You Probably Ought Not Vote if....

You probably ought not vote if…

--you are clueless about Pardongate

--if you think the last impeachment was about Monica Lewinsky

--if your only source of news are the networks, BBC, NPR, Rachel Maddow, Huffington Post, and comedy shows

--if you don’t know how North Korea got their nuclear technology

--if you think that George W. Bush killed more people than Communist regimes or that Saddam Hussein was not involved in international terrorism

--if you don’t know who the Arkansas state Attorney General was when Juanita Broddrick was raped

--if you think that the only black lives that matter are those African Americans killed by white cops

--if you don’t understand how Hillary Clinton’s private server was important for Clinton financial gain

 --if you thought it was a great idea to pressure Mubarak to step down

--if you don’t know WHY Hillary Clinton suggested that the Benghazi disaster was the result of an inflammatory youtube video, or why the U.S. even had personnel in Benghazi when all other allies had al

ready abandoned the city, or how Clinton friend Sydney Blumenthal’s financial partnership with a pro-Clinton non-profit factored into it all

Wedding Bands and Flags: Symbology and Meaning

It's just some metal mined out of the earth, molded and polished into a circle. It has no inherent meaning. You can throw it down the drain if you want. No need to get all upset if your spouse throws it away.

And that's how some people view our current controversy about respect for the American flag. The flag itself has no inherent value. It's made of threads,dies, and cloth. No need to get all upset if people trample on it or show it no respect.

These statements are true enough so far as the raw materials are concerned. Yet behind the reductionism lies a symbology that deserves recognition and even materialization with all due respect. The previous generation understood the connection of symbol and material. They honored the American flag because it represented something important to them; conversely, they hated the Nazi flag because of its represented meaning.

Our society is a symbological society. We're proud to wear ball caps with our team's symbol. Roll up a few sleeves and you'll see tattoos of all kinds of symbols. We spot our favorite restaurant on a busy highway by its trademark symbol. Graphic designers make big bucks designing logos. Words have been replaced by icons in digital interface. Legislators remove Confederate flags from state buildings, all because symbols have meaning.

Given the prevalence and popularity of symbols in this age, the demeaning of the symbol of American ideals is striking. Behind it is an anti-American movement, and in its wake are those Platonists who argue that the material is nothing.

Those who uphold traditional values do not ask people to do the extraordinary to respect the symbol. There's no movement to force people to buy gilded flags worth hundreds of dollars, or even to require that they fly them on certain days. Really, just a communal moment at national pastimes would be enough to express appreciation for the ideals represented by the symbol. And if certain people can't expend the energy to stand in respect of the symbol, then fine. But don't expect the rest of us to respect them and to say nothing in reply.

If the Top Guys Are This Bad, Might as Well Vote for the Long Shot

Because the front runners of the Republican candidates are equally flawed, you might as well vote for your favorite long-shot candidate.

Trump is no more dependably conservative than Romney was. The biggest difference between Trump and Romney is the 216 miles between I-95 that separates New York from Boston. The next biggest difference between them is that Trump is the wolf that barks the louder. And he wears a finer wool blend.

Cruz has most of the conservative bona fides. What he lacks is leadership. He seems to have been a pretty good litigator, but despite his big talk about stopping the Obama agenda, he was not even able to impact McConnell’s Senate, let alone slow down the Obama agenda. Cruz and a dozen other conservatives could have had a major influence on McConnell’s Senate if a leader had emerged to make the difference. People’s anger is high because people make promises to get elected to Washington but then fail to deliver, and Cruz is the premier example.

So, there you have it. Vote for the erratic Donald Trump who is yet another conservative of convenience like Romney, or vote for a big talking freshman senator who hasn’t yet delivered. Trumps problems offset Cruz’s failures. Both men are equally flawed candidates. If the nomination is ultimately between these two, then why bother.

If neither of the front runners is better than the other, we might as well vote for the long-shot candidate, if the long-shot candidate is highly qualified and who is strongly committed to the conservative agenda.

In 1994, Rick Santorum came into the 435-member House of Representatives as a freshman congressman. He worked with seven other congressional delegates to expose the scandalous practices of the House Bank, working against nearly all incumbent representatives, including Newt Gingrich, but doing so in a way that made a huge impact on the House.

Why Freshmen Senators Should Rethink their Run for the Presidency

Ted Cruz was the keynote speaker for the IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANS conference, September 2015. No doubt he figured this would be a friendly audience. He should, however, have done some more homework before speaking.

The audience consisted of a wide range of Christians, mostly from the Middle East, and not your average Southern Baptist gathering in Texas. Attendees had worked hard over the previous 48 hours of the conference to unite to promote the well-being of persecuted Christians. It seems that Cruz was unaware that a large number of Christians do not have a friendly disposition toward Jews. I am no presidential candidate, but even I know this.

With all due insensitivity for his audience, Cruz repeatedly made comments that Israel is the greatest friend to Christians, that if you hate Jews then you oppose Jesus, and that if anyone opposes Israel then Ted will oppose them. He was booed off the stage.

Frankly, Cruz was sophomorish in this appearance. In light of audience protestations, a speaker should make concessions whenever possible, express a measure of understanding for the protesters’ concerns, and then proceed rationally. Cruz became flustered and abruptly ended his speech with an insult and a feigned “God bless you.”

I’m not sure that Cruz’s personal theology would have allowed a truly evangelical response to this crowd. Clearly, many in the crowd thought that Israel has been more at fault than not. An evangelical response would be to condemn Israel when Israel is at fault, and support Israel when in the right. Even the biblical prophets condemned Israel’s kings, prophets, judges, priests, teachers, and nobles when they were in the wrong (see, for example, Micah 2-3). Some deviant positions within the American church would suggest that the US should never condemn Israel, that the US should support Israel right or wrong.

In my perspective, Israel is the United States’ most reliable ally. It is the most democratic state in the region and upholds American values better than any other country in the region. It is also the region’s most stable country. All things considered, America would be wise to strengthen its ties with Israel and to provide all due protection for Israel’s security. This is a pragmatic perspective, and not an ideological perspective. If Israel was the problem, security agreements with Israel should be reviewed, by all means.

Some Christians allow a certain apocalyptic interpretation of the Bible to influence foreign policy.

Many questions remain about Cruz’s theology, especially in terms of End Times doctrine. Reliable analysis of Cruz’s theology seems unavailable. What we are left to say is that for whatever reason, Cruz left the IN DEFENSE OF CHRISTIANS conference in turmoil. Instead of advancing the conference’s goals of helping persecuted Christians, he did much to undo the reconciliation achieved in the previous two days of the conference.

The take away for this incident is that foreign diplomacy is tricky, and that Cruz is not quite ready for a prime time role as a peace maker. 

A Republican Candidate Expert in Foreign Affairs?

The lead paragraph of a January 4 news article reads, “The Middle East slid dangerously closer to regional conflict Monday after Saudi Arabia rallied its Sunni allies to sever diplomatic ties with Iran…” https://goo.gl/xGfqPs . This is but one of many flashpoints throughout the Middle East. Indeed, with the unprecedented entry of Russian military might in Syria and its belligerence toward NATO ally Turkey, the world teeters on the parapet of a possible international war with all the complexity of the First World War ratcheted up by the nuclear threat, whether by rogue nations or superpowers.

The volatility of the Middle East has taken American politics by surprise. There are a dozen Republicans running for president, yet the impetus behind these campaigns is domestic; there is only one of them with extensive interest, experience, and expertise in foreign relations. As Americans are forced to turn their electoral attention to foreign affairs, this sets up a general election scenario in which a Republican inexperienced in international relations may face a Democrat who happens to be a former Secretary of State.

Does your candidate know who Bani Sadr is? 

The debates and campaigns will turn on obscurities such as cities and regions, princes and foreign ministers, and apocalyptic theologies and clerics in internecine conflict. Secretary Clinton will likely know the name of the capital of Yemen and Qatar, and will be able to detail the significance of ISIS’ destruction of Aleppo, and what its conquest might say about the future of Assad. In contrast, does Donald Trump know anything about the Saudi royal family? Does Ben Carson understand how Yemen’s water crisis factors into its own civil war? Does Ted Cruz know the theological intricacies behind Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. Does Marco Rubio understand the pressure Turkey’s government feels from its own Islamic clerics? Hillary Clinton may have gotten all her policies wrong, but she spent several years dealing with these details daily and is fluent in them.

The sole Republican candidate who has expertise in foreign affairs is Rick Santorum. In a recent interview, a reporter pointed out to Santorum that in 2012 he was noted as the social conservative. Santorum’s reply was that at the time the news media seemed obsessed about social issues, and that he wished they had asked him about foreign affairs back them. The reality is that Santorum’s 2006 parting speech to the Senate focused on the Iranian threat. One analyst reported on it and wrote, “The day will come when we will re-read Santorum's words, and wish our leaders had listened” https://goo.gl/oc9Taa .

In his hiatus from politics, Santorum researched the Middle East as a Fellow at the Ethics for Public Policy and wrote 217 articles on the threat of Islamic terror and toured the country giving speeches to explain our situation. Even when all other Republicans were running away from any issue pertaining to Iran and Islamic terror in the 2006 election, Santorum stood on conviction, embracing it in every stump speech, sacrificing his bid for re-election for the sake of the truth. He was a leader in US-Israeli relations, and he authored both the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran Freedom and Support Act,” leading to the sanctions that the Obama administration recently nullified in its Iran-Nuke deal.

In addition to this, Santorum served on the Senate Armed Services Committee where he oversaw the modernization of the military in light of challenges arising from foreign affairs.

As Republicans turn their attention to primary season, they need to vet their candidates in light of these recent developments in foreign affairs. Given the administration’s failure to lead in the Middle East, and because of its incoherent foreign policy, the international relations is likely to rise in prominence in the mind of the electorate. Santorum is the only Republican fluent in these matters; he alone will be able to engage Hillary in debate over the intricacies of Middle East policies.

In a Dangerous World, Experience Matters

I suppose that the most serious international crisis in my lifetime was the coup d'état of Mikhail Gorbachev and the fall of the Soviet Union; picture Gorbachev caged up like a bird, surrounded by rebellious generals and tanks, and no one knowing where the nuclear football was.

Regardless of one's personal view of George H.W. Bush, the world had at the American helm in this extremely volatile time someone with these credentials:

• Eight years as Vice President
• Several years as the U.N. ambassador, 
• Two terms in congress, 
• Head of the C.I.A., 
• Special envoy to China that prepared the momentous opening of that country for President Nixon
• World War II hero as well.

The world is a dangerous place. President Obama ran for president with less than four years in office as a Senator. Senators Cruz, Paul, and Rubio are no different. If they are elected, we will again be offering on-the-job training to them.

I understand the appeal of supporting candidates who hold conservative positions, but in this case, the differences between Santorum and these other conservatives do not outweigh the experience factor. Consider Santorum's credentials:

• Two terms in Congress (in freshman term exposed the House Bank Scandal--Gang of Seven)
• Two terms in Senate
• Third highest ranking Republican at age 43 (one and two years younger than Cruz and Rubio at present)
• Chair of the Armed Services Committee in an era of military modernization
• CEO of Film Production Company EchoLight Studio
• Fellow at Ethics for Public Policy Center where he authored over 200 articles on the Middle East and Radical Islam (The Gathering Storm)

Conservatives might disagree with a policy or two, or a decision or two in Santorum's storied career. But all in all, the combination of the right positions, and level of experience, and record of accomplishment easily makes Santorum a top pick for the Republican nomination.

Art of the Deal and Effective Leadership: Trump vs. Santorum

Donald Trump, they say, channels anger. I think it’s a fair assessment. His supporters might just say that it’s part of the “Art of the Deal.” Channeling anger, however, is not how one forges the kind of alliances that are necessary to get things done in Washington. Trump comes across as if he thinks he can bully his way through Washington to “make America great again.”

Lions need a pride

To be sure, Republicans are tired of their leaders being so sheep-like; gone are the days that a House Speaker (namely, Paul Ryan) might be forgiven for backing the Obama spending bill of 2015. Republicans are eager to rally around the lion’s roar, and they hunger for red meat. I think this explains much of the Trump appeal.

Yet, Republicans need to understand that Trump tactics, no matter how taut he ratchets up the rhetoric, will be met with fierce Democrat resistance. Trump may divinely pronounce “Let there be light,” but he’ll need some Democrat help in flipping the switch. Things simply do not happen in America by presidential fiat. Trump’s art of the deal with leave America in the dark.

Alliances are necessary to make America great again

This approach to the “art of the deal” stands in stark contrast with the more considered and effective approach seen in Santorum’s storied career as a legislator. I was watching a Senate floor debate from 2003 between Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton (Santorum-Clinton-Harkin Partial Birth Abortion Debate ). I was impressed with Santorum’s “art of the deal” tactics which graced the debate. He did not call Hillary an idiot or Tom Harkin ignorant. He did not appeal to the basest of our red-meat cravings. Yet, in the end, he managed to forge the kinds of allegiances with enough Democrats to pass the ban, thus correcting a bad ruling by the Supreme Court.

In the debate, I was impressed at how gracious Santorum was in “sharing” his time with Clinton and Harkin, and how he showed that he understood their point by restating their concerns. He made rhetorical concessions when he could and was regularly deferential. He did not throw down gauntlets and get red in the face. Yet he consistently stood his ground, and did so on substance. This is real “art of the deal” material.

Santorum shows that he is a faithful negotiator. His opponents see him as respectful, and this makes for the kind of environment which promotes cooperation. This makes for effective leadership.