal" problems would be suicide, so they had to devise another way to make them unpopular.

And as for your remark about aristocracy and higher taxes, then explain to my why conservatives were trying to get rid of the estate tax, which has existed since our nation's founding.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 24, 2007 6:18 PM

Reagan really needs to be reconsidered by thoughtful liberals. In a review of Richard Rhodes' Arsenals of Folly in The Nation, Jonathan Schell ("The Fate of the Earth") reviews the remarkable time in the mid-eighties when two unlikely pacifists emerged. As detailed by those who were there, both Reagan and Gorbachev were out of sync with the entrenched establishment wisdom of their own national defense elites.

Reagan was so deeply revulsed by nuclear weaponry that he would not have launched a retaliatory nuclear strike, despite the implicit responsibility of someone holding the Presidency to do so. Nor would have Gorbachev. During a training simulation of an American first strike on the Soviet Union, Gorbachev refused to press the button launching a counter-strike - "Not even for training purposes."

Both were accepting of the Kennedy-era nuclear weapons expert Wiesner's scientific evaluation that "50 nuclear weapons would put a society out of business, and 300 would terminate civilization." Meanwhile, both were aware that at the height and meaninful parity, the total between them amounted to over 60,000 hydrogen bombs. Any more than the amount suffcient to wipe out civilization would simply "bounce the rubble" and make the atmosphere more toxic. Moreover, the effect un the planet's integrity is completely unknown at the levels of total launch - perhaps the creation of a new asteroid belt three orbits from the sun.

These two unlikely leaders were not part of the political consensus of their nations, and for a brief period while they held power in tandem, and inspired by the possibilities of each other, sought disarmament on a scale that unnerved their respective advisers, caught in the paradigm of 40 years of Cold War unthinking.

No leadership since, Democratic or Republican, has been as willing to break with the delusion of winning wars of some sort using nuclear weapons - but Reagan did, as early as a 1983 speech in Japan where he pronounced the Presidential heresy no one since has uttered - "Nuclear war is unwinnable."

Schell's credentials as a liberal, are of course impeccable. Thus is it that division of good and evil does not run between people but inside of them, as remarked astutely by another poster.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 24, 2007 7:09 PM

N.M.

Reagan will get no pass from me. Under his leadership and revulsion of atomic weapons we created an atomic arsenal large enough to destroy the world 400 times over. Sorry but the man is no saint to me and I cannot reconsider someone that did a lot of the horrible things he did. That's not to say that I think he was evil, just extremely misguided.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 24, 2007 7:52 PM

Aaron,

I know that we outspent the Russians and that was a contributing factor to the end of the cold war. But we are modernizing and adding to our arsenal as well.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1207-05.htm
Granted it is a left wing website but the news of our own nuclear development is accurate.

It does matter. His build up was one of the fundamental reasons so many domestic programs were cut which left out veterans and the poor, not to mention astronomically increase our own military industrial complex. No one wanted nuclear war and it was not going to happen under his watch. His bragging and constant ego did not help matters despite his misgivings about nuclear war.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 24, 2007 9:07 PM

"Capitalism's expression is not necessarily to love the truth - look at the mass deceit of today's manipulative and completely materialistic marketplace - it's all about the almighty buck, not the Almighty."

Who said capitalism was perfect? I didn't. But when the prophets railed against injustice, they talked about the widows and orphans (Most of Israel's poor), not high school dropouts and those who had children out of wedlock (Most of America's poor). And they called for the rich to stop throwing them off their land, stop killing them, using untruthful scales and stealing what little possessions they had (How many scrawny, nerdy silicon valley millionaires and overweight CEO's are venturing into inner-city neighborhoods killing people, and seizing their houses? Well, on the last point, there actually is something - the vast expansion of eminent domain, which has been championed by the left and strongly opposed by the right) . They did not issue a single call for higher taxes, for wage and price controls, or a more equitable distribution of wealth. I keep on hearing things like the minimum wage isn't enough to support a family on. Well, raising a family and having a sucessful marriage is a lot harder than finishing school and learning a marketable skill that makes one's labor worth more than the minimum wage. So why the expectation that someone who doesn't feel like doing the latter is still entitled to "a living wage?"

"I'd like to ask those who revel in the majority support of their particular religious expression to take to heart Jesus' clear warning that the path to salvation is narrow and that few find it. Democracy, while a valuable institution, does not in itself determine morality. Often, as Frederick Douglas observed, "the man who is right is a majority," regardless of numbers"

You said SoJo and ESA were the wave of the future. My point was that they are not.

Posted by: Brent | November 24, 2007 9:33 PM

Who said anything was the "wave of the Future?" Not I!

Please don't react in knee-jerk fashion as it's not conducive to reason and leads to error.

It's easy to imagine winning arguments with imaginary opponents!

I don't appreciate the constant reference to illegitimacy as if that automatically means people are inferior or at fault for sinful structures beyond their control- when CEOs make 4,000 times the income of those they employ - not finding that enough and offshoring employment elsewhere so they can make that ratio even higher. I take it personally and I can assure you your prejudice is misplaced and just another instance of convenient scapegoating.

Capitalism isn't necessarily a handmaiden to conservative nationalistic religion either; it's completely self-absorbed and selfish. It'll pitch patriotism as long as that's profitable -and when it's not, sell to the highest bidder instead - and you down the river.

As for nuclear missile hegemony - just when do you expect any occupying army to arrive and take over? A famous general of our own said God forbid we should ever get into a war, win it and have to occupy the Soviet Union - it would finish us. We can't even do the empire thing in the Middle East as "the greatest nation the earth has ever known," so what threat could there be for a "Red Dawn" scenario by any lesser power? Are nukes appropriate to defend from the itinerant labor migrations that the cro-magnon wing of the GOP's ludicrously calls an invasion?

Get a grip people; we are completely losing our minds.

Prayer and asking Jesus to give us a healthy dose of the Holy Spirit would be a start!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 24, 2007 11:10 PM

Who said capitalism was perfect? I didn't. But when the prophets railed against injustice, they talked about the widows and orphans (Most of Israel's poor), not high school dropouts and those who had children out of wedlock (Most of America's poor). And they called for the rich to stop throwing them off their land, stop killing them, using untruthful scales and stealing what little possessions they had (How many scrawny, nerdy silicon valley millionaires and overweight CEO's are venturing into inner-city neighborhoods killing people, and seizing their houses?

You said SoJo and ESA were the wave of the future. My point was that they are not.

I said that and still believe it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 25, 2007 12:20 AM

"Reagan created the Department of Veterans Affairs, Entitlement Spending more then doubled in his 8 years as president from just under 200 billion to over $400 billion, also note, that with the exception of the senate until 1986, Reagan had to have his budgets passed by an unfriendly congress so if Reagan's "cuts" were so horrible, the Democrats have to share responsibillity as well."

YOu will get no argument from me. The democrats are spineless. But Reagan deserves most of the blame. It was his idea to cut them. He had to because he built a large stockpile that we could not pay for. So before you go praising him too much he hurt a lot of people namely our military and our veterans.

Bases Closures, a/k/a "BRACs". The central vehicle by which to implement the post-1988 Bush/Clinton/Bush policy, championed by every Defense Secretary since 1988, is to "downsize" the Department of Defense's industrial infrastructure and their corresponding, heavy costs through the shedding of unproductive or unneeded real estate, e.g., "base closures." Programmatically, this latest era of base closure efforts was initiated by then-Reagan Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci in 1988. In the decade of the 1990s, the Department "closed" roughly 21% -- approximately 100 -- of its existing installations through four "rounds" of decisions by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. These real estate properties are handled under special rules unique to the BRAC process. Under current law, there will be another "round" of base closures in 2005. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, echoing then-Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen, stated that the 2005 round will close 25% of the current infrastructure; i.e., more military real estate in 2005 than in the four base closure rounds in the 1980s and 1990s, combined.

I got that from here.
http://www.baseclosures.com/mrep.html

p

Posted by: payshun | November 25, 2007 1:43 AM

I am quoting this from a decent article that praises him for some of his strengths and criticizes him for his weaknesses. I will be honest I am not a fan. Reagan was one of the most corrupt presidents in American history. But I can see some of the good he sought to create. This article does a good job showing the negative part of his legacy.

"And now comes the most serious of all the
ironies of the Reagan years, because restoring
the image and reality of American power was
the single most consistent and, in a way,
successful theme of the Reagan presidency.

The sweeping economic program pushed single-
mindedly through Congress during his
first year, the unflinching determination to
lower taxes as a spur to productivity and to
wring inflation out of the system, the repeated
real increases in the defense budget all were
designed to rebuild the country's economic,
political, and military power. And yet despite
his short-term success in increasing America's
actual or currently available power, Reagan
may well be remembered as the president who
inflicted the most serious injury ever on the
country's latent or potential power over the
long term. It is an injury that may yet
overwhelm the other positive developments of
his stewardship.

The relevant statistics are truly chilling.
During the Reagan presidency, budget deficits
grew from occasional, nominal amounts to
annual levels eight to ten times anything seen
in the postwar era. The national debt tripled
to $2.8 trillion, not far short of a year's gross
national product and almost as large as the
debt incurred fighting World War II; it
amounts to $11,000 for every American. The
annual interest on that debt is now $154
billion and growing steadily since the government
is borrowing more than that each
year to help pay it. One-half of personal
income tax revenue in America this year will
go to pay interest on the debt, at great cost to
so-called discretionary spending in the federal
budget.

It has been said that Reagan's underlying
strategy was to deficit spend in order to pull
the fiscal plug on the welfare state: When the
country could no longer afford it, programs
like Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
school-lunch funding, Medicare, and
other social programs would simply be shut
down. But the problem, even for those with
that conservative social agenda, is that insolvency
will destroy defense and foreign-policy
spending just as surely as domestic spending.
Already the tools of statecraft are being
stripped from the policymaker's hand:

p

Posted by: payshun | November 25, 2007 1:59 AM

Something extremely ugly is happening in our United States.

Something ugly is happening in our national body of Christ.

Fear and hatred are coming to characterize our hearts.

When will man learn to love man even as our Savior has and does?

We don't have to be "get brutal" "conservatives" or "sloppy agape" "liberals."

Can't we be personally tough enough to stand up for love and redemption and as personal e