Dallas Willard was a professor of philosophy at USC and at one time was the director of  that department. He was also one of the greatest Christian thinkers/theologians to emerge within the last fifty years. He has been described  by many as the “modern-day C.S. Lewis.” I wholeheartedly agree with that characterization.

Dallas Willard is quoted as saying that when God called him to be in the university setting God spoke to him and said, “If you go into the church, the universities will be shut to you, but if you go into the universities the church will be open to you.” Only in heaven will we see how many numerous individuals he helped lead to the knowledge of Jesus by obeying that call.

I first began reading Dallas Willard’s writings less than a year-and-a-half ago. I began by reading The Divine  Conspiracy followed by The Spirit of the Disciplines. Both of these works have profoundly shaped my walk with Christ and have helped me grow immensely. I gained greater understanding and wisdom regarding the Kingdom of God through reading his works.

Additionally, Willard’s chapter in The Spirit of the Disciplines on poverty provides the single greatest refutation of the current destructive ideology of class warfare  from a spiritual and logical point of view that I have ever read. All of this despite it being written several years ago. Dallas Willard also had tremendous insight into what ails the Christian church today, which he presents in a logical and matter-of-fact manner that reveals his passion for living as a follower of Christ.

He had his share of critics and those who disagreed with him. Even I did not always agree with all of his conclusions. But that never took away from the immense benefit I received from his teachings. Though I never met the man, I could almost imagine that he would not be overly thrilled if someone agreed with him on every point. I rather think he would challenge you to seek God and do what He says.

Dallas Willard will be greatly missed, but I know that today he is with the God who he so greatly loved. May God raise up more like him in this country.

But this diary is not really about Jason Collins. It is about the phony meme of tolerance and acceptance the Leftist media and their supporters preach to the nation on an almost daily basis. I say phony because their definition of “tolerance” extends only to those who agree with their view of morality and/or world view. Anyone who does not is not tolerated. Period. They are excoriated and called all sorts of names such as “haters”, “homophobic”, or “evil.”

Which brings me to my question about what takes real courage these days. Do you think that if a major professional athlete “came out” in a prime time interview and admitted that he was supportive of traditional marriage (and against gay marriage), believed in the Bible’s view of homosexuality, and/or supported traditional values he or she would receive the same treatment the media is giving Collins? Would he/she receive tweets of support from fellow athletes, Hollywood stars, a former President and his daughter? Would a major sponsor such as Nike stand by him/her and the commissioner of the sport praise his/her “courage?” If you believe the answer is yes, I would like to ask what color the sky is in your world.

To those of us who are intellectually honest and live in Realville, we know that athlete would never receive the support that Collins is receiving. In fact, he or she would receive exactly the opposite treatment. The sponsors would either drop him/her or they would distance themselves from the star (depending on the star power of the athlete and how many shoes he or she sells); touting all the while their support for “diversity” and “inclusion” as a reason. The Commissioner of their sport would equally distance themselves from the statements within thirty minutes of the “coming out.”. There would be no tweets of support from Hollywood stars or former Presidents. Maybe a fellow athlete would tweet some support, but those would be few and far between. After all, who wants to be demonized by the media and treated as a pariah?

So which “coming out” is more courageous these days? Collins or those who speak out about their faith and/or traditional values and morality?

In today’s media culture, the latter most definitely wins the courage award by a mile.

To understand the mentality of these churches and how it came to be, you have too look back to the 1990′s and perhaps even before then. Churches had abandoned the social arena long before to the state, but still spoke out on civic and moral issues to a certain degree. Unfortunately, some leaders gained great notoriety by some outrageous statements that were made in the name of God. Their aggressive nature was abrasive and, to be honest, it did turn some off to Christianity. But instead of blaming the individuals, the blame was set on being “too political.” This statement grew to mean anything that was in the least bit controversial in the social or civic arena. The irony of it all was that few, if any, of these leaders were actual church leaders. Unfortunately, this did not stop the wave of reaction among Evangelicals.

The appropriate response would have been to redeem and purify church involvement in civic and social matters by studying the history of the church in Early America and its role in bettering society. Unfortunately, this did not occur. The reaction was swift and decisive. It was determined that these fields must be abandoned. Being viewed as “too political” was equated with turning people away from Jesus. The result was twofold 1). It left the field wide open to the secular progressives 2). The very people who were viewed as abrasive and uninviting were the ones left to represent Christianity in this sphere (although since this time some very worthy organizations have come into being).  The very thing they wished to avoid occurred.

Now topics such as same-sex marriage, abortion, poverty, hatred of the rich or successful (our neighbors), the erosion of personal freedom, and so on are rarely discussed from the pulpit. If they are, no public action is advocated or taken. It is usually a reflection on how evil the world is getting and one usually feels like the congregants did in the Disney movie “Pollyanna” afterwards with a serious case of “sour stomach.” If you have not seen the movie, think of how you felt after the worst doom and gloom sermon you have ever heard and you will get the picture.

So I am calling out the Evangelical Protestant leaders. We are suppose to be salt and light and right now we are neither. Increasing the number of converts each week is wonderful and I rejoice at that, but there is more to be done. How can you ask them to go out and change their world when you won’t lift a finger to do so yourself? Whether it is fear of man, losing your tax exempt status, or a genuine concern of turning someone off to Christ, it is all rooted in fear and we do not serve a God of fear. You have great influence and are accountable to God how you use it. It can be used for good, or merely sit idle. Conservative Catholic leaders are unafraid to speak truth and take action, why are you so hesitant? You could learn from their example. It is possible to be intelligent, bold, and full of grace when speaking truth. Jesus did it all of the time.

If ever we needed another Deborah, David, or great leader recorded in the Bible that time is now. It is time to be silent no more. Speak up!

It is human nature to be introspective when tragedies of this magnitude occur. That is not necessarily a negative thing. In our personal lives, we are often called to take stock and inventory of our lives. Perhaps that time has come for this nation.

Some have begun to sound the alarm about the need for gun control and more laws. I am not going to comment on these actions in this diary, because I feel that they are a distraction from the real issues. The main one being the decline of our culture, an issue no law or legislation can fix. Other issues such as how we treat mental illness in this country and how we can improve school security are valid and important topics of discussion, but each subject would require a diary all unto themselves to do them justice.

I recall when I was a child in the 1980′s, the notion that the consumption of violent media  could have a negative effect on the behavior or thought patterns of children was deemed silly and reserved for religious fanatics or something along those lines. However, as early as 1997 (and earlier), studies were coming out that disproved this idea.The evidence has continued to mount since then. Multiple studies now exist  showing that the violent images children are being exposed to via video games, television, and movies increase aggressive and violent behavior. Despite the scientific evidence, the myth perpetrated in the 1980′s continues to be pervasive within the American consciousness. It seems that we have been just denying the proclamations of the nation’s psychological professionals. The results of this denial are unfortunately seen on the nightly news all too often.

So what is the solution for a free society? The First Amendment ensures freedom of speech and is sacred in this country, as it should be. Banning certain media products is not the appropriate solution for a country that believes in freedom as we do.The rating systems for video games, movies, etc. were a great concept, but have failed miserably. Why? The reason is all too simple. Parents just ignore or discount them. This is usually due to either pure apathy and/or incomptence or the belief in the myth discussed above.

One large problem is that parenting in the U.S. has been largely abdicated to the schools, the state, and even the Church (though the latter does great good). These institutions are no substitute for competent, involved parenting. How to cure the apathy/incomptence portion of the parenting failure in the U.S. is complex and I have no ready solutions for this issue. But the myth that violent media has no effect on children and even adults can and must be debunked and destroyed.

We can begin the process by starting a massive ad campaign. We have multiple educational initiatives in the schools and the community geared towards parents and children. Some are quite silly and ineffective. But others, like the anti-smoking campaign, have been largely successful. The attitudes towards smoking have completely changed in the last 30 or so years and less people are smoking. The same model can be used to educate parents on the dangers of violent media and the negative effects on society. Hopefully, that will translate into less violent images consumed and eventually less products made for consumption.

The ad campaign cannot mince words though. It cannot be based on a Hollywood actor’s cheesy politically correct warning as they star in the next slasher movie. It has to be scientifcally based and almost blunt in its’ honesty. That is not to say that celebrities would not be a welcome addition, but they would have to be willing do their part in Hollywood to clean that place up. Otherwise they need not apply.

This obviously is not the single solution or cure all, but it is a start. It will not be without opposition either. The media complex makes massive amounts of money off of the violent video games, movies, and television shows they create. But it is time to take a stand. It is time to make this country a better and more sane place to live in.

***I have links to the studies discussed, but was not able to post them. If anyone is interested in the abstracts/articles I can list them for you. Or a cursory search of Google Scholar or PubMed will lead you to a wealth of studies on this subject.

Below are the core reasons I feel we lost and some possible solutions to these issues. Many of these are issues that have been pointed out by people wiser than I. I am simply seeking to put them together in one diary.

Issue#1: A legion of dishonest and opportunistic consultants that plague the GOP. Ace of Spades and our own RS have done the leg work on exposing the fraud of the GOTV program that was known as ORCA. If you have not read these pieces, you need to. Warning: It will make your blood boil.

Solution: Name names and blacklist these people. Once again, RS and Ace of Spades are leading the way on this one. We should not let up. These people should be publicly exposed for the fraudulent beings that they are.

Issue #2: The Leftist Media owns the airwaves and they appeal to the low-informed voter. I know that Fox News owns the news airways, so I am not speaking of news outlets per se. It is more pop culture that I am speaking of.

Solution: We have to find a way to break into pop culture. I am not asking that we abandon our values to do so. On the contrary, we need to use it to educate people on our values. The invention of the website Twitchy is a step in the right direction.

Issue #3: This is closely related to Issue #2, but is slightly different. We have candidates that fail to realize that the MSM hates them with a passion. Even if they do realize this, they do not understand the Left-wing media machine and how they work and think. Therefore they are unprepared for the onslaught that comes their way.

Solution: Before anyone runs for GOP office, they are required to read Breitbart’s “Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World” and Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.” If we are going to defeat the Left and their media shills, we have to learn how they think. Know thine enemy.

Issue#4: We must increase our outreach to minority voters and low-income voters. We cannot write off these groups as hopelessly Democrat voting blocks.

Solution: Unlike Krauthammer and others, I do not think the solution is blanket amnesty. This will not be enough to draw Latino voters, as they tend to value bigger government policies (something we can change, see below). However, I do think we need to moderate our stance on immigration. We should listen to the ideas of Sen. Rubio and Governor Perry on this issue. If we tackle this from a conservative, yet humane perspective, this could be a winning issue for us.

But even this will not solve our challenges in this area on its own. We need to go into minority and low-income communities and listen to the problems facing their families. If we open up dialogue, we will have more of an opportunity to educate people on how limited government and fiscal conservatism will directly help them. We will not convert everyone, but if we convert just a few we can turn this country around. We must engage, engage, engage.

Issue#5: Teacher’s Unions and the Education System. The majority of people educating our children are members of the teacher’s unions. These unions are nothing more than another wing of the DNC. They are indoctrinating our children to adopt the Leftist ideaology.

Solution: Take down the teacher’s unions on a state-by-state basis. Push school-choice initiatives and charter schools with more parental control. Be engaged in what your child is learning. If you see signs of indoctrination, raise heck about it and make it your mission in life to get that teacher fired. Take the story to the local media. School districts hate bad publicity. It is time to declare war on the liberal indoctrination of our children.

Issue #6: Train our Presidential candidates to be Happy Warriors. Too often we either have just  the “happy” or the “warrior.” Pushing moderate candidates whose sole objective is to avoid twisting off a media that hates them anyways is a losing strategy. Having a fire-breathing dragon for a candidate never works either.

Solution: We need someone who boldly stands up for Conservative principles (all of them), while simultaneously connecting these principles to a better life for all Americans. No more candidates who will not take on the Media and no more agreements to debates moderated by members of the DNC media. Be a Happy Warrior!

If we start on these things now, we will take back this country. In a few short months (maybe sooner), people will be more open to the Conservative viewpoint once they begin to feel what they voted for. We must be ready. Let’s roll!

Now to where we have problems. The national stage. I know that many of us are hesitant to do a post-mortem on the Romney campaign. I know I am. I appreciate Romney’s hard work and effort to win. I thought he carried himself well for most of the campaign and receives an A+ for effort. But effort does not always guarantee victory. If we are to truly learn and correct our mistakes, we must be willing to go through the painful examination process. So here are some key mistakes I feel the Romney campaign made:

1). Insufficient Ground Game: While Romney got out the vote better than McCain did, it was not enough. When I heard the reports of the disparity of the campaign offices in Ohio between the Obama campaign and Romney’s, I was concerned. But I believed the reassurances of Team Romney. Turns out EE was right on this one.

2). 47%: What I am going to say here may surprise some, but here it goes. The gaffe was not the bad part, it was the strategy behind the gaffe that was the problem. Romney did not make concerted efforts to go after these people, especially Hispanics. He should have explained to them that simple, limited government will aid them and make their lives better. Instead, he focused on the Independents which was not enough.

3). The Media: It is no secret that we have the most corrupt, vile media in US history. They have lied, shilled, and deceived in order to get Obama re-elected. They were successful. While Romney cannot change this, I do believe he could have been more aggressive with them. He played not to lose to the media, instead of trying to beat them.

4). Conservatism…: I have respect for Romney, but he is a moderate and not a conservative. He failed to draw distinct lines between himself and Obama. People chose who they knew. Limited government was not the front and center platform it should have been. While I commend Romney for keeping the focus on jobs and the economy, he was almost too focused. It left him little room to talk about things like immigration reform, small government, and fiscal policy. More Paul Ryan, please.

There are many other things that could be listed. Other diarists have penned many points on which I agree ( a better response to Sandy, being too mute on Benghazi). But at the end of the day, we must learn from these errors and keep up the good fight. Despair and hand-wringing does us no good. We can do this together. Remember nothing has changed, we just did not get the “change” this country needed. Keep up your spirits!

*Repeat with me, “no more establishment moderate Republicans!”

As time has elapsed between the breaking of this story, I have found myself stepping back and contemplating what ( if any ) lessons can be gleaned from this incident. Ironically, what keeps revolving around in my mind has nothing to do with race, politics, gun laws, or other such hot-button topics. What has occupied my thoughts lately involves one of the most powerful influences today on American thought and behavior. It is a force that can be used for good or for evil. It can promote and ensure the freedoms we enjoy in this country, or be one of the most corrupt and degrading influences on earth.

The force of which I speak is none other than the Media. We live in an age in which honest journalism had been substituted for reality tv-like drama and/or a political agenda. The Media strives to shape a narrative that is more akin to a bad novel, rather than dealing in the realities of human nature and of life.

For a case study in media madness, look no further than the Trayvon Martin case. From the moment of the incident, the Media portrayed Trayvon Martin as a young boy who was as pure as the driven snow. His only mistake, according to the Media, was bringing candy home from the drugstore to a young family member. The Media even went so far as to use three and four year old photos of Trayvon Martin in order to corroborate this narrative. They played on the parental instincts of all Americans to such an extent that it is no small wonder that the initial reaction was one of outrage.

Naturally, the media storyline needed a villain and the powers-that-be decided to cast Mr. Zimmerman in that role, without waiting until the facts of the case were known. An old mug shot was broadcast over every airwave and the stage was set. A few media outlets even stooped to falsely doctoring video and audio tapes to prop up the storyline they wanted presented.

But in this age of the new media, their storyline was interrupted by the truth. It turned out that Trayvon Martin was not the “innocent” young man portrayed by many in the media. Unfortunately, he had made poor choices in school, used drugs, and appeared to be going down the wrong path. Because he had been set up so high by the media, his fall from grace was further.

Some who tended to support Mr. Zimmerman took this as a sign that Trayvon Martin must be in the wrong. After all, if Trayvon Martin was not the pure innocent the media portrayed him to be, then he must be guilty! This line of false reasoning is as misguided as those (and I point the finger at myself) who assumed Trayvon Martin was entirely innocent in the altercation when the Media first began to weave their web of untruths.

Mr. Zimmerman’s character met a similar fate in the Media. First he was a stalker-like vigilante who ruthlessly murdered a young boy. Then when the good he did in the community came to light and the image of Trayvon Martin the media had created crumbled, some wanted to prop Mr. Zimmerman up as a model citizen who surely could not be guilty.

So back and forth the Media see-saw went, trying to dig up past indiscretions in either Mr. Zimmerman’s or Trayvon Martin’s lives. The Media wanted their good guy/bad guy storyline, with little regard for the facts of the case. They ignored the reality that most people are made up of both good and evil parts and our lives reflect a series of both good and bad choices.

The truth is that in the eyes of the law, it matters little what poor decisions Trayvon Martin made in his life prior to that evening or whether Mr. Zimmerman helped underpriviliged children in his neighborhood. Lady Justice is thankfully blind, and she is only concerned with the facts of the case and the truth.

My only prayer is that the jurors in this case will follow her example and not be swayed by the good guy/bad guy drama the Media has tried to create. The laws of this nation demand that justice be served. Humanity pleads it for the sake of the families on both sides. This can only occur if the jurors let blind Lady Justice lead the way and we follow close behind.

This diary is more about the realization I came to this morning and the conclusions I have drawn from it as a Tea Party supporter. The reality is that I (and probably many others) began my political awakening with much naivete and a gross underestimation of the Washington establishment class. It is hard to admit, but it is the truth.

The thing about naivete is that it is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it is the beginning spark of innocence and idealism. It ignites the hope that things can and will get better if we put our best foot forward. Naivete is the youthful exuberance we all feel as young people beginning our lives.

However, naivete not tempered with wisdom and persistence will lead to bitterness and disillusionment when the road becomes difficult in life. What begins as youthful hope, turns to a premature aging of the mind and a cynical resignation of a less-than-desirable fate. This outcome was and is my fear for myself and my fellow Tea Party supporters.

I am afraid we thought that one or two elections would solve the problems we face in this country or at least place us on the right track. We believed it because we thought that those we sent to Washington in 2010 would begin to fix what was broken. After all, that is what we would do in their place.

But common sense and principle does not abound in Washington, as we soon found out. Unfortunately, the corruption and love for big government and power runs deep in Washington and the thirty to forty percent of those of the 2010 elections who held true to their convictions were not enough to overthrow the GOP establishment.

All of this has drawn me towards the conclusion that unless we take over the House and Senate and fill them with small-government conservatives we will always face an uphill battle. The halls of Congress is where the real power resides and where the corrupt, big government policies originate and come into being. I fear we are losing sight of this truth with all of the hype and angst over the GOP Presidential nominee.

I am in no way implying that the top of the ticket does not matter. Four years of Obama should convince anyone that who is in the White House is important. However, we must recall that Obama could never have unleashed the terror that he has on this country without the aiding and abetting of a Democrat controlled House and Senate. Conversely, even if the most conservative candidate (which I believe to be Rick Perry) wins the nomination and beats Obama, he would still have difficulty making real change in Washington with the current squishy leadership of the GOP in Congress. The point is that these down-ticket races are crucial and are our tickets to changing Washington back to the way our Founders intended.

I know that if Romney or Gingrich wins the nomination, it will be hard for us to stomach. Believe me, I know. But I caution everyone not to hit the panic button and resign ourselves to the fate the establishment GOP has planned for us. Yes, they may succeed at “choosing our candidate” for us, as they have consistently tried to do via media from day one. But they cannot choose our Congressmen and women. We the People still have a voice and we can and MUST use it. I encourage everyone to go to the Senate Conservatives Fund and read up on who they have endorsed. This group is led by Sen. Jim DeMint and helped successfully elect solid small government conservatives like Rubio, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.

Whatever you do, do not stay home on Election Day, no matter who the nominee is. That form of “protest” is a selfish move and not becoming of one who claims to love this country. If (God forbid), Romney or Gingrich wins the nomination, hold your nose and vote for them. But give, volunteer, and campaign for the most conservative, small government Senate/House candidate who will give them hell on a daily basis if they fail to reform Washington and shrink the size of government.

That is a form of retribution on the establishment I can get behind, can you? Remember: Don’t get mad, get even. A great thought to rally behind.

Tea Party 2012

I know that there are several different religious persuasions represented here at RS. There are even some of no religious persuasion whatsoever. This kind of diversity is something that I have come to appreciate about RS. Religious topics are seldom made the subject of diaries, as it should be. But this is one thing that I felt warranted some investigating.

Going on right now is a mega-conference for evangelical Christian churches called Catalyst. Many people have never heard of it, but is is a big deal among churches. It was started to bring young church leaders together to train and equip them for the future. The individuals who began Catalyst are prominent leaders in the Christian Church, one of whom I greatly admire named Andy Stanley. He is a great pastor of an equally amazing church called NorthPoint.

Needless to say, I have always viewed Catalyst favorably even though I have never had the privilege to attend the event. Catalyst always invites a wide variety of speakers ranging from prominent pastors to successful business leaders and leadership gurus. Not all of them have shared the Christian faith, which I have never found offensive. The fact that they did not share the same faith as the attendees had no bearing on their ability to speak with authority on the subject that they were asked to speak on.

Imagine my surprise when I was recently told by a friend some of the names of the individuals being invited to attend this year’s events. I will only name two, as a diary can only be so long.

One of the main speakers this year is Dr. Cornel West. Here is his bio as listed on the Catalyst website. From their description, you can gather that he is a Democrat activist, an intelligent man (he is a Professor at Princeton University), and that he is passionate about keeping the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King alive. All in all, he sounds like a pretty good guy from their description (minus being a Democrat activist), right? Wrong.

Unfortunately, Catalyst forgot to mention a few other notable things about Dr. West and decided to simply list the bio from his website. For instance, they forgot to note that in the mid-1980′s Dr. West wrote a piece for the Democratic Socialists of America as their Honorary Chair. He continues to be a member of this organization to this day.

He has described himself as a “non-Marxist socialist” which still makes one a socialist, just not of the Marxist variety. Most recently, Dr. West has joined the OccupyWall Street protest in which over 700 people have been arrested for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge.

Dr. West recently on MSNBC called Republicans “mean, cold-hearted, and tied to oliogarchs.” . Now why would you invite such a person to speak to a group of Christian leaders? Perhaps it was for diversity of thought. However, there are better ways to achieve diversity of thought than to invite a radical socialist to be one of your main speakers at an event billed to “train up the next church leaders.”

Another speaker featured in one of the “labs” is one Lisa Sharon Harper. Her bio is also listed on the Catalyst website. Once again, her bio indicates that she clearly is left-of-center but is “reaching out” to Conservatives. She even wrote a book on it!

But one glance at her blog on God’s Politics reveals a none to loving attitude towards Herman Cain and the Tea Party. In fact, it smacks of downright hatred. Once again the question remains, why invite political activists to a church convention? And if you are, why not include some from the Conservative side? Either make the event apolitical (the ideal) or give equal representation.

To be fair to Catalyst, the vast majority of speakers are only there to encourage the Church and build up Church leaders. They are well-respected pastors whom I have listened to on a number of occasions. I have personally read and been inspired by either their books or blogs. But there are others not mentioned in this diary who are speaking at Catalyst who are quite left-of-center and open about it. Which brings me to another question. Why is it cool to be a pastor and air your political views if you are on the left, but a national faux-pas if you are a conservative and do so? It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

For the sake of my great respect for Andy Stanley, I am doing my utmost to give Catalyst the benefit of the doubt. To be fair, they are not the only church conference out there booking these types of speakers. Maybe it is some strategy I am not privy to. Is it for diversity and to not be divisive? If so, I can realy stretch myself to understand. But did it ever occur to these people that not every Conservative is a Christian? Inviting these kinds of speakers may make this group of people never want to set foot in church again.

Please, if anyone from Catalyst can explain this to me I am all ears. I even looked for a main contact number on their site to maybe ask some questions and get some explanation. I just do not want to believe that a great event like this is turning into what I fear it is.

Enter Rick Perry. Initially, when I heard that he was thinking of running, I was enthusiastic. I thought to myself, this might be the guy to unite the party and beat Obama. Needless to say, I was hoping that he would decide to run and waited anxiously to see if the rumors were true regarding his candidacy.

But as his announcement appears to be imminent, some issues have begun to crop up regarding Perry as a candidate. First it was the Gardasil issue, then it was his support of the TTC, and then I heard some questioning whether he reduced the budget in Texas or grew it. Added to that, he became the center of some rather bizarre conspiracy theories. I tried to research some of these issues, but much of the information was tainted by the above mentioned conspiracy theory websites. These theories are by and large bunk, but it would be dishonest for me to say that I was not a little disconcerted that his actions could even be grown into some sort of conspiracy theory.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I would like to take a brief moment to explain how destructive to truth these things are. There are enough machinations and plots out there that are real and need to be exposed without these people running around with bizarre theories not based on fact. Their actions and words muddy the waters and actually make it more difficult for truth to win the day. People are off chasing rabbits that do not exist, while true evil goes on right under their noses. Conspiracists peddle fear and lies mixed with a sliver of truth, and only bring confusion and despair to their victims.

I will step off my soapbox now and return to the Perry question.

In light of these issues and the difficulty of finding an accurate and unbiased view of his governorship in Texas, I pondered some of the questions that I would like to have answered by Perry and/or asked of him. I might add that the way these questions are answered would determine whether I support him in the primaries.

1). Is Perry just another pro-life statist? I heard Erick coin this term on the radio yesterday and I though it an excellent description of many establishment Republicans. I do not want a pro-life statist for President! I want someone who is not only pro-life, but who is deeply committed to reducing the size of government in Washington. With all respect to former President GW Bush, I do not want another Republican President who actually grows government. I want the whole package: social conservative, fiscal conservative, and a staunch supporter of limited government. Isn’t that what conservatism is anyways?

2). What did he do in Texas to reduce the size and scope of government? A good indicator of how a candidate will govern his how he/she governed in their previous position.

3). What did Perry do in Texas to balance the state budget and reduce spending and/or cut entitlements?

4). Does he believe in American exceptionalism and is he nationalist in his thinking or a globalist?

5). What are his plans to expand private sector development and to decrease onerous regulations on businesses?

6). What are his views on immigration?

These are important questions to ask of Perry and that he will need to answer. Some of his actions, ie the Gardasil issue, place him at odds with a limited government perspective. He will have to address that issue and some others during his campaign. If he lands on the side of conservatism in his answers to these questions, he may very well be the next President of the United States.

One final thing I would like to add, is that these questions should not and do not just apply to Perry. We should be asking these of every candidate for the GOP nomination. We cannot just blindly follow a cult of personality, that is how Obama got elected. We must fully vet all candidates and place the most Conservative nominee who can win on the ticket. If we do that, Obama will be a one-term President. So help us God.