Friday, November 26, 2004

Just War, or just war?

Leading up to the war in Iraq, Evangelical Christians became perhaps the most enthusiastic advocates of imperium. Though “Just War theory” has often been abused by politicians, it is still an integral part of Christian ethics when examining issues of war and peace. Thus, one must ask, was the Iraq war “just” based on the criteria of historic Just War theory?

Lets look at a sampling of comments proffered by Evangelical leaders leading up to the war.

Henry Blackaby told Agape Press, "those who oppose the war to liberate Iraq need to read God's Word." Blackaby said "there is no question that the current war to liberate Iraq is a 'just' war -- according to biblical standards." Blackaby went on to say that those who stand in opposition to the president were courting the very judgment of God.

Writing in defense of preemptive military strikes in Christianity Today, Chuck Colson argued for a less restrictive understanding of Just War theory in the face of the terrorist threat. Remarkably, Colson says that it is, "out of love of neighbor, then, Christians can and should support a preemptive strike" when an attack is imminent. Try not to snicker, but Colson also wrote:

Of course, all of this presupposes solid intelligence and the goodwill of U.S. and Western leaders. I find it hard to believe that any President, aware of the awesome consequences of his decision and of the swiftness of second-guessing in a liberal democracy, would act recklessly.

Now then, I love Colson, but given that he believes in the total depravity of man and considering that he did time in the pokey for doing Nixon's dirty work, wouldn't you think he might be a bit more circumspect about executive branch power, and the abuse thereof?

D. James Kennedy remarked that church leaders opposed to the war "...always take the position of blaming America first for everything -- and everybody else is right." Kennedy went on to say:

Why any churchman would choose to support that rather than to support our own president, I don't know. I think that some of them are doing it for purely political reasons, and [because] they have a very strong liberal bias -- and George W. Bush is their favorite target. Anything he does, I think, in their eyes would be wrong.

On "Larry King Live," pastor John Macarthur said, in reference to the pending war, "I don't think we're starting a war. I think a war [has] already started. The only question is what are we going to [do with] a war that has already started."

Macarthur was obviously referring to an alleged link between the Iraqis and 9/11 (talk about bearing false witness against your neighbor!). I'm guessing that MacArthur was getting his information from the Weekly Standard, or perhaps the good folks at Worldly Magazine. In any event, he was wrong, and what we have here is yet another example of a pastor speaking about matters where he has limited expertise. The purported Atta-Iraqi link to which Macarthur is presumably referring was a story created and hyped by William Safire and other assorted hawks. However, the link was disproved early on--in fact, prior to the broadcast on which Macarthur appeared.

In a sermon at his Atlanta church, Charles Stanley defended the "war on terror." Stanley said that, "Throughout Scripture there is evidence that God favors war for divine reasons and sometimes uses it to accomplish His will. He has also given governments and their citizens very specific responsibilities in regards to this matter."

Naturally, Stanley did not try to justify this particular war and again directed his lisetners to Romans 13 and demanded they be good boys and girls. He asks, "How can we justify the protests and marches against war? I understand that, in America, for example, we have a right to express our different opinions. However, there comes a time when our personal opinion is not a priority. The only reason we have the freedom to protest in this country is because thousands were willing to die for that liberty in the past." Rather than relying on Scripture, Stanley resorts to vulgar patriotism here.

The most systematic attempt by Evangelicals to defend the Iraqi excursion from the perspective of Just War theory was an open letter organized by Richard Land and signed by Bill Bright, Carl Herbster, Colson, and Kennedy. Though the document reads like a David Letterman "Top Seven Reasons to Bomb Baghdad" list, I want to take a few moments to examine the rationale spun by leaders of the Christian Right for war.

Land and company write:

Just war requires authorization by legitimate authority. We believe it was wise and prudent for you to go before the U.N. General Assembly and ask the U.N. Security Council to enforce its own resolutions. However, as American citizens we believe that, however helpful a U.N. Security Council vote might be, the legitimate authority to authorize the use of U.S. military force is the government of the United States and that the authorizing vehicle is a declaration of war or a joint resolution of the Congress.

We also learn that attacking Iraq was a "defensive" war because Hussein "has attacked his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and harbored terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September 11, 2001."

Unfortunately, Congress never passed a formal declaration of war, or authorized any military action whatsoever. Even the sweeping Use of Force resolution approved by Congress three days after the attack on the World Trade Center falls short of authorizing military action against Iraq. The resolution, in part, reads:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The obvious problem is that we know that Iraq was NOT involved in orchestrating and planning the attacks on New York and Washington and that the Iraqis did NOT harbor al-Qaeda members. Jim Lobe, commenting on the 9/11 Commission, wrote:

While the commission, which has had access to highly classified U.S. intelligence, said that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had sought contacts with and support from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein after his expulsion from Sudan in 1994, those appeals were ignored.

Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," according to the commission's report, which was released Wednesday morning. It added that two senior al-Qaeda officials now in U.S. custody "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

Even Colin Powell eventually admitted (January 9th, 2004 edition of the NY Times) that even though he claimed otherwise in his address to the UN, there was no "smoking gun" linking Iraq and al-Qaeda. More importantly, despite the wild claims of the administration and its lackeys, there have to date been no significant findings of WMDs.

Land further writes that the attack was a last resort because:

Saddam Hussein has for more than a decade ignored Security Council resolutions or defied them while breaking virtually every agreement into which he has entered. He stands convicted by his own record as a brutal dictator who cannot be trusted to abide by any agreement he makes. And while he prevaricates and obfuscates, he continues to obtain and develop the weapons of mass destruction which he will use to terrorize the world community of nations.

Scott Ritter addressed this particular charge after the release of the report by the Iraq Survey Group. Ritter writes:

It is now clear that Iraq had in fact disarmed in compliance with security council resolutions. One of the tragic ironies of the decision to invade Iraq is that the Iraqi WMD declaration required by security council resolution 1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, now stands as the most accurate compilation of data yet assembled regarding Iraq's WMD programmes (more so than even Duelfer's ISG report, which contains much unsubstantiated speculation). Saddam Hussein has yet to be contradicted on a single point of substantive fact. Iraq had disarmed; no one wanted to accept that conclusion

As early as July 2002, Ritter was debunking the myths of the War Party. Land and his band of merry warriors could have stumbled into the truth with little more than a little intellectual curiosity and an Internet connection. In the Boston Globe, Ritter wrote the following:

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.

In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence.

UN chief weapon's inspector Hans Blix also called Iraqi cooperation proactive, and asked for several more months to finish his work.

Land also wrote that the invasion hued to Just War theory because of the "limited" goals stated by the administration. Land said that the "stated policies for disarming the murderous Iraqi dictator and destroying his weapons of mass destruction, while liberating the Iraqi people from his cruel and barbarous grip" were reasonable goals. Since we've already discussed the fact that Hussein did not need to be "disarmed," what about the promise of bringing liberty to Iraq? I would ask Dr. Land, who is very concerned with religious liberty, if our intervention has made life better for our Christian brethren in Iraq? (I think the answer is no. Click here, here, here and here for some details.)

As importantly, when did it become the obligation of the United States to secure "liberty" in other lands? Trying to find some plausible explanation for the war, Mr. Bush said that, "The establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. Our commitment to the global expansion of the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror is...the third pillar of security." Since when did "democratic revolution" become orthodoxy for Christians, or conservatives? Mr. Bush's rhetoric, which has been endorsed by Christian leaders, is Wilsonian and humanist to the core.

Contra the suggestion that God creates human beings to be free, Scripture affirms that we are slaves--either to sin or Christ. Our brethren who support the export of an ideological revolution divorced of the Gospel are succumbing to a heresy, plain and simple.

Finally, and most sadly, Land and his co-signers write that, "We are confident that our government, unlike Hussein, will not target civilians and will do all that it can to minimize noncombatant casualties." A just war requires that great care be taken to protect civilians from harm. Unfortunately, at least 15,000 civilians have perished in Iraq. And the medical journal Lancet, in conjunction with researchers at John's Hopkins, have concluded that up to 100,000 civilians have perished and that the liklihood of violent death is 58 times greater than in pre-war Iraq. Nothing like making the world safe for democracy.

Given that the war in Iraq was conceived in deception, lacked a mandate from the Congress, has created chaos in Iraq, and made America less safe, will our friends admit that they were wrong, or will they continue to serve as shills on behalf of the state?

Friday, November 19, 2004

Restoring the Family

Establishing a Christian culture will first require Christians to re-establish the centrality of the family. The family is the only institution of Paradise, and it is the preeminent institution in God’s economy. Indeed, we cannot understand God’s plan for us until we understand His plan for the family.

Consider, for example, the Ten Commandments. There is nothing pertaining directly to church or state therein, but several explicitly address family life. The imperative to honor our parents, and the prohibition of adultery and covetousness are intended to preserve the integrity of the family.

Moreover, the Bible often uses family terminology to describe the mysteries of the faith. For example, salvation is described as God’s adoption of His people. We see that Christ’s relationship to the Church is described as a marriage. Idolatry is frequently associated with adultery, and the idolater is synonymous with the harlot. Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.

We live in a virulently anti-family culture. For example, in 1970, just 36% of women ages twenty to twenty-four were unmarried. By 1995, 68% were in the "never married" category. Women are not just waiting longer to have children, but are conceiving fewer of them as well.

Meanwhile, divorce is rampant. The National Center for Health Statistics released a report which found that 43 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years. To our shame, “born again” Christians are as likely to be divorced as any other group.

What is to be done?

Resurrecting the family as an institution entails reclaiming numerous powers arrogated to it that have been usurped by the state. Chesterton once wrote that, "The ideal for which the family stands is liberty. It is the only institution that is at once necessary and voluntary. It is the only check on the state that is bound to renew itself as eternally as the state, and more naturally than the state."

Revolutionaries from Jacobins to Nazis to Bolsheviks have sought to control the future by controlling children. American liberals, and their ideological cousins, the Neocons, are no different with their propagandizing on behalf of universal daycare, expanded Headstart, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, messianic education and the whole panoply of statist programs looking to supplant mom and dad and become the universal parent.

One good place for Christians to begin is by removing their children from the public schools. As Christian parents, we ought not hand our children over to the enemy, and can anyone argue persuasively that these ignorance centers are anything other than godless?

Some Christians resort to the ludicrous argument that we must send our precious children into these Temples of Atheism so that they can be salt and light to a dying world. We must, they say, sacrifice our children to Molech in order to fulfill the cultural mandate. The problem with this argument is that the evangelism process usually works in reverse. The Nehemiah Institute has proven conclusively through its surveys of student beliefs and attitudes that acceptance of a secular humanist worldview by Christian children attending government schools has increased dramatically over the last fifteen years. Moreover, according to the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life, 88% of the children of Evangelical parents leave church at 18 and never return. Are we to assume that this sad state of affairs has no connection to the fact that secular public education divorces God from creation and science, history, mathematics, and philosophy?

Secondly, family authority over property must be restored. In the December issue of Chronicles, Steven Greenhut cites a report by the Institute of Justice documenting that localities have used or threatened to use eminent domain to benefit other private parties 10,000 times over the past five years. Invariably such land grabs entail a local government stealing the property of families and destroying neighborhoods for the benefit of large retailers like Wal-Mart.

Scripture is clear that all the earth belongs to the Lord (Ex. 19:5) and that He allows families to be stewards of His creation. In the Bible, we see that property is owned by families, not by the state or atomized individuals (see for example Naboth’s vineyard in I Kings 20). Importantly, the eminent domain of the state is clearly and directly forbidden in Scripture. In Ezekiel 46:18, we read, “The prince must not take any of the inheritance of the people, driving them off their property. He is to give his sons their inheritance out of his own property, so that none of my people will be separated from his property.' Indeed, God warned Israel that the eminent domain of the state was a consequence of apostasy. In I Sam. 8:14, God says that the king “will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.”

Like Naboth, Christians ought to realize that property is more than a product to be bought and sold. It is a place where homes are built, children are raised, memories are instilled, and the Word is taught. Christian families need to restore the ties that bind property, home, and kin.

Third, Christians must reclaim authority over inheritance and welfare. In the Old Testament, the eldest, godly son was entitled to a double portion. He then had primary responsibility to care for his parents. Scripture says that a wise and godly man will leave an inheritance for his grandchildren. Today, the state has usurped the role of the eldest son, demanding the double portion and promising to take care of mom and dad with Social Security and Medicare.

The apostle Paul says, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Today, the welfare state has supplanted the family as provider for our aged parents and the indigent. As Christians, we have allowed this state of affairs to prevail, and it is godless.

The family, has been given stewardship over children, authority over property and inheritance, and control over education. The family is also the institution preeminently responsible for social welfare. The early church did not depend on the Roman civil authorities to meet social needs. Likewise, we see Jesus on the cross with His dying words ensuring that His mother is taken care of by John (John 19:25-27). The modern State has encroached into all these areas that rightly fall under the purview of family government. Strong and stable families, jealously guarding their prerogatives, are the foundation of strong and stable communities, and only these mediating institutions can protect the naked individual from the maniacal, power-hungry State.

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Vengeance is Mine, Sayeth the Bush

The War Party is running a victory lap in the center of the Imperial City. Powell, Armitage, and the last remnants of foreign policy sanity are out, and the Neo-crazies have taken over.

Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice will be taking over the State Department. Her chief deputy is likely to be John Bolton, who promised Ariel Sharon that after Iraq had been taken care of (by the way, how's that going?) Syria, North Korea, and Iran are next on the hit parade (scroll to bottom for article).

Meanwhile, Rice is likely to be replaced at the NSC by Stephen Hadley. Hadley is best know for mysteriously forgetting to inform the president that the CIA had doubts about those "sixteen words" that showed up in the State of the Union address accusing Iraq of seeking nuclear materials from Nigeria.

Over at the CIA, a political and ideological Jihad is being directed at those elements that questioned administration policy. Knight Ridder reports that:

Three senior administration officials charged that Goss and his aides are carrying out a "White House-directed purge." One said it appears to be directed at "everybody who said there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaida and everybody who they think leaked information that undercut what the administration was claiming."

Many intelligence and other officials questioned the administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida, claims that subsequent investigations have found to be erroneous. They also challenged White House assessments about political and economic progress in Iraq.

Cheney, they said, was particularly angered by reports, first carried by Knight Ridder, that the CIA had been unable to find any conclusive evidence tying Saddam's regime to Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Cheney had ordered the CIA to take another look at possible links among Saddam, Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden, the official said, and was angered when a CIA briefer told him the results of the inquiry.

In short, the architects of Mesopatamian Madness have seized control of the policy apparatus, and are firmly in charge. Those who had hoped for a return to reality are going to be sorely disappointed.

Welcoming Jackson Thomas Dow

Kathy and I were blessed with the arrival of Jackson Thomas Dow on Monday, November 15th at 8:09 AM. Jack and mom are both doing well and should be home on Thursday. Jack tipped the scales at 8 lbs. 2 oz. and was 21.5 inches long. I very haphazardly posted a couple pictures on our website. More will be coming.

Saturday, November 13, 2004

The Week in Review

I covered some domestic politics below, so let's head overseas to see what is going on...

In case you missed it, Arafat died. While no one should lionize this thug, it might also do everyone some good to look past the lies being spread by his detractors. Since the failure at Camp David, a myth has arisen that Arafat was offered a fair deal by Barak and Clinton which would have created a viable Palestinian state. Take a look at the map of the actual proposal and you will quickly be disabused of that notion.

Meanwhile, the Israelis desecrated a church to arrest Mordechai Vanunu. Vanunu spilled the beans on the Israeli nuke program back in 1986. A convert to Christianity, Vanunu is not allowed to leave Israel. Strangely, it seems likely that American Christians would have more sympathy for Vanunu if he denied Christ and started reading the Talmud.

Maybe we should be restoring democracy to Europe. Belgium's highest court banned the Vlaams Blok, a Flemish independence party that was the largest party in the country. The reason: they are a bunch of racists!!

Conservative Votes, Liberal Victories

Looking to quickly capitalize on his election victory, George Bush bluntly extended an upright middle finger to the conservatives and Evangelicals who merrily and mindlessly put him back into office.

Shortly before the election, Steve Sailer wrote that the primary issue in the election was accountability, i.e., would there be any. Sailer feared, quite rightly, "…that if we re-elect Bush, we will be rewarding the kind of behavior we've seen for the last four years, and thus we will get more of it in the future." Alas, Sailer has been shown to be prophetic.

This week saw the administration set out on several fronts to provide amnesty to criminals…er, "undocumented workers." According to the Washington Times, Bush met with Senator McCain to discuss jump-starting a nation-destroying White House proposal to grant legal status to millions of lawbreakers who flouted American immigration laws.

Meanwhile, Colin Powell told the U.S.-Mexican Bi-National Commission that "the president is committed to comprehensive immigration reform as a high priority in his second term, and he will work closely with our Congress to achieve this goal."

Later in the week, Mr. Bush introduced Alberto Gonzales as his nominee to be the next Attorney General. With this nominee, the president has united the quislings at Focus on the Family, the 'Christian' Coalition, and National Right to Life Committee with the kooks at La Raza.

As a Supreme Court judge in Texas, Gonazles was instrumental in a decision that allowed an underage girl to procure "family planning services" without her parent's consent, in clear contravention of Texas' parental notification law. Gonzales is also supportive of racial preferences and quotas.

All I can say is, don't blame me, I voted for Peroutka.

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Morning Musings

Exporting the sexual revolution to Iraq. Apparently, promiscuity is on the rise in Iraq and providing "family planning services" is a burgeoning growth industry. War is an inherently revolutionary thing, yet "conservatives," who have jettisoned prudence as one of their defining virtues, think that "creative destruction" is a grand thing.

Paul Craig Roberts is mad. He writes that, "Bush's reelection has ended forever respect for America." That might be a bit strong. Indeed, the European critics of Bush, if anything, helped to solidify his support among Americans who don't really care what Euro elites think. We can only hope that Bush has learned something from the Iraq debacle, but we shouldn't be holding our breath.

Current estimates indicate that as many as 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the U. S. invasion. Meanwhile, the propagandists at Amnesty International have released a report indicating that, lo and behold, Saddam Hussein didn't actually kill hundreds of thousdands of Iraqis. The last report I saw indicated that 5,000 bodies had been found in "mass graves" in Iraq to date. Perhaps all those missing bodies were shipped to Syria! And next week, now that the election is over, we are likely to see a full-scale invasion of Fallujah. As Paul Weyrich asked, "Are we going to continue on the offense, where we make more enemies than we can defeat? Or are we going to return to the traditional foreign policy that we do not attack unless attacked?"

Arlen Specter, likely the next Republican to head the Judiciary Committee, issued a blunt warning to the President. Specter said, "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely." As I wrote previously, Specter will be in a position to thwart any and all judicial nominations brought before his committee. What makes the outrage worse is that the Bush campaigned for Specter against an anti-abortion challenger in the Republican primary.

One good piece of news from the election was the passage of Proposition 200 in Arizona. Once again we see that when confronted directly with the immigration issue, voters are to the right of both political parties. Ridiculously, this proposition must be blessed by the Justice Department before it can become law. Of course, it will likely then face a court challenge. We are living in sorry times when our political and cultural elites are devoted to the destruction of the country. More bad news from the exit polls on the immigration front, too. Apparently, Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote, a 9% increase from 2000. This may yet convince the Brahmins in the Stupid Party that they can out-pander Democrats and eventually win the Hispanic vote.

Freedom, democracy, and lots of opium in Afghanistan.


Thursday, November 04, 2004

What Does the Election Mean?

On Tuesday, George Bush won re-election and the Republicans gained seats in both the House and Senate. What does it all mean?

Well, the first thing that must be conceded is that the Republicans have gotten better at politics, even as they’ve gotten worse on policy. There is no longer a conservative party in Washington, there is only a left-wing Republican Party, which has endorsed the foreign policy of Wilson and the domestic policy of LBJ, and a wacky Democratic party that is, as Tom Fleming says, a party of “baby-killers, illegal immigrants, welfare dependents, and ghouls who want to become immortal by consuming dead babies.” (Shortly after this, by the way, Fleming writes that paleos “are going to have to drop some of their (and my) apocalyptic rhetoric, denying all legitimacy to the state and insisting on a simon-pure anti-abortion litmus test.”)

Nevertheless, Tom Delay should be congratulated for playing hardball and knocking off several Democrat incumbents in Texas, and Rove and company must be applauded for getting their voters to the polls, not only winning the popular vote, but also knocking off the likes of minority leader Tom Daschle.

The most depressing thing about the election is what it says about the state of evangelical Christianity. By some estimates, Evangelicals accounted for up to 1/3 of the electorate. The so-called “Christian Right” has now become an appendage of the Republican Party. And they’ve sold their souls for less than thirty pieces of silver.

One example of the silliness in Christian circles was this essay by Albert Mohler. In an otherwise concise and sharp discussion of recent political history, Mohler made the following statement:

Clearly, issues as basic as the sanctity of human life and the integrity of marriage are at stake in today's election. With one presidential candidate [Senator John Kerry] bragging of being the most pro-homosexual candidate in the nation's history, and the other candidate [President George W. Bush] pledging to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, the choice is clear. Similarly, Senator Kerry has made his advocacy of embryonic stem-cell research a centerpiece of his campaign, pledging to put American tax dollars into the business of creating and
destroying human embryos in the name of medical research. President George W. Bush, on the other hand, stands by the policy he established in August of 2001, which prevents any further destruction of human embryos through taxpayer-supported research. Once again, the choice is clear. Taking into
account also the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and fundamental questions about the nation's foreign policy, it seems safe to conclude that the stakes could hardly be higher.
Let’s get it straight--George Bush is not pro-life. Don’t believe me? Look for yourself. Would a president operating by Biblical precepts financially support, with tax dollars, the murderers at Planned Parenthood? When you’re done with the chart, read more about how THIS administration has funded abortion using Medicaid provisions that provide Planned Parenthood with nearly $100 million dollars annually. Will you be reading about that from the lackeys at ‘Right to Life,’ who are declaring victory even as they are ginning up the fund-raising machine? As Judy Brown says:

The malaise that will accompany Mr. Bush's re-election, I fear, will eat away at the edges of the pro-life battle without generating a clear victory for the personhood of every innocent human being. The definition of what it means to be pro-life will take another hit. Due to decay from within, this could spell the end of what we have known as the pro-life movement.
On the radio on election day, an apoplectic Mohler denounced an articulate caller questioning Bush’s pro-life credentials by spitting that “George Bush is the only reason” that taxpayer moneys are not used to fund stem-cell research. Is he joking? In his speech to the nation on the matter, the President said, “I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and- death decision has already been made.” What he effectively said at that moment is that scientists who killed babies to do research would be rewarded with federal boodle. What this amounted to, as Dr. Mohler, an intelligent and Godly man, must know, was the federal government giving its imprimatur to the support of research that benefited some while relying on the destruction of human life. The slippery slope logic employed here leads straight to the abomination of the citizens of California voting to use tax dollars to support similar “research.”

Neither is Mr. Bush committed to protecting marriage. In fact, while Mohler claims that John Kerry would have been the most pro-homosexual president in U. S. history, George Bush already HAS BEEN the most pro-homosexual president in U. S. history. Moreover, though he supported a phony and unnecessary Constitutional amendment, Bush has spoken in favor of states allowing civil unions and condemned the Republican platform for its opposition to such arrangements.

Nor is their anything particularly Christian or conservative about administration foreign policy. Data produced by John’s Hopkins and published by the British medical journal Lancet indicate that over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since the beginning of the war. Let’s sum up the Iraq war quickly: 1,124 dead and 8,100 wounded American servicemen, 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, $200 + billion down the rat hole, no WMDs, no ties to Osama, no end in sight

Meanwhile, as Glen Chancy has argued, far from waging an intelligent battle against militant Islam, the U. S. is actually crippling some of the oldest Christian communities in the world. That Christians were better off in Iraq before the war is an obvious truth ignored by the media and Bush-backing Evangelicals who seem more preoccupied with Israel’s security than the plight of Christians who are facing the Islamic horde. As Chancy says, “Perhaps if the Assyrians and others renounced Christ and embraced the Talmud, American Christians would care what happens to them?”

Mr. Bush has said that, "The establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. Our commitment to the global expansion of the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror is...the third pillar of security." Bush’s utopianism was on display even today at his first press conference since the election when he continued to defend democratist idolatry to the assembled masses of the Washington press corps. This Wilsonian pabulum is little more than a glossy democratic imperialism that will bleed us dry and isolate America from the world. The administration has staked American credibility to a war we cannot win and a cause (i.e., democratism) that has no support among our people. The election has, alas, been a vindication of the War Party.

Is there any good news? Yes, there is. Ultimately, we serve a sovereign God who is in control. And, heck, we can always pray for gridlock. The last three presidents who won re-election were saturated with scandal in their second terms. Given that the Israeli spy scandal, the Plame case, the “yellow cake” debacle, the lack of WMDs, Haliburton’s contracts, etc. are still out there, there is always the possibility that though the electorate did not hold the Bushies accountable, perhaps the courts will.

Neo-Babelism at Focus on the Family

In their zeal to resurrect the Tower of Babel, Focus on the Family launched a Spanish-language television and radio campaign to target Hispanic voters leading up to the election. Yuri Mantilla, director of International Government at Focus on the Family, said the project would mobilize “the Hispanic community into the most powerful pro-family influence in the United States."