One of the major concerns about the new Membership Standards Resolution is the impact that it will have on the “Chartered Organizations” that actually “own and operate” the local Scouting units.  According to the BSA website, chartered organizations “own and operate” over 100,000 Scouting units.  Over 70% of all those units are “chartered to faith-based organizations” who are tasked with, among other things, providing “quality leadership” for their Scout unit.  Many of these chartered organizations, like the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist, have taken a firm stand in support of the Biblical view against homosexuality.

The new Membership Standards Resolution would severely restrict the ability of these organizations to share their social views on marriage, the family, sexuality, etc.  Part of the new resolution reads as follows:

Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation, and resolving this complex issue is not the role of the organization, nor may any member use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda;

The new resolution appears to contradict the Boy Scouts’ own Declaration of Religious Principle.

Section 1. Declaration of Religious Principle, clause 1. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.” The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

Should the new Membership Standards Resolution pass, faith-based organizations that “own and operate” a Scouting unit will no longer be able to “give definite attention to religious life” because to do so will violate the injunction not “to promote or advance any social … position or agenda.”  Christian organizations that adhere to the Biblical definition of marriage, the family, sexuality,etc…, will no longer be able to teach those social values because it constitutes the newly prohibited “social position.”  The resolution essential places a gag order on the teaching of religious social doctrines, which the BSA now considers out of bounds.

Ironically, the new Membership Standards Resolution acknowledges that the gag order comes at just the point in life when “youth are still developing, learning about themselves and who they are, developing their sense of right and wrong, and understanding their duty to God to live a moral life.”  In other words, just at the point in time when youth are dealing with the complex issues of sexuality and morality, making decisions that will impact the course of their entire life, faith-based organizations must go silent.

The new Membership Standards Resolution will not end the controversy over the traditional BSA stance on homosexuality.  Liberal groups and homosexual activists like GLAAD have already committed publicly to pushing the BSA to full acceptance of homosexuality.  All the new resolution does is places a gag order on those faith-based organizations that represent the overwhelming majority of Scouting units and provides the volunteers that have made BSA a success for over one hundred years.  Should the resolution pass, many of those faith-based organizations will have to reevaluate their investment into BSA.

For more information, please see:  ”The Enemy Within:  The Homosexual Assault from within the Boy Scouts of America” and “Boy Scouts of America Yields to Homosexual Agenda – Adopts Moral Relativism.”

Update:  Southern Baptists Respond – BSA Attempts to Woe Christian Support for the Change

According to World Magazine:

Southern Baptist churches operate more than 3,000 units and serve nearly 100,000 Scouts.  Frank Page, an Eagle Scout and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), predicts the proposed rule change will fail, but if it passes he says the SBC will take immediate action, beginning with a resolution ‘expressing condemnation’ at June’s SBC annual meeting.  ’Southern Baptist churches are independent,’ he said, ‘but to be a Southern Baptist church you can’t affirm or condone homosexuality, so I’m sure many of our churches will pull out of Scouting.’

In light of mounting opposition to the proposed membership standards, the BSA have reached out to Christian groups in attempt to win their approval.  See the article here.

Throughout his remarks Mr. Obama carefully crafted an image of Planned Parenthood that is as far from reality as night is from day.

In two pages of printed text, he never mentioned “abortion.”  Instead, he used nice euphemisms like “health care,” “choice,” “contraceptive care,” and a “right to privacy” in making health decisions and deciding when to start a family.

Instead of openly acknowledging what we all know is the true purpose of Planned Parenthood – abortions on demand - Mr. Obama repeatedly referred to cancer screenings. mammograms, and other preventive health care procedures that most – if not all – Planned Parenthood facilities do not even provide.  [See the report at www.liveaction.org.]

Based upon Mr. Obama’s remarks, one would never know that the primary purpose of Planned Parenthood is to slaughter unborn children for profit – an obscene amount of profit.  A profit greatly enhanced by the fact that the American taxpayer subsidizes the abortion industry.  An industry unaffected by sequester cuts.

In fact, Mr. Obama left several important items out of his fictitious account of Planned Parenthood.

1.  That the majority of those Planned Parenthood slaughters in the womb are girls and minorities.

2.  That representatives of Planned Parenthood have openly advocated infanticide should a child survive an abortion and be born alive.  [See here.]  Mr. Obama also holds this position but he keeps quiet about it in public.  [See his voting record in Illinois.]

3.  That investigations by Live Action and other groups have shown that Planned Parenthood has not properly reported instances of child abuse and sex trafficking.

4.  That abortion clinics, including those operated by Planned Parenthood, are some of the least regulated surgical facilities in the country and that the left adamantly opposes any regulation as interfering with the practice of women’s health.

5.  That the unsanitary conditions found at the Gosnell clinic and the atrocities committed therein are not as rare as the left would have us believe.

Instead of honestly depicting an industry that has viciously slaughtered a generation of children (over 50 million), Mr. Obama actually had the audacity to praise Planned Parenthood for “the lives you’ve saved, women you’ve empowered, families that you’ve strengthened.”  Joseph Goebbels and his Ministry of Popular Enlightenment would have been pleased with the rhetorical flourish.

Mr. Obama closed by asking God’s blessing upon Planned Parenthood and the work they do.  I will close by asking God to forgive our nation for electing a man who calls evil good and good evil – a man whose whole agenda is a repudiation of the Judeo-Christian worldview and Scripture.  ”I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice can not sleep forever.”  (Thomas Jefferson)  Barack Obama and Cecile Richards should remember that as well.

Undaunted, homosexual activists refused to accept that decision and immediately launched a campaign designed to force the issue once again.  Leading the charge  were two members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) – Randall L. Stephenson (CEO of AT&T) and Jim Turley (CEO of Ernst & Young).  Within six months they had bullied the rest of the NEC into revisiting the issue and conducting another review of the policy.  Dubbed by the NEC as the “most comprehensive listening exercise in its history,” the review lasted less than two months (the previous review had last two years).  To insure that the outcome of the review favored changing the policy, the NEC expanded its listening activities to include those outside of the Scouting community and actively sought out the input of those who opposed the ban on homosexuals.  [See here.]  Less than nine months after reaffirming the policy against homosexual membership, the NEC, led by Stephenson and Turley, reversed course and submitted a resolution to lift the ban on homosexual youth membership.  [Please see the articles here and here for more information on that proposal.]

According to Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and several other news outlets, Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Turley never accepted the 2012 decision by the National Executive Committee, the Boy Scouts of America, or the Scouting community.  However, rather than resign their position over such a fundamental disagreement, they vowed to effect change from within the organization.

Mr. Stephenson has considerable leverage with the National Executive Committee.  He currently serves as one of its vice presidents  and is set to become its president in 2014.  AT&T, the company Mr. Stephenson leads as CEO, is one of the largest donors to the Boy Scouts of America. The financial relationship between AT&T and the Boy Scouts of America began in 2010 – roughly the same time frame in which the NEC began to review its policy on homosexuals.  When AT&T reduced its funding to the Boy Scouts of America earlier this year, the move led organizations like the American Family Association to accuse Stephenson and AT&T of trying to bully the Scouts into submission.

The loss of corporate funding is a real threat to national groups like the Boy Scouts of America.  Following the decision last summer, two large corporate donors – the Intel Foundation and the Merck Company Foundation – both ended funding to the Boy Scouts of America.  Intel and Merck both admit that their decision was directly related to the BSA’s ban on homosexuals.  One can only hope that the National Executive Committee is not abandoning principle because it is more lucrative to blow with the wind of political correctness than to stand against it.

The Boy Scouts of America are scheduled to vote on the Proposed Membership Standards Resolution at their National Annual Meeting scheduled for May 22-24, 2013, at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas.  Voting is limited to the 1,400 voting members of the organization.  Odds are that they will pass the new resolution and change the current policy.

Lessons Learned

The impending demise of such a great organization offers some valuable “lessons learned” for the whole conservative movement.

1.  The left, social liberals, and homosexual activists will not accept any decision as final until that decision favors them.  The Boy Scouts have been fighting this battle for decades and they have defeated the homosexual agenda at every turn.  The BSA fought and won several court battles including a battle in the Supreme Court.  They have even won the battle in the eyes of public opinion.  Yet, through persistence, unrelenting attacks, and unceasing agitation, homosexual activists are now set to win the war.

2.  Leadership and character count.  Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Turley were most likely appointed to the National Executive Committee based on their standing in the corporate community and their potential for bringing in large donors.  They were not chosen because they agreed with the policies of the Boy Scouts of America – a point that even the BSA acknowledged last summer when the two announced their opposition to the decision to keep the policy.  [See here.]  Instead of being men of character who accepted the overwhelming opinion of the Scouting community and its right to maintain the principles of its organization, Stephenson and Turley have utilized their time on the NEC to undermine those principles and to bully the other members of the NEC.  The purpose of the NEC and its members is to advance the goals of the organization – not the goals of groups hostile to the organization.

3.  The adage that “good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together” does not apply to the left.  In response to the announced opposition of Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Turley to the decision last summer, the NEC issued a statement that read:  ”Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting.”  Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Turley did not accept the right of the NEC to disagree with their position.  Instead they used their position to undermine the NEC and the Boy Scouts of America.  They reopened an issue the BSA thought was closed, spent resources to conduct their listening campaign, and are now seeking to divide the organization with their new resolution.  In what ways has their action advanced the “life-changing benefits of youth through Scouting”?  Instead of serving the BSA and its mission, they have served the homosexual agenda to the detriment of the BSA and its goals.

4.  The left will attack an organization through its funding.

5.  The left will deliberately force an organization to use its precious resources to defend itself against attacks.  They will seek to divert the organization from its true purpose and place them on the defensive.  For two decades the left has plagued the Boy Scouts of America with these type of attacks.

6.  The left will pursue its goals through a policy of gradualism.  The new Proposed Membership Standards Resolution does not completely reverse the ban on homosexual members.  Instead it only allows openly homosexual youth to join the Boy Scouts of America.  The ban on adult homosexuals remains.  The compromise will lull some into a false since of security on the issue and gain more support than a complete reversal of policy.  After all, who wants to deny the benefits of membership to a youth?  However, as Ken Klukowski at Breitbart News points out, the resolution – if passed – will open the door to further litigation by homosexual activists and undermine the BSA argument that homosexuality is incompatible with its values (the very argument on which the Supreme Court issued its decision in favor of the BSA in 2000).  After all, how can homosexuality in a youth be okay but not in an adult?  The actual resolution is so poorly worded as to encourage legal challenge – a point that Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Turley, and the NEC may have had in mind all along.

7.  The left will not accept the compromise offered by the new resolution.  Several homosexual rights groups have already announced their intention to press the Boy Scouts of America for full acceptance of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle.  Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Turley have remained strangely silent on whether or not they consider the proposed resolution the end of the issue or if they will also push for full acceptance.  What agenda will Mr. Stephenson pursue as the NEC President in 2014?  Will it be the agenda of the Boy Scouts of America or of the homosexual activists?

8.  The left intends to win the issue before opposition can mount against it.  The only hope to preserve the Boy Scouts of America is to take action now and let our voices be heard.  Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Turley, and their supporters have moved quickly in an attempt to push the issue before opposition can develop.  That is what the “most comprehensive listening exercise in its history” only lasted two months.  It is why Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Turley are reluctant to discuss the matter openly.  It is why the NEC will push a vote in May.  Please contact your local Boy Scout organization and make your voice heard.  You may contact the national Boy Scouts of America at their website.

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness….”

*************

The Boy Scouts of America have been under attack from homosexual rights groups for almost two decades.  In 2000 the “Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), recognized the First Amendment right of the BSA to select its leaders and members based upon the assertion by the BSA that homosexual activity was inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Law.”  Refusing to abide by the Supreme Court ruling, leftist organization and even local and state governments controlled by the left have continued to harass the Boy Scouts and pressure it into reversing its stance on homosexuality.  That pressure and intimidation has begun to bear fruit.

In a  letter dated April 19, 2013,  the Executive National Committee of the Boy Scouts of America announced its decision to yield to the homosexual agenda and move to modify its membership policy.  The proposed changes, embodied in a new “Membership Standards Resolution,” is set for a vote in May 2013.

In May, the National Executive Committee is asking its approximately 1,400 voting members to consider a proposed resolution that would remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone and would maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America.  The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.

The public announcement, the text of the letter, and the new Membership Standards Resolution can be found at Boy Scouts of America Membership Standards Review.

The new Membership Standards Resolution is a wonder of moral double-speak.

It begins with a firm declaration that “it is the mission of the Boy Scouts of America to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law.”  As noted in the resolution, the Scout Oath begins by calling its members “to do my duty to God.”  The resolution references that specific phrase either directly or indirectly at least a dozen times in less than a page and a half of text.  It then ends with a new “membership standard” that embraces homosexuality as an ethical and moral choice that does not contradict one’s duty to God.  Homosexuality – at least among its youth members – is now acceptable to the Executive National Committee of the Boy Scouts.

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

In addition to the complete reversal of its position on membership – a position argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, reaffirmed as recently as last year, and defended by the BSA until only recently – the new “Membership Standard Resolution” raises more questions and potential issues than it resolves.

First, it argues, as noted above, that homosexuality (labeled as “sexual orientation or preference”) is acceptable among the youth members.  However, the BSA promises to maintain its prohibition against adults who identify themselves as homosexuals from becoming members and leaders within the organization.  The glaring contradiction is designed to reassure the National Voting Members that the slippery slope on which they are about to step is not really a slippery slope.  Does anyone seriously believe that once the BSA stance on homosexuality begins to shift that the prohibition against adult homosexual members will last?  According to Reuters, GLADD and others on the left have already begun to denounce the resolution and push for full acceptance.

Second, the proposed changes will not resolve the issue but instead open the BSA to further litigation and harassment.  The resolution states that “No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.”  Does that open the door to transgender scouting?  Can “boys” trapped in the body of girls be denied membership?  What about boys whose parents decide to raise them as girls?

Third, in the midst of the logical absurdity called the “Membership Standards Resolution,” the BSA suddenly claims neutrality on social issues.  The actual text reads:

Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation, and resolving this complex issue is not the role of the organization, nor may any member use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda;

How can an organization committed to preparing “young people to make ethical and moral choices” and instilling social values like “duty to God and my country” and keeping oneself “mentally awake, and morally straight” suddenly claim that the promotion of social positions is forbidden?  How will that impact the different faith traditions that the BSA has allowed to define what “duty to God” actually means?  Will the Baptist Church, the Mormon Church, the Jewish Synagogue, or the Islamic Mosque now be forced to accept homosexual youth into the BSA troops that it sponsors?  According to the BSA, faith groups who sponsor a BSA troop must accept homosexual youth into their troops.  Will those organizations now have to be silent on the issue of homosexuality since to speak out against it will promote a social position?

The Boy Scouts of America have been hammered by the left.  They have been harassed by liberal politicians, sued by homosexual activists, and smeared by the main stream media.  Financial support has suffered as the left has attacked their donor base and major contributors.  The current “Membership Standards Resolution” is an attempt to end those attacks.  It will not.

In an attempt to justify their abandonment of principle, the Executive National Committee touts that for the past two months it has “embarked on the most comprehensive listening exercise in its history….”  Two months is a long time for a fruit fly but it is a rather short amount of time for a 103 year old organization to abandon its principles.  Nor was I aware that principles were determined by “listening” to the popular culture.

If the National Voting Members adopt the new “Membership Standards Resolution” in May, it will mark the demise of a once great organization.  The national leadership of the BSA is currently afraid to take a firm stand on homosexuality because it will cost them in the court of public opinion.  They have trimmed their sails to the prevailing winds of the homosexual movement.  They crave popular acceptance over eternal significance.  They have abandoned the Scout Oath and the Scout Law.  It is up to the National Voting Members and to the Scouts and Scout Leaders – both present and past – to remain true and take a stand on principle.  The Boy Scouts of America is a trust passed down through the generations starting with Robert Baden-Powell (Founder of the Scouting Movement) and Theodore Roosevelt (Honorary Vice-President in 1911).  Let us remain true to that legacy.

I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.

Portman attributed his reversal to the recent discovery that his son Will was gay.

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshmen, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay.  He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is.  Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage.  We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been.  The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

The discovery led Portman to reconsider his support for the Defense of Marriage Act.  He stated that his previous opposition to “same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”  However, after wrestling with the issue, “it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.”

Since Senator Portman has cloaked his abandonment of principle and his newly formed support for homosexuality with an appeal to Christianity, the Bible, and the love of God, he deserves a response along those lines.

First, Christian opposition to homosexuality does not depend upon one’s “faith tradition” but upon the unchanging Word of God.  Scripture explicitly condemns homosexuality in Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah), Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:3-5, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Jude 7.  Homosexuality is not a subject on which Scripture is silent.  It is not up for debate or interpretation – the language is clear.  What Senator Portman now supports is in direct defiance to the Word of God.

Second, Senator Portman argues that the “Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion” actually trumps what the Bible says.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul writes:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.  Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites … will inherit the kingdom of God.

Nor does the Word of God ever say that “we are all children of God.”  While mankind is created in the image of God, we are not all children of God.  To be a child of God one must be saved through faith in Jesus Christ.  One is not simply a child of God because he is alive.  Scripture makes it clear that unless and until we are saved through Jesus Christ we are enemies of God and children of the devil.

Homosexuals can be saved but only by accepting Christ, renouncing their former sins (including homosexuality) and allowing God to work in their lives to make them more like Him.  Paul concludes the passage in 1 Corinthians with just such an appeal:

And such were some of you.  But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Third, Senator Portman makes it abundantly clear in his op-ed that his faith does not extend much beyond himself.  The article is replete with references like “I have come to believe,” “I’ve always felt,” “my faith tradition,” “I wrestled,” “I believe,” “I’ve thought,” “I’ve changed my mind,” etc.

[Here I want to address Senator Portman directly.]

To state it bluntly, Senator Portman, Christianity, the Word of God, and the proper view of homosexuality has nothing to do with you or your changing perspective.  It has everything to do with the unchanging Word of God.  Your attempt to cloak your opinion by distorting the Word of God is not only offensive but blasphemous.  I encourage you to open your Bible and read what it says about false teachers and those who add to or take away from the Word of God.

I understand that your son is a homosexual.  As a Christian you are called to love him but you cannot condone his sin and encourage others to do the same.  Principles are higher than our individual circumstances.  Principles do not change because the circumstances  in our lives change.

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.  And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.  And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.  He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.  (Matthew 10:37-39)

Condoning the sin of homosexuality will not help your son to lead a “happy, meaningful” life.  He cannot lead such a life in direct opposition to the Word of the Lord.  You have taken the easy path and it will only lead to sin and death, error, and worse.

My prayers are with you and your family but Christians must not let your attempt to pervert the Word of God to fit your own personal life go unchallenged.

*******

God created marriage prior to the fall of man in Genesis 3.  He codified marriage as between a man and a woman in the Law of God given to Moses (Leviticus).  Jesus endorsed the institution of marriage in Matthew 19 by reciting and then elaborating on the Genesis account.

In his closing paragraphs, Senator Portman demonstrates his new found moral relativism by appealing to the growing consensus in favor of homosexual marriage.  Having rejected an absolute moral standard that transcends society, he now appeals to society itself for moral absolutes.  [Hat-tip to Francis Schaeffer.]  I would remind the good senator that societies, in and of themselves, do not make good moral barometers.  At one point the general consensus in the United States was that slavery was a necessary evil.  In the 20th century, appeals to a growing consensus has been used to justify abortion, genocide, and even the rise of fascism.

Power is not given to Senator Portman or the United States government to change the traditional institution of marriage or to proclaim good what the Lord has declared an abomination.  We might do so on paper but the consequences of violating the moral law will still hold.  May God help us if He ever gives us over to the evil desires of our hearts.  (Romans 1:18-32)  He may already have.

The Virginia Tech massacre – and just about every school shooting – makes it abundantly clear that “gun free zones” simply do not work.  In fact those laws make the situation a lot worse by ensuring that the intended victims are unable to fight back with equal force.  These shootings also give light to the lie that waiting on the police is the best option.

The Virginia Tech Massacre – A Timeline That Speaks for Itself

The massacre began at 7:20 am when the shooter entered a dormitory on campus and randomly killed a young girl and the resident assistant who came to check on the noise.  He then exited the building, walked to his dormitory, and changed clothes.  He then went to the post office to mail his package to the media and prepared for his next assault.  In the meantime, campus and city police responded to the shooting at the dormitory.  They concluded – erroneously it turned out – that the killing must be part of a domestic dispute in which the boyfriend had killed his girlfriend and then fled the scene.  Since they could not locate the boyfriend’s car on campus, they assumed the shooter had left and the university did not proceed into lockdown.  Although police remained on campus, they were not prepared for what happened next.

Between 9:15 and 9:30 am, the shooter entered a classroom building on campus to resume the massacre.  Yes, you read that correctly.  The shooter had been on campus, completely armed, and moving amongst his fellow students for almost two hours despite the police presence due to the earlier shooting.  There is not indication that breaking the “gun free zone” laws troubled him any more than the double homicide he had  just committed.

Once he entered the classroom building, the shooter removed chains from his backpack and then chained all the exits closed from the inside.  The goal was to keep his victims from escaping and to delay the police.  He then proceeded to the second floor where he carefully scouted out all the classrooms, selected the one with the most people, and then began to viciously gun down his fellow students.  Police received the 911 call at 9:41 and were at the scene in 3 minutes.  It took them several minutes to gain access to the buildings due to the chains.  All they found was the human carnage and the shooter dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The shooter shot 47 people in the first 11 minutes – 25 students and 5 faculty members were killed and 17 others were shot.  He expended 174 bullets using two handguns – not an “assault rifle.”  The whole attack lasted between 10 to 12 minutes.  In that time he visited each classroom repeatedly and shot the wounded and those pretending to be dead.  Nothing impeded his attack with the exception of a few classrooms that were able to barricade the door and deny him entry.  Even then several lost their lives in that attempt.

Lessons Learned

1.  ”Gun free zones” do not work.

2.  Active shooters often target “gun free zones” because they know their victims are unarmed and cannot respond with equal force.  In the Colorado theater shooting, the shooter specifically chose a theater that prohibited guns.

3.  When seconds count, police are minutes away.  The standard response time to an active shooter is between 10 to 15 minutes once they receive the call.  The police responded quicker at Virginia Tech because they were already on campus but were still too late to stop the slaughter.  According to police sources, a mass killing (defined as 4 or more people) occurs in the United States every two weeks.  The majority of these are over before the police arrive.

4.  Many of these events are premeditated and carefully planned.  The Virginia Tech shooter studied the Columbine massacre.  He went to the gun range and practiced shooting at targets on the ground.  He prepared for an assault – chains, guns, clips, ammo, etc.  He may have even committed the homicide in the dorm to draw the police away.  (It is still not clear why that happened and its connection.)  The Columbine shooters studied their schools emergency response plans and then adjusted their attack to cause maximum damage.

5.  We are dealing with second and third generation shooters who learn from the prior shootings and then adapt.  As the police adapt their methods to respond to these events, the prospective shooters will adapt as well.

Real World Response to a Real World Problem

1.  End gun free zones and allow concealed carry on campus.  Not everyone needs to carry a gun but people trained in concealed carry and in how to respond to an active shooter should have the ability to do so if they wish.  As an educator and a potential target, I feel that 10 to 15 minutes is too long to wait for the police when someone is aggressively trying to take my life.  Like many of the faculty, I teach in a room with only one door and no windows.  It is a death trap.  I have the training and would like to be able to carry a weapon to defend myself and my students.

Allowing concealed carry on campus will not end the violence.  But it may bring each incident of violence to an end quicker and thus save lives.

2.  Training.  People need to be taught to respond to the aggressive use of force with the aggressive use of force.  In light of Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc., the police have had to change their response to active shooters.  The active shooter is there to kill as many people as possible in the time he is allowed.  The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  Police no longer attempt to negotiate.  Now their goal is to neutralize the shooter as quickly as possible.  Like, the police, the targets of an active shooter must change how they respond.  Non-resistance will get you killed.  Playing dead no longer works.   In case of an active shooter, people should escape if they can.  If they cannot escape, they should hide.  If they cannot hide safely or if the shooter will find them, then they should fight.  The following link provides an excellent video that police now use to train civilians:  Run, Hide, Fight: Surviving An Active Shooter Event.

The Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel can be found at: Virginia Tech Review Panel

THE PRESIDENT: Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a President we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Mr. Obama has long proclaimed that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation or upon Christian principles.  He is historically and factually wrong.  The Founding Fathers were all Christians – even if some were Deists, which after all is a Christian heresy – and they drew upon an intellectual tradition dating back to the Protestant Reformation.  Although many of them interpreted that tradition through the Enlightenment, their thoughts and political theories came from the mainstream of Christian thought.  The newborn United States was swaddled in the basic tenets of the Christian faith and grew accordingly.  For more information, see Michael Novak’s On Two Wings:  Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding.  

Regardless of what Mr. Obama implies, the Founders were not atheists, Muslim, or any other religion.  Their view of a Creator who endowed its human creation with certain unalienable rights was a distinctly Christian concept.  Muslims do not believe in a personal creator who loves his creation and endows the individual with certain rights.  Their view of god leads to the caliph, the sword, and the loss of liberty – not to the dignity of man.  Atheists do not believe in the Christian God so they often make the state god.  Now, if the state is god, then what the state gives [rights], it can also take away.

The Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence was the Creator found in the Christian and Jewish Scriptures.  That is important.  If we change that “Creator” to someone or something else, then the whole foundation of our government shifts and we lose the meaning and practice of those “unalienable rights.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. (Applause.) The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

Freedom is not a gift from God.  If you think so, then please cite the Scripture – book, chapter, and verse.  The Founding Fathers chose the word “Liberty” very carefully.  Liberty was the ability [or freedom] to do what was right.  The Founders called the modern concept of “freedom” – licentiousness – the ability to do whatever one wanted.  They embraced liberty and rejected licentiousness as unworthy of a free people.  In fact, licentiousness, they argued, would lead to slavery.  Their view of liberty rested on solid Biblical grounds.  For more information, see Robert Middlekauff’s The Glorious Cause:  The American Revolution, 1763-1789.

As to the second part of the phrase, does man attempt to secure “freedom” without God?  What role does God play?  To what God is Mr. Obama employing?  Does the Muslim god really grant freedom?  How about the Hindu?  What about the poor atheist who has no god to bestow “freedom”?  Freedom from what exactly?

And for more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.

Which of “society’s ills” does Mr. Obama believe cannot be cured through government alone?  Or, is Mr. Obama saying that government must be involved in all areas but that solving these ills will require the citizenry to fall in line?

As to the last line, I have no idea what he means.  Does Mr. Obama mean to imply that “our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility” constrain our character?  Would our character be better without these constraints?

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people. (Applause.)

Shorthand:  The Second Amendment is outdated and as a collective we must move “Forward.”

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. (Applause.) An economic recovery has begun. (Applause.) America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it — so long as we seize it together. (Applause.)

Shorthand:  Open borders.

The praise of “youth” is also troubling.  What about age and wisdom?  What about the experience of those who have went before?  Are the older generations to be shunted aside and eventually eliminated by Obamacare?  Do the seniors of our society have nothing more to contribute?  Here, Mr. Obama betrays the leftist, 1960s, Hollywood fascination with youth.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. (Applause.) We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

If people find “independence” and “pride” in their work, then why did the Obama Administration remove the work requirement from welfare?  Why does Mr. Obama advance programs that encourage and enable sloth?

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. So we must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

Which federal programs does Mr. Obama propose to cut?

…

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. (Applause.) Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

What technology?  Which nations?  On a side note, someone contact Theodore Roosevelt and tell him we found his conservation speech.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. (Applause.) Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. (Applause.) Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends — and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

How do we turn the “terrorist” into our surest friends?  We never turned the Nazis into our surest friends.  We defeated the Nazi and made the German people our friends but it took decades and it only happened after we totally defeated them.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully –- not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. (Applause.)

How many laws has the Obama administration broken?  Budget deadline?  FOIA requests?  Fast and Furious?  501(c)4 stipulations?  Campaign finance laws?  etc.  Talk about leading from behind.  He has no credibility on this issue.  He has made a mockery of the rule of law.  We have moved from LEX REX [the law is king] to REX LEX [the king is law].

America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe. And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice –- not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity, human dignity and justice.

Mr. Obama forgot to mention a couple of exceptions.  We will be the anchor of strong alliances – unless you are Poland, which he has promised to the Soviets Russians.  Mr. Obama will also support democracy unless you live in Iran and want to overthrow your oppressive government.  A government whose view of a Creator is very different than the one our Founding Fathers looked toward.  Their creator not only allows but promotes the brutality from which their people want to rebel.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths –- that all of us are created equal –- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth. (Applause.)

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths –- that all of us are created equal –- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth. (Applause.)

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.

Except at the White House where we mostly hire white men.  Or, in the federal bureaucracy where women are underpaid compared to men.  Mr. Obama controls both.

Mr. Obama wants to make the truth “that all of us are created equal” into our guiding star.  In doing so, he makes the question of the Creator very important.

(Applause.) Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law –- (applause) — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity — (applause) — until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.

The last I checked, the marriage laws that apply to them also apply to me.

….

I will spare you the rest.  The complete transcript can be found at www.whitehouse.gov.

Mr. Obama’s Second Inaugural Address reveals several things.  First, he considers us not a nation of individuals but a collective.  Second, he is willing to distort history and his own record to advance his agenda.  In short, he is a liar and does not feel bound by reality.  Third, he is willing to rewrite the tenets of Christianity and to even speak for God.  We are not dealing here with just another politician.  Being the “loyal opposition” will not be enough to stop a demagogue.  We can yield no more ground.  We have to fight him in every arena if we hope to survive as the country we once were.  If the GOP will not lead, then the American people must.  We can no longer wait on the hapless GOP establishment.  Reagan advanced conservatism as a private citizen long before he entered politics.  We must do the same.

In his desire to transform America, FDR continually found himself obstructed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  By 1936 the court had already struck down several New Deal programs – the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Recovery Administration – as unconstitutional.  Their decision on the Social Security Act and the Warner Act remained pending at the time of FDR’s reelection.  To protect his existing programs and clear the way for even more New Deal legislation, FDR felt that he had to deal with the Supreme Court.

He decided to do so by packing the existing Supreme Court with justices chosen by him.  Since he could not force the existing court justices to resign, he proposed legislation that would allow him to appoint an additional justice for every existing justice who was over 70 1/2 years old.  The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 would have guaranteed a Supreme Court favorable to FDR and the New Deal.

Roosevelt had no qualms about the plan.  He felt that the election had given him a mandate for change and that the Constitutional separation of powers simply hindered his fulfillment of that mandate.  Something as trivial as the U.S. Constitution and the independence of the judiciary could not be allowed to stand in the way of progress and constructing a better society – perhaps he even did it for the children.

At the height of his power and prestige, FDR simply overplayed his hand.  The “court-packing” scheme backfired.  Member of his own party rose in revolt.  The American people were outraged.  Although FDR quickly shelved the plan and attempted to move on, the damage was done.  The momentum gained from the election was gone and with it the vision FDR held for his second term.  The President remained on defense for the next four years and then quietly put the New Deal out to pasture with the advent of World War II.

Tomorrow, the American people may well see a modern rendition of the “court-packing” scheme.  If rumors are true, Mr. Obama, fresh from his victory over McCain II, plans to renew his attack upon the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law by using Executive Orders to violate the Second Amendment.  Like FDR before him, Obama believes that he has a mandate from the people and that the U.S. Constitution should not be allowed to interfere with his exercise of that mandate.  And, just like FDR before him, an attack upon the Second Amendment and any attempt to disarm law abiding citizens will provoke a backlash from the American people.  The question is whether Democrats will have the guts to oppose such a blatant power grab or whether they will chose to face the wrath of the voters.

Mr. Obama is a bully who attempts to get his way by pushing others around and trash talking.  The leadership of the Republican Party has proven to be an easy target so the President has been allowed to swagger around Washington.  Tomorrow, he will attempt to bully the American people.  It will not work.  The President does not have the authority to violate the Second Amendment and America will not stand for it.

Let me say a final word to Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.  Some have speculated that you might go along with the President on gun control measures since you will not face the voters for another 6 years.  Rest assured that six years is not long enough when you mess with a mountain man’s guns.  The voters will remember, especially since a Senate seat just opened up in your state.

Let me begin by saying that those who hoped this diary would bash social conservatives or advocate that our stand on abortion and/or homosexual marriage should change will be sorely disappointed.  The social conservative position on these two issues is the correct one and we are advancing on each of those fronts.  The enemy has also made some gains but the war is far from over for both sides.  Nor should conservatives, as some have argued, place these issues on the back burner.  To lose the traditional family is to lose the basic building block of western civilization and the foundation of a prosperous economy.  To allow the murder of the unborn – not to mention to fund it with federal tax dollars – is to descend into barbarism.  No, the fight must continue on those issue.

What I advocate is an expansion of social conservatism- a broadening of the cultural wars.  In 2013 social conservatives must craft a bold message to address a host of issues that now face the United States.

The Dignity of Work:  

To modern Americans, “work” is a four letter word and something to be avoided at all cost.  After all, it might get in the way of important things like Facebook and video gaming.  [On a side note, does anyone else find it ironic that video games about work - Farmville, PetShop, VetClinic, etc - are more popular than the actual work they depict?]  We used to laugh at people like Alfie Doolittle and Homer Simpson.  Now, they have become the new normal.  According to the modern mind, work is for suckers.

I grew up in a time and place where the Protestant Work Ethic was alive and well.  All the men in my family worked and, when they were not working at a “job,” they worked on the farm.  I grew up hoeing vegetables, raising cattle and other livestock, building fences, and cutting wood for the winter.  Those are some of my fondest memories.  To be trusted with an axe to de-limb a fallen tree or to hear my grandfather say well done was the mark of developing manhood.  It was meant to be so.

Work brings dignity.  God created man in His own image and He gave him the power to create as a reflection of that image.  In Genesis 1, God gave man the task of ruling (“have dominion”) and “subduing” the earth.  Building, cultivation, husbandry, the arts – all of these are a reflection of God.  Every time we perform a task well – whether writing a poem or mopping a floor – we bring glory to God and dignity to ourselves.  To deprive a man of work – or to pay him not to work – is to deny the very reflection of divinity within him.  To demean work is to demean ourselves and deny our calling.  Work is not a part of the curse resulting from the Fall of Man in Genesis 3.  It is a gift from God and a natural response to our creation in God’s image.

Social conservatives must teach the dignity of work.

The Sanctity of Private Property:

Scripture teaches the sanctity of private property.  Two of the Ten Commandments dealt with stealing and coveting.  The moral and civil law given to Israel protected private property.  And, contrary to liberal [read false] Christianity, neither Jesus nor His disciples advocated the abolishment of private property.  Scripture taught the compassionate use of wealth and that the believer should consider himself a steward of all that God has given him but it never advocated the socialization and confiscation of property – no matter how noble the intentions.

Social conservatives who believe otherwise are ill informed.  Theft is theft whether another person or the government does it.  Taxation is acceptable and even good.  But Scripture also warns about the dangers of a government intent on devouring its own people to enrich and empower the few.  (See the warning to Israel about kings in 1 Samuel 8.)  Any government or political party whose existence and success is based on encouraging one group of people to covet the possessions of another group, promotes evil and will eventually destroy the society it claims to serve.

Charity Begins at Home:

While it is an old bromide, it is also true.  Scripture clearly teaches  that the family bears responsibility for those in its midst who are the poor, the widow, and the orphan.  Old Testament law placed the task at the feet of the family with institutions like the “kinsmen redeemer” and the practice of allowing the less fortunate to glean the field.  The law required the younger members of the family to support the old and the more prosperous to protect the less fortunate (see Ruth and Boaz).  The New Testament carried on that tradition.  Even when on the cross, Jesus, as the oldest son and thus the one responsible for her care, made provision for his mother in Luke 19:26-27.  Paul instructed Timothy to “Honor widows who are really widows.  But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God.  …  But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  (1 Timothy 5:3-4,7)

Nowhere does Scripture teach that charity is the primary duty of the state.

Those Who Do Not Work, Do Not Eat:

The Apostle Paul explicitly laid down that command in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 as part of a larger passage that warned against the dangers of idleness.  Idleness, according to Paul, led to a “disorderly manner,” to people continually meddling with others, and eventually to the disruption of society.   Anyone familiar with the modern inner city and the impact of unemployment and welfare on a neighborhood will recognize the validity of what Paul taught.

The command coincides with the belief in the dignity of work.  In the Old Testament, those in need of assistance were not placed on the dole but instead given an opportunity to work for their food.  [Even FDR preferred to pay for work rather than place people on the dole - see the alphabet soup of New Deal work programs.]   Gleaning laws allowed the less fortunate to glean from a field following the initial harvest.  Landowners were instructed to leave certain areas of the field for the benefit of the poor.  The point is that people in need of assistance had to work to earn that assistance.  Only those who were too sick, infirm, or young to care for themselves were the beneficiaries of charity without work.  In those cases, it fell to the family or the community.  At no point in either the Old or New Testament did God advocate a social welfare program that did not require people to work.

Limited Government:

Modern liberalism and other utopian schemes that aspire to human perfection and promote big government sprang from the Enlightenment belief that man is a rational being who can use his reason to create a better world.  The Word of God teaches the exact opposite:  man is a fallen creature whose reason is corrupted by his own sin.  Perfection is beyond his grasp as long as he remains in the world.  Utopian schemes, according to the Christian view of man, are simply a siren song that have wrecked many a ship of state.

Since man is sinful and corruptible, limited government is a necessity.  Our Founding Fathers realized the danger of too much power in the hands of one man or even a group of men.  Therefore, they sought to limit the power of government.  As an additional precaution, they then divided what power they had given to government among competing power centers within that government – legislative, executive, and judicial – and within a federal system.

The Progressive Movement (1890s to 1920) began to undue the precautions that theFounding Fathers had placed within the American system.  Gradually they weakened the structure of federalism, decreased the power of the individual states, increased the power of the federal government, and ultimately created the imperial presidency.  Social conservatives must reverse that course and resurrect the precautions that once existed.  Along those lines, the distrust of the federal government and fear of a coercive state requires an armed citizenry as the final precaution against tyranny.

The power of the state is not absolute.  The civil and moral law of ancient Israel put specific guidelines around the power and the authority of the state.  The New Testament also limited the authority of the state.  [Perhaps more on this in a later diary.]

Conclusion

The social conservative movement is widely known for its opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage.  Yet, the problems now facing the United States go well beyond those two issue.  Social conservatives must re-craft their message to present a systematic solution to these problems.  Some conservative organizations – the Heritage Foundation for one – have already moved in that direct.  I encourage the social conservative movement as a whole to follow their lead.

FDR set about his task even before his election as President in 1932.  Shortly after the financial crash in 1929, he began to travel the country to raise his visibility and that of the Democratic Party while making sure that the Republicans, and President Herbert Hoover, received the blame for the financial crisis.  He instructed the Democrats in Congress to block Hoover’s attempt to remedy the crisis thus making sure the economic slump continued until the election.

After taking office in 1933, FDR did not hesitate to use the power of the New Deal programs, the promise of government largesse (relief, money and jobs), and federal regulations to build his coalition.  He withheld federal aid and the benefits of the New Deal programs – like grants from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration – from Congressional districts that continued to vote Republican or otherwise opposed the New Deal.  He used the the National Recovery Administration to bully and harass those businesses and corporations that opposed unionization.  He used relief measures like the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Farm Credit Administration to bind elements of the middle class to the Democratic Party.  And, in the end, he simply made many of the unemployed, employees of the federal government through the Civilian Conservation Corp, the Civil Works Administration, and the Public Works Administration.

FDR’s efforts paid off in the Presidential election of 1936 when the New Deal Coalition first emerged on the political battlefield.  The coalition consisted of traditional Democrats in both the North and South, western farmers aided by the farm programs, ethnic groups in the northern cities who benefited from the new welfare programs**, middle-class property owners saved by the refinancing programs, intellectuals (and pseudo-intellectuals), unions and the larger labor movement, Socialists, and African Americans.  The coalition crushed the Republican Presidential candidate, Alfred M. Landon of Kansas (28 million to 17 million in the popular vote, 523 to 8 in the Electoral College), and gained a super majority in the Senate (77 to 19) and the House (328 to 107).  FDR would use the coalition to win reelection two more times for a record four terms.

African Americans joined the New Deal Coalition for reasons unique from the other members.  Since the U.S. Civil War, African Americans had been stalwarts of the Republican Party and many Republicans took it for granted that they would always follow the Party of Lincoln.  In the early years of the New Deal, FDR did not embrace African Americans as part of his new coalition because he needed the votes of Southern Democrats to pass much of the New Deal legislation.  In fact, many of the early New Deal programs either excluded blacks, segregated them, or actively harmed their interests.  (For example, the attempt by the Agricultural Adjustment Act to lower farm production led to the eviction of many black sharecroppers from southern farms.)  Gradually, however, African Americans began to drift into the New Deal fold through the work of Eleanor Roosevelt.  She served as the link between the administration and the black community.  She visited their political and social organization, interceded for them with the administration and the New Deal agencies, and gradually won them  to the cause.

Although the New Deal Coalition has changed over the decades since 1936, the core of the coalition has remained – unions, the urban centers, farmers dependent on government subsidies, government employees (Northern Virginia), intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, Socialist and African-Americans.  New groups like the modern druids and worshippers of Gaia (environmentalists), hedonists, and the young voters (Do I repeat myself?) have joined the coalition to replace those that departed.***

The Democratic coalition is still held together by the promise of government largesse or other forms of government intervention on their behalf – federal regulations, the promise of new “rights,” etc.  To keep the coalition together, the Democrats have been forced over the years to pay tribute to the coalition members who keep them in power.  The Great Society programs of LBJ, the unionization of public employees by Clinton, ethanol subsidies, the promise of gay rights, and increasing environmental regulations should all be viewed in that light.

In recent years, the Democratic coalition has become increasingly strained as the interests of the various members have come into conflict with one another.  The most glaring example is the growing conflict between the unions and the environmental movement.  Environmental regulations continue to cost union jobs – just ask those who work in the oil industry or the coal miners of the United Mine Workers Association.  These political fissures can only be covered over by increasing government largesse that delays the day of reckoning, which is why we now have almost two years of unemployment payments to buy off those who have lost their jobs due to government regulation.  The Democrats have now become the hunted victims of the Frankenstein monster they created.****  They must continue to pay or risk political dissolution.  They face the unenviable choice of driving the country into the fiscal abyss or losing their electoral power.  At one point the day of reckoning will come.  It will either come now or when the country is too broke to pay off the Democratic coalition.

The Republicans can hasten that day of reckoning by refusing to raise taxes to pay for the Democratic coalition.  Republicans can also refuse to raise the debt ceiling and thus block efforts by the Democrats to borrow money to pay off their coalition.  Why should Republicans be complicit in feeding the Democratic monster and thus ensuring Democratic dominance at the ballot box?

Republicans can also begin to make inroads into that coalition.

Southwestern Virginia, the heart of the coal industry and once a bastion of Democratic power, voted overwhelming against Obama and his regulatory regime.  Republicans need to politically consolidate on that opposition and turn those disgruntled Democrats into pro-job growth, pro-energy Republicans.  If southwest Virginia becomes a part of the Republican growth coalition, then the other coal areas will fall.

Republicans can also make inroads into the African American community.  We need to proceed like Eleanor Roosevelt and make a personal connection.  Republicans need to communicate that the black community can be much more than just dependents of the federal government.  We need to teach the value of conservatism one family, one community organization, one church at a time.  Where are our ambassadors to that community?  African Americans already align more with social conservatism than they do with the social liberalism (gay rights, abortion) of the Democratic Party.  We need to strengthen that natural affinity.  Why not bring representatives of the African American community to CPAC and the Value Voters Summit each year.  Forget the older leadership and go for the next generation.  Give them some real hope and show them what real change looks like.

These are just a few suggestions.

*I say they are the dominant party, not because they have always held the Presidency, but because they have successfully shaped the national debate to favor their liberalism.  Republicans have only succeeded in turning the debate and going on the offensive under Reagan and the Republican Congress under Newt.

**Not the “Welfare Program” of the Great Society but little “w” welfare programs.

***I do not include women in the coalition.  Women are not a permanent part of the Democratic coalition.  In the recent election, the gender gap is non-existent if African American women are removed from the equation.

****Yes, I know Frankenstein was the name of the scientist and not the name of the monster.  That is why I said Frankenstein monster.