Socially Conservative Film Shapes GOP Presidential Race for 2012

Those of us on conservative right are refusing to rest on the laurels of the 2010 election results, and already some have a plan to drive the dialogue as the presidential primary season begins. A group of Christian conservatives and film-industry professionals will be bringing social issues to the forefront of the GOP's presidential nomination process by scheduling the red-carpet previews of their controversial film, The Genesis Code, smack dab in the middle of both the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses. The movie has already earned mentions on Drudge (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/01/25/sharron-angle-heads-to-iowa.aspx or http://drudgereport.com/) and Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Angle_to_Iowa.html?showall) for getting Sharron Angle to appear as a VIP at the Iowa screening, and it seems like that's just the beginning of the controversy it will generate.


The Genesis Code picks fights on three major social issues: science vs faith, the discrimination against Christians on college campuses, and the right to life. To view the trailer for the film, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p4Cs_QkwsM

These guys mean business. This is the first endeavor of American Epic Entertainment, a production company aimed at producing well-made, family-friendly Christian films that shape our culture. The Genesis Code boasts a stellar production quality and a star-studded cast including Fred Thompson, Catherine Hicks of 7th Heaven, and Academy Award winners Ernest Borgnine and Louise Fletcher. The film will hit theaters across the country this February.

Each candidate must now step up to the line in the sand that grassroots conservatives have drawn in order to secure a chance at the presidency. Even though the revolt against big spending has been hogging the political headlines during the past years, The Genesis Code shows that these social issues are still just as potent as ever for voters. For the latest updates on the movie and the ripples it's been making in the political waters, visit the movie's blog here: http://blog.thegenesiscodemovie.com/

Compassionate Conservativism

Smaller Government


For those who don’t remember, early in the 2000 presidential campaign there was a divide in the Republican party over the use of the term “compassionate conservative”. For many in the party, the need for the distinction was quite obvious. Conservatives were mean, unless they were the religious type, and that type were just extremists. Perhaps you know the concept better from a popular illustration. “Regular” conservatives wanted to teach the poor to fish, while liberals wanted to give the poor fish to eat. Conservative pointed out that at liberals were foolish, because they would need to keep feeding the poor everyday for the rest of their lives and their children and grandchildren as well. In essence, they would become permanent wards of the state and loyal voters fearful of losing their handouts. This was contrary to the American dream. What about hard work? Rugged individualism? Self reliance? To only feed a man a fish was to subjugate him to near slave status and to be at the mercy of others. It robbed him of dignity and the ability to achieve his right to the pursuit of happiness. Liberalism, it was reasoned, was wholly un-American.
Liberals of course, scoffed at such a view. So, they argued, a man and his family will starve to death while taking fishing lessons from someone who takes the fish he does catch and deducts the cost for the pole or nets and the training and then takes his profit off the top. This leaves the man with mere scraps with which to feed his family. The greedy fisherman who owns the boat and hires the man lives in luxury and profits greatly while the man who is desperate has no clout and must take what he gets. Is this the “brotherly love” conservative claim to champion? Is this the American way? Must a man live in poverty his whole life while making someone else wealthy off of his sweat? This seems to resemble slavery as well.
For the morally conservative in the Republican party, this was a serious issue. These conservatives were conscious of the PR image that they were fighting. Americans may as a whole be politically ignorant, but they recognizing injustice and compassion when they see it. Neither solution of “teaching” or “feeding” were sufficient; but if only one was to be chosen, a man needs to eat first if he is to have the strength to work. Perhaps this will explain the liberal’s argument about free school breakfast and lunches in public schools.
Enter the term “Compassionate Conservative”. Why not do both! Genius! If we allow welfare, but limit its duration and require the recipient to seek employment, it’s a win-win. A “kinder and gentler” America.
Other Republicans were aghast. The term “Conservative” does not need a qualifier. How dare anyone suggest that there was a need for the adjective “compassionate”. It was self evident. The true definition of conservatism was dripping with compassion. To suggest the need for the adjective compassionate was to concede the point to liberals. This became a struggle over who could be more “compassionate”? Conservative Republicans would thus join battle on the Liberal Democrats terms. A battle conservatives were sure to lose.
Today we are poised to fight this battle once again. As conservatives gain more and more control in congress, the question of compassion will return. How can Republicans cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the budget without hurting the poor and needy?
The answer is not simply to preach self-reliance, but to focus on what the Founding Fathers witnessed firsthand. Christian Charity. Liberals have done their best to remove the concept of individual charitable acts. They reasoned that only governments could and should address the inequalities in society. Too many Americans were fine with passing off the responsibility of showing compassion to neighbors or strangers. What’s a few extra buck in taxes if it frees me up on weekends from working at the soup kitchen? If Conservatives in Washington are going to have success, it falls to conservatives on main street to step up and step into the lives of people they may not yet know exist.
Let’s practice what we preach.

Wonders Never Cease

As a former UAW member, I was never happy that a part of my union dues went to support causes and political candidates that I disagreed with. Sure, there was a way to opt out, but that would be like wearing an “I hate my union” t-shirt to work every day. Not exactly a safe move.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, I found it hard to figure how the UAW, the union that represented hundreds of thousands of auto workers, could support Democratic candidate Al Gore. Vice President Gore had plainly stated that his goal was to “eliminate the combustion engine”. The UAW was basically supporting the candidate that would do the most harm to it’s members. What remarkable loyalty the members had. Nobody seemed to question the paradox.
Still, I do remember that back in the 1980’s, these same voters decided they had enough of the Democratic Party and overwhelmingly supported Reagan, despite the orders from the union bosses. But that brief flirtation with independence did not last. With the election of Reagan came the decline of the union movement, a trend that still continues to this day.
The oddity is that most union members are supporters of the right to bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment. They actually lean 50/50 on Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. They are overwhelmingly against gay marriage and they see illegal immigration as a serious issue.
So how in the world do so many union members allow their union dues to support candidates with view opposite their own? A better question is why so many members vote in obedience to orders from above? The Answer is about the pocket book. When it comes to people’s paychecks, they will tend to sacrifice other principles to ensure their lifestyle.
So now we have illegal drug use. The Sacramento Bee reports that the Teamsters Union has forty new members. The Teamsters are now representing the marijuana growers in California. If I were a Teamsters member, I am not sure how I could continue to support my union when it protects illegal activities. Well, OK, I suppose there is some historical precedence. But still, unions supporting drug growers? Why not organize the Coyotes that bring illegal immigrants over the border. Now there’s a job that is underappreciated.
As long as Union bosses continue to find new members from the fringe of society, it will continue to alienate the general population as a whole.

Obama Goes to Church

News Flash!!!
According to the Drudge Report, President Obama is going to church!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Oh, to be a liberal/progressive/Democrat. They were certain that they had elected anything but a church goer. Sure he went to Rev. Wright’s church, but he admitted he never listened to a single sermon. Otherwise he would have heard the hate speech flowing from the pulpit. Twenty years in the pew and not one memory of the Pastor’s “Hate America” diatribes.
We have since learned that nearly half of America is not certain if Obama is a “Christian” at all. A huge chunk of the populous thinks he might be a Muslim. He actually was schooled in Muslim education system in his early childhood. Then again, I know a few friends of mine that went to a Catholic elementary school, and I don’t think the Catholic Church would put them up as poster children. The only serious caveat is that to real Muslims, you are born a Muslim by having a Muslim father. You cannot choose your religion after that. Either you are faithful or you are an infidel. I think Muslims around the world are just as confused as Christians in America are.
The ones with the best clue might be Europeans. They have had nearly a century of “Christian” political leaders that one would have a difficult time identifying due to their lifestyle. One of my favorite measuring sticks for determining if someone is a Christian is twofold. First Imagine that it is illegal to be a Christian under penalty of death. First, would a person boldly claim to be guilty? A real Non-Christian would say “NO”. A real Christian would have to decide if they were willing to die for their faith. However, there is a second step. If a person were to admit such a thing, the court appointed lawyer would plead that her client were mentally unstable and the plea should be disregarded. The court would then enter a plea of not guilty due to insanity. Then there would be a presenting of evidence. Here is where things get dicey. Think of all your friends, family and co-workers. If they all had to testify on your behalf, what would they say? Some would think they were doing you a favor by presenting evidence that you were anything but a “real” Christian. Authorities might search your home to discover a Bible, only to have your defense lawyer show that it was rarely ever was opened.
Under this scenario, we return to the analysis of Obama going to church. He walked to the service with his family. Anyone with a clue in politics realizes that this is nothing more than a photo op. So the bigger question is, why? What polling numbers told Obama’s political strategists that he needed to create a new image? So many of his supporters are agnostics, atheists and at most, members of liberal Christian denominations. This means that a great percentage of his base either does not attend church services, or at best go a handful of times a year. Just going to a church service pushes Obama to the political middle. This has to be bad news to his Progressive Left supporters. Then again, maybe it is the fact that his “army” of supporters has abandoned him already, and he has decided to move to the middle like President Clinton did after losing Washington to Newt in 1994.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for someone going to church. However, real Christians know that going to a nice building has nothing to do with going to church. In fact you can’t “go to” church, you can only be a “part of” the church. So the question is what is President Obama bringing to the “body” of the church? This is where he has his most difficult challenge. From those who have much, much is expected. He is arguably the most powerful man in the world. What is he doing to promote the Great Commission? All religions have something similar to the Golden Rule, but the Gospel of Christ being spread to the ends of the earth is the responsibility of each member of the body of Christ. I don’t believe that President Obama has any clue in this area. When Obama and McCain both accepted an invitation to meet with Rick Warren. It was McCain who was able to “speak the language” that Evangelical Christians recognize. Obama seemed lost. It was this event and the introduction of Sarah Palin that solidified the Religious Right’s continued support of the Republicans in November of 2008. This is something Republicans should not take for granted. Mitt Romney is still not considered a Christian by most Evangelicals.
I don’t anticipate Chris Mathews leading off his Sunday show with this breaking news of Obama’s new conversion. It is more likely meant to be used by Whitehouse mouthpiece Gibbs at some later date to show how “normal” Obama is. No longer can opponents say there is no “proof” that his is a Christian. Symbolism over substance. I once told a friend that I think 2008 is likely to be the last election where both major candidates fell the necessity to claim to be a Christian. I might be wrong by one presidential election cycle.

Too Smart by Half
It is unwise to give the Obama economic team "points for intellectual progress". You may have heard it said that even the Devil believes in God, but that doesn't seem to change his behavior any. Obama may now believe in tax cuts to spur the economy, but it does not change the basic fact that he is a Liberal or Socialist or Progressive or however you want to label big government intervention.
If you are taking the nation’s economy in the wrong direction, the smart thing would be to turn around and go back the opposite way. This is called “doing a 180”. Being too smart by half means you do the 180, only to continue another 90 degrees until you are now heading 90 degrees off on some economic tangent. In policy terms, this means implementing tax cuts, but erasing the positive affects by not making them permanent and raising other taxes that are more burdensome than the ones temporarily being lifted.
I hesitate to call it common sense, because I have come to realize that it is not as common as one would hope. Nevertheless, the average Joe has enough brains to realize that getting a bonus check at Christmas may allow for one time splurge in spending, but it does not translate into increased purchasing power on a permanent basis. Banks have now returned to the practice of requiring proof of earnings before awarding loans. This is why getting a small raise from an employer has a greater impact on an individuals behavior than the annual Christmas bonus. If my income goes up by five percent, assuming my bills are paid, I can increase my spending by five percent. A bonus check is most often unpredictable in its amount, and in the past few years, it has been uncertain whether it will even be forthcoming.
Common sense business practices use a simple mental calculation. On a scale of one to five you are one of the following:
1. Certain of unprofitability in the next year
2. Uncertain but likely to be unprofitable
3. Certain to break even
4. Uncertain, but likely to be profitable
5. Certain of profitability
The energy that moves decision making forward in a business is certainty. Even being certain of unprofitability it preferable to any form of uncertainty. Being able to predict or forecast allow for planning. Planning means strategic decisions and finding opportunity for taking risk. Uncertainty kills risk. No risk means no reward. If the economy is slow and business is unprofitable, two other factors come into play. The opportunity to eliminate waste presents itself and you can emerge better suited to take advantage of the next business upturn. More importantly, it is fairly certain that your competitors are also facing the same struggles. This is often where the men are separated from the boys. The weak or poorly run competitors go out of business. Again, this proves to be a positive when the next upturn comes.
Certainty of breaking even is like kissing your sister. Very undesirable, but it won’t kill you.
Certainty of Profitability is ideal. Too often it leads to complacency, excess and visions of infallibility, but that is the nature of man.
Uncertainty of any kind leads to hesitancy. It also leads to internal division within a company where marketing and R&D scream for more spending and the Accounting Department says “wait”. In the end, people start guessing and mistakes get made.
So now the Obama economic team wants to embrace some tax cuts, but implement new ones. At the same time, they want to let some Bush tax cuts expire but target renewing others, creating a winners and losers list. Each business lives with uncertainty whether they will be a winner or loser. This is on top of the uncertainty of the healthcare legislation and the possible increase in taxes coming from environmental legislation.
Too smart by half is doing the right thing in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Tax cuts that do not create certainty in income miss the point. Tax cuts that pick winners while punishing losers with tax increases creates division and uncertainty, because there is no guarantee anyone will stay on the winners list. (insert lobbyists here)
Republicans need to say to the Obama economic team, “either do it right or don’t do it at all”. What should not happened is for Hillary to run in 2012 claiming that they tried tax cuts in 2010 and they didn’t work. Let’s hope the Republican economic team is NOT too smart by half.

Lt. Gov. Cherry Reads the Tea Leaves

When former Michigan Governor John Engler left office, he left a state that was looking good in most categories. This is not to say that he was a tremendous success. Personally, I believe he joined neighboring Republican Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin in foolishly growing the size and scope of government to a point that forced any successor to tighten the reigns. His Lieutenant Governor, Dick Posthumus had to run shouldering the enormous weight of resentment that Engler had created.
His eventual successor was a tax and spend liberal with great political savvy. Still, after eight years of watching Michigan emulate the Detroit Lions as fighting for worst position amongst its rivals, Governor Jennifer Gandholm leaves a legacy of abject failure. Her re-election campaign in 2006 managed to convince voters that she had no responsibility for the decline in all aspects of measured success. She managed to run on the message… “It’s Bush’s fault”.
There comes a point that a politician needs to own up to their failures and successes. There are many of the former and few of the later. John Cherry, Governor Grandholm’s Lieutenant Governor has wisely seen the writing on the wall. No one like to end on a sour note. The mood of the electorate seems to promise harsh treatment to Democratic candidates in the 2010 elections. As a seasoned politician, Cherry realizes that sometimes the best way to win is to not run.
What is amazing is the number of also-rans that seems to want to join the fray on the Democratic ticket. House Speaker Andy Dillon seems like the most likely leader in the Primary race. Still, no matter who wins, they will have to answer one question: “How do you measure the results of the Grandholm administration after eight years?” Like the Detroit Lions of the NFL, repeated years of finishing last make promises of success seem hollow. Like Lion’s fans on Sunday afternoon, Democratic party voters may refuse to show up to vote on election day.

No Hoekstra in Illinois

The hate Bush/America crowd that worked up their base into a frenzy, managed to get Barak Obama to promise if elected, to close Guantanamo (Gitmo) prison within a year. We have learned now, that Obama believes that the government should run like a community organization. He, as the community organizer should simply be able to give a motivational speech, and others should be inspired to follow his dream. Well, wake up. This is reality. Obama never really had a plan as to what to do with the prisoners. He assumed that other people would volunteer to solve the problem. That’s what happens in the NGOs and other organizations that Obama has a history with. In fact, the ideal solution to all public policy issues is to first have a community organization get its network to find a voluntary solution. Likeminded, loosely connected organizations that all favor a socialist (progressive) agenda are able to find someone for every particular need. Don’t be offended by this idea. The Christian Church was founded on this principle. If however, the voluntary solution proves limited or slow in results, then legislative action is pursued. Finally, if that fails, then a direct appeal to the judicial activism will trump all.
The Obama administration honestly believed that they merely had to speak to closing Gitmo and liberal states would step up to the plate. This did happen. Many states like Michigan volunteered to take the problem off Obama’s hands. Then we the people spoke. It became apparent very quickly that most Americans had a problem with bringing terrorists to the states and treating them as common criminals with the protections of the constitution. After being shot down in all other states, Obama returned to his home state, where politics is done with twisted arms and purchased favors, to find a solution.
Congratulations Illinois. Your former senator, now president is gifting you with the lowest and most dangerous type of humans; those that take innocent life with pride. Michigan citizens should feel great pride in themselves for standing up and resisting. But even more so, they owe a great debt of gratitude to U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra for fighting so aggressively to keep Michigan from being the volunteer to solve Obama’s Gitmo problem.