Per·Fidem | Texan Standard Version | Texas Heritage Party | Texian Weblog | Codex | Poetry | Bookshelf | News | Links | Search | Contact

I found this neat little diversion while reading Father Hollywood’s blog. You may have heard of it. If you are “tagged,” which I have not been, you are to pick up the closet book, turn to page 123, find the fifth sentence, and post the next three sentences.

As I sit at my computer, I have books all around me. There are bookshelves to my left and my right. The bookshelf on the left contains works of philosophy and theology. On my right is Political Science. I blindly stretched my hands out toward both bookcases with the intention of using the first book I touch, hoping it will be from the philosophy section since the Poli Sci section is admittedly dry. I love Political Science, but let’s face it, you can only take so much of it in a day. Thankfully, the first book I touched was On the Good Life a Penguin Classics collection of some of Cicero’s philosophical works. Page 123 comes from On Duties:

Other schools of philosophy maintain that some things are certain, and others uncertain. We adopt a special view of our own [“we” being Cicero’s school, the Academy]. What we say is that some things are probable, and others improbable.

Cicero is making the point here that the Academy argues that no one can ever be certain of anything because man’s reason and senses are too fallible to achieve any degree of certainty. But, that doesn’t mean the philosophers of the Academy simply throw their hands up and give up, complaining there’s no use to study or debate because certainty can never be achieved. Instead, they have “a special view of [their] own.” Some things are probable, others improbable.

Cicero is correct about the fallibility of reason and the senses. The only thing of which we can be certain is our own ignorance.

Cicero is so cool! In the margins of the editor’s introduction to On the Good Life I have written, “Cicero is not for the weak- or lazy-minded.” Very true. Though, I have no idea where I got that. Sure, that part of the introduction is discussing why modern readers neglect Cicero, but the author never says anything close to “lazy-minded.” It certainly doesn’t sound like something that came from my mind. I have underlined on the same page:

[Cicero’s] treatises are for people who possess mature and independent minds, who have no desire to follow other minds slavishly, and who are compelled, in the course of their daily existences, to grapple with problems which are complex–rarely admitting of a purely intellectual solution–and which call on all the resources of their humanity.

Modern people do not have mature or independent minds. They are, in fact, lazy-minded, which is why reality TV and celebrity worship appeal to them so much. That is, except for us nerds who find ourselves compelled to tackle complex problems.

Perhaps Cicero was the first nerd. After all, he never quite fit into Patrician society (because he was not a Patrician nor even true Roman). He was an intellectual. He loved to read and study. He was a loner, he never had much luck with women, and he was bullied by the jocks of his time (i.e. Sulla, Mark Antony, et cetera). So, Cicero was the first nerd.

–J.E. Heath

President Bush has recently re-started his practice of including signing statements with legislation. These signing statements are used by the president to inform Congress that he has no intention of enforcing certain provisions of the bill he has just signed because he believes those provisions are unconstitutional. This issue first came to light a few years ago, and since the Democrats have won control of Congress, Bush has relented. But recently he has re-started his aggressive use of these signing statements. Usually these statements are used to sidestep a provision in a bill that the president feels is an unconstitutional encroachment of Congress on the president’s executive power.

However, the signing statements themselves are unconstitutional. The Constitution provides the president with three options regarding legislation: he may sign it, veto it, or allow it to be come law without his signature (see Article I, sec. 7). The Constitution is very clear about what the president should do if he objects to a bill, “he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated.” Sorry Mr. Bush, but it says nothing about including a statement saying you do not intend to execute certain provisions of the law. If you believe the law to be unconstitutional, then veto it and let Congress know that you think it is unconstitutional. That’s the way our Republic works.

We are a nation of laws. Our liberties mean nothing without the law, and if those who are charged with enforcing the law have themselves no regard for the law, then the law means nothing and our liberties mean nothing.

Look, the Bill of Rights is not just the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It is the entire Constitution (see Federalist 84). Every provision of the Constitution is intended to limit the power of government, to ensure that only good laws are enacted, to prevent one person or one group in the government from gaining too much power. This is why we have this cumbersome process of law making. This is why annoying little things like the separation of powers are important.

Bush’s practice of including signing statements, however, throws a monkey wrench in the whole process. He is using them to concentrate power in the executive branch (as if enough power hasn’t been concentrated there already). He is ignoring the separation of powers and declaring himself the arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.

This could be forgiven as an overzealous mistake, if Bush were correct in his judgements. But, he is not. The Boston Globe reports:

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

The Globe gives Bush’s objections:

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

Now, how is Congress’ attempt to regulate how money is spent out of the federal treasury an unconstitutional imposition on the president’s authority? The power of the purse is held by Congress, according to the Constitution anyway. Article I, sec. 8 (regular readers should be familiar with this part of the Constitution by now) says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” (emphasis is mine, though I imagine the Framers would agree). Too vague? The Constitution also says Congress has the power, “To raise and support Armies,” and, “To provide and maintain a Navy.” The president is indeed the commander in chief of the armed forces, but the Congress decides how to fund them. The provision that Bush declares unconstitutional is actually a perfectly legitimate exercise of Congress’ power under the Constitution.

So, let me get this straight. The president is using an unconstitutional practice to declare constitutional laws unconstitutional. Is your head spinning, too?

Actually, my head is not spinning, but my face is flush with anger. This is the Conservative president we are supposed to love and defend, whom history will judge as one of the greatest presidents in American history? What, I humbly ask, is conservative about how this man has governed? He has given us out of control spending, increased entitlements, incompetent management of the war, warrantless wiretapping, “comprehensive” immigration reform (so comprehensive that it forgot to secure the border), torture, secret prisons, devaluation of our currency, and now this, a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to concentrate power in the executive branch. This is Conservatism?

I think when I go to worship this Sunday, along with my many other sins, I will confess and ask forgiveness for my two votes for Bush (actually, four votes including the primaries).

Now, to what can we look forward in the future. According to the Globe, only one of the four remaining (viable) candidates has sworn off signing statements. Romney? No. Hillary? Obama? No, and no. Only John McCain has said he will not continue the practice. All the others, Obama included, have said they would continue issuing signing statements. So much for “change we can believe in.” Of course, I never could take seriously a candidate whose campaign slogan is grammatically incorrect.

But, back to this point. Only John McCain has said he will not use signing statements. Yet, according to Rush Limbaugh and the other high priests of Conservatism, McCain is not a conservative. So, Bush’s actions are conservative? If Bush is the measure of what it means to be a conservative, and McCain does not meet that standard, then I say good. In fact, why don’t you bring me the most un-conservative bastard you can find. I’ll vote for him.

–J.E. Heath

It appears that Senator John McCain will become the Republican nominee. Perhaps his nomination comes eight years too late, but it is finally happening, and I’m OK with that. Of course, my man is Huckabee. But, he doesn’t seem to have a chance now.

Quite a few people who call themselves Conservatives are upset over the prospect of a McCain nomination. Their first complaint, of course, is that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. He explains that he voted against them because they did not include spending cuts. Now, what’s more conservative than that? Instead of those spending cuts, Bush governed us into huge deficits that are now contributing to the decline of the Dollar which has caused inflation and hurts the middle class. A president McCain would have prevented that kind of deficit spending.

He did push for the immigration reform bill that many Conservatives complain would have given amnesty to illegal immigrants. Of course, Bush, who is praised by those same Conservatives, supported the same bill. That was a bad idea, particularly because the border needs to be secure before we start thinking about reforming immigration. McCain has learned his lesson and he is now saying the same thing.

McCain was calling for an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq long before anyone else. McCain even had to convince the White House a surge was a good idea. Many Conservatives were on the fence regarding the issue, but we now see that the surge has worked. Casualties are down in Iraq, the country is more stable, and the Iraqi government is taking control of its country. The surge has given us a new hope for victory in Iraq, and McCain deserves a great deal of the credit. McCain has done a better job at managing the war than Bush, and it's not even his job! There has been much talk lately about McCain’s accusations that Romney supported a time table for withdraw in Iraq. Since Romney is quite eloquent in his poli-speak, it is hard to tell what he supports, but one thing is clear, he was not fighting for a surge and a plan to victory like John McCain.

Unlike a certain other candidate on the Republican side (ahem), John McCain is a solid social conservative. He was pro-life when pro-life wasn’t cool.

Conservatives also complain that McCain is in favor of a Kyoto-style cap and trade system. I have mentioned here before that cap and trade works. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions without harming industry. It puts market forces to work to solve a global problem that threatens our economy, our standard of living, and our national security. It will stimulate industry to find new solutions to the problem of global warming. The world needs America to step up and face this challenge. Americans can solve this problem by bringing to bear the same kind of innovation and ingenuity that has made us the largest economy in the world. A cap and trade system will encourage American innovation. It will also bring new investment into nuclear power and renewable energy, and it will reduce our reliance on oil which we are currently buying from anti-American governments in unstable regions of the world. The most important thing here is that McCain is one of the few Republicans that realizes global warming is a problem and we must do something about it.

Another criticism of McCain regards his campaign finance reform. I agree that the McCain-Feingold bill was a bad idea. But, at least McCain realizes that the current campaign finance system, which gives a disproportionately large voice to lobbyists and special interests, is broken. Special interests are, by definition, more concerned about their own welfare than the general welfare of the United States. Unfortunately, they are the king-makers in American politics. Politicians at every level rely on them for the money they need to run a campaign, and when they get elected, their first concern is for those who helped them get elected. Special interests pay the piper, and he who pays the piper gets to call the tune.

My biggest problem with McCain is that he does not support fair trade, which I think is one of the biggest issues in this campaign. He does, however, support policies that will help ease the pain caused by globalization, and his other fiscal policies would do a great deal in improving our economy.

But, the most important thing to remember about John McCain: he’s not Romney. If my choice is between an honorable war hero or a slick car salesman, I choose the war hero. McCain is certainly not a perfect candidate (I doubt there is such a thing) but at least you know where he stands. Honor and integrity count a great deal for me and they are an important part to being a great president.

–J.E. Heath

First of all, I think this Romney win will benefit Huckabee by bringing McCain’s surge to an end. Huck’s only real competition in South Carolina is McCain. If McCain had won Michigan, Huck couldn’t stop him in SC. But, with Romney’s win, Huck has a chance to overtake McCain.

But, here’s what has been bothering me since Tuesday night. It is customary, and just plain courteous, for the winner of an election to allow his vanquished opponents to speak to their supporters before he gives his victory speech. Huck gave Romney that courtesy in Iowa, and McCain gave it to Romney in New Hampshire. But Romney did not extend the same courtesy to McCain on Tuesday night. Just as McCain was starting his speech, Romney started his and all the networks dropped McCain and switched to Romney (since he was the winner).

CNN brought this up a few times that night, but I haven’t heard much else about it. Not that it’s a big deal, but it does give some insight into the type of person Romney is.

–J.E. Heath

Here's something that has bothered me for some time. I have heard people argue that democracy is not the best government because democracy fails as soon as the people realize that they can vote for themselves anything they want. Democracy ultimately leads to big government. Therefore, democracy must be severly limited. It is true that democracy must be held back to prevent mob tyranny (which is why our system places the rights of the individual above the power of the people), and that democracy does not work without a wise and moral populous. However, this particular argument about the shortcomings of democracy is wrong. The people cannot simply vote for whatever they want because they will have to pay for it. Crunchy Con Rod Dreher touched on this in a post today about Conservative arguments that Huckabee is not a true Conservative. Neither are mainstream Republicans, Dreher argues,

My disgust with Bush and the late, unlamented Republican Congress is not that they spent so much money (though that's part of it). My real disgust is that they spent on credit. If the people want big government, then the politicians are going to give it to them, despite (in the GOP's case) their rhetorical pose against it. But if they're fiscally responsible, then they ought to pay for it, and not hide from the voters the cost of what they demand. If politicians told people that they can have this shiny new program, but they were going to have to give up something else, either in terms of a spending cut or a new tax, to get it, then government would limit itself naturally.

Exactly right. Democracy naturally limits government. The GOP was expanding government without paying for it. The people saw the problem with this and voted the GOP out. It is the Republican establishment, not Huckabee, who have been betraying Conservatism. They have twisted the Conservative principle of fiscal responsibility into a policy of free money. This is their failure, not democracy's. Huckabee, on the other hand, saw as governor of Arkansas that you actually have to pay for government, which is why he raised taxes to pay for better roads and schools (with the people's consent, I might add). At the end of his term, the Arkansas state government had a surplus, which he said should go back to the people in the form of a tax cut. That sounds more like a Conservative to me than Bush or the Republican Congress. Which is why Dreher argues that the attacks of the GOP establishment on Huckabee's record are weak. He doesn't use the word, but I will: they are hypocritical.

I suppose it could be argued that limiting democracy is a sure way to get a larger, more intrusive government. Under a democratic-republic with universal suffrage such as ours, everybody is a part of the governing class and everybody shares the burden of government. If democracy is limited, then it would be possible for the governing class to vote for anything they want and pass the cost on to those outside their class. But, I'm not going to bother with that argument for now. Suffice it to say: a democratic-republic naturally limits government and probably does it better than any other system.

–J.E. Heath

I don’t think I have ever mentioned this here before, but I’m somewhat of a Germanophile. I have certainly mentioned before that I’m a Huckaphile. One of the reasons I like Mike is that he is the closet candidate we have here to a German Christian Democrat. For those who are unaware, the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union) is a center-right party in Germany. They are socially conservative and advocate an economic philosophy called the Social Market Economy (Soziale Marktwirtshaft) which supports the capitalist system, but uses the government to fix problems created by capitalism (such as wealth inequality, pollution, et cetera).

I have believed for some time that this is the type of party Americans are looking for: a party that is socially conservative and fiscally centrist. Our only two choices are the Dems who are socially and fiscally liberal, and the GOP which is socially and fiscally conservative. The reason elections have been so close over the past eight years is that Americans only agree with either party about half the time. They agree slightly more with the Republicans, and the Republicans are on the right side of the most important social issues, so elections usually break in favor of the GOP. But a party that is socially conservative and fiscally centrist would be tapping into the desires of a large majority of Americans and can expect Reagan-like numbers.

The fact that Huckabee is an American Christian Democrat has been noticed by others, as well. For example, Henry Olsen explains this in The Wall Street Journal. He writes:

Mike Huckabee's stunning victory in Thursday's Iowa caucuses does more than change the GOP nomination race. With a platform explicitly grounded in his Christian faith and a populist economic message, Mr. Huckabee offers the Republican Party a new political narrative, light years removed from the limited government principles governing the GOP in the Reagan and post-Reagan era.

This pro-faith, pro-government message may sound strange to American ears -- but it is a staple of conservative political parties on the European continent. Mr. Huckabee, in other words, essentially gives Republicans a choice: Does the GOP want to become a Christian Democratic party?

I’d say yes, but Olsen follows this question with an argument against Christian Democracy writing,

Every country which has been primarily governed by Christian Democrats since World War II (Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands) is poorer than the United States, with substantially higher unemployment rates and slower economic growth. The differences aren't even close.

This surprised me. After all, the Christian Democrats oversaw the German Economic Wonder of the mid-20th century. Using the Social Market philosophy, Konrad Adenauer and the CDU were able to bring Germany up from the ashes and rubble of World War II to create one of the biggest and strongest economies in the world.

Tremendous growth, however, is not the primary goal of the Christian Democrats. They prefer a slow, stable economy with low unemployment and more equally distributed incomes.

Olsen backs up his argument with stats showing that CD countries do indeed have higher unemployment and slower growth. I can’t speak for all the nations in Olsen’s list, but for Germany, these numbers are more than likely outdated. It is true that Germany has experienced some hard times over the past decade, mostly due to the cost of reunification. However, according to the German news agency Deutsche Welle, the total number of unemployed Germans has dropped from around 5 million to 3.278 million in the two years since Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Christian Democrats regained power from the left wing Social Democrats. That’s a 34% decrease in two years, and it’s the lowest unemployment number in 15 years. Deutsche Welle also reports that,

A survey of top managers and executives from six EU nations has found that Germany tops the list of most competitive economies in Europe. Internationally, the country takes second place -- behind China.

Further, according to the CIA World Factbook, Germany’s estimated GDP growth in 2006 was 2.8%, the United States was at 2.9%. Not much of a difference there. Also, Germany’s economy is the third largest in the world (behind the US and Japan). Germany is also the world’s largest exporter. Americans, concerned about a huge trade deficit and a dwindling manufacturing sector, may look with envy at that number. Obviously, Germany is not as bad off as Olsen claims.

Merkel and the CDU have achieved this turn around by introducing economic reforms that we in America would consider Reagan-esque. The similarity doesn’t end there. Merkel has had to turn around an economy that was experiencing the same kind of malaise as the U.S. economy in the 1970's. When all is said and done, we may look back and see Merkel as a German Reagan.

Olsen has tried to cast Christian Democracy as Liberal. The reality is that it is quite conservative and pro-market, but Christian Democrats don’t believe that the free market system is infallible. Nothing in this world is infallible.

Reagan won by arguing against the forces that threatened the middle class. At the time, the problem was a burdensome government. Reagan fixed the problem by making government smaller and lowering taxes. Today, governmental policies such as lopsided trade agreements (or the lack of a policy, such as in the case of immigration) are harming the middle class. Huckabee seeks to fix these problems by insisting on fair trade and securing the borders.

Much has been said about Huckabee’s tax hikes in Arkansas. The truth is, Huckabee inherited a state with a horrible road system and failing schools. These problems take money to fix. Conservatism is not just about tax cuts, it’s about responsible government. There are quite a few Republicans in Congress who feel they can spend all the money they want and still call themselves Conservative because they voted for a tax cut. Huckabee is not that kind of Republican. That’s why he should be the GOP nominee.

–J.E. Heath

As you already know, Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucuses. This, of course, will cause the Republican Establishment to complain even louder than before that Huck is not a true Conservative.

I want to say a few things about this “true Conservatism.” Where is it? Are we to assume that Conservatism is practiced most purely by the Republicans in Congress? If that’s the case, then I’m glad Huck is not a “true Conservative.”

The Conservative message has been hijacked by the Washington Republican Elite and twisted to favor their constituency: corporate CEO’s. Conservatism as Ronald Reagan preached it is about the little guy. It is about protecting the middle class from harmful government policies. Conservatism is not about pandering to the corporations, special interests, and foreign lobbyists. It isn’t about pork-barrel spending. It isn’t about destroying our manufacturing with reckless, lopsided trade agreements. It isn’t about faith based economics. And it certainly isn’t about incompetent administration officials or corrupt congressmen.

When Reagan ran for president, the middle class was threatened by an over-intrusive government. Today, the middle class is threatened by a corporate owned and operated government (the Washington-Wall Street Axis). Ronald Reagan sought to change the policies that were harming the middle class, and the Republican Establishment hated him for it. Mike Huckabee is trying to do the same thing, and the Republican Establishment hates him for it, too.

The problem here is that the Republican Party is too closely linked with corporate greed. The solution to this problem is not found in the nomination of an ex-corporate CEO. It is time for someone new, who will lead the party back to supporting the middle class over corporate interests.

–J.E. Heath

The above is Mike Huckabee’s newest campaign video. And what a brilliant move it is. It is simple, sincere, and it rises above the fray. Instead of saying “vote for me and don’t vote for the other guy,” Huck simply says, “Let’s put politics aside for a moment. Merry Christmas.” For someone like me, who is spending this Christmas rebelling against consumerism and commercialism, this ad is refreshing. I’m sure many other voters will think the same thing, and not just evangelical voters.

The beauty of this ad is that it cannot be attacked. Well, some people still find fault with it. The AP reports,

Catholic League president Bill Donahue said Huckabee went beyond wishing people a joyous holiday. Donahue said he was especially disturbed by the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background of the ad, saying he believed it was a subliminal message.

I’m not sure why a Catholic would be concerned about the appearance of a cross. An apparition of Mary never seems to bother them. Anyway, here’s Huck’s response to the accusation that there are subliminal (or as Bush would say, subliminable) messages in the ad:

Huckabee said the bookshelf is just a bookshelf and shrugged off the controversy: "I will confess this: If you play the spot backwards it says, 'Paul is dead. Paul is dead.'"

Ha! Is there any wonder why I love this guy?

–J.E. Heath

I’m a few days late on commenting on this. So sue me. Can’t a man take a weekend off?

In last week’s column, Charles Krauthammer, known affectionately here as the Master, criticized the claim that Mitt Romney made in his recent religion speech that freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom.

But this is nonsense -- as Romney then proceeded to demonstrate in that very same speech. He spoke of the empty cathedrals in Europe. He's right about that: Postwar Europe has experienced the most precipitous decline in religious belief in the history of the West. Yet Europe is one of the freest precincts on the planet. It is an open, vibrant, tolerant community of more than two dozen disparate nations living in a pan-continental harmony and freedom unseen in all previous European history.

In some times and places, religion promotes freedom. In other times and places, it does precisely the opposite, as is demonstrated in huge swaths of the Muslim world, where religion has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.

I wanted to make a few quick comments on this.

First, Europe is free, but even some Europeans bemoan the fact that European democracy is not nearly as liberal as American democracy. Simon Jenkins writes,

Americans are people of the book, treating their constitutions, precedents and treatises as of quasi-sacred import. The linguistic beauty and clarity of meaning of their early documents is unsurpassed.

An American election is more than a periodic shifting of oligarchic chairs. It is a mass assertion of the people’s right to choose and dismiss their head of state. It is the closest any big country gets to James Madison’s “pure democracy”, regularly purging the accumulated toxins of the political blood. Europe has nothing to match it.

The reader may like to read Lincoln’s address to the Young Men’s Lyceum for more about our political religion.

Jenkins further argues that the new European constitution would never be signed by an American president without the input of the people. European leaders, however, saw no problem with signing the document without first consulting the people who must live under this document.

Perhaps Americans’ tendency to hold certain things such as God, the Bible, and marriage sacred also encourages them to hold liberty and the Constitution sacred.

There is a more basic problem that threatens European liberty today: a declining population. Rampant Secularism in Europe has encouraged Europeans to seek first the Kingdom of Mammon. Children tend to get in the way of selfish and materialistic pursuits. Accordingly, European families are smaller than American families. Religion in America encourages and strengthens the family. True, there are Americans who place wealth and career above all things, but the majority of Americans place family second only to God. Despite the image many people around the world have of Americans, the average American sees his career as a means to an end, not an end itself. Most Americans only want to earn enough money to be able to support themselves and their families. This is true of Americans from many different creeds. As Europeans selfishly destroy their civilization and their liberty, America will continue to grow.

Europe is not as vibrant as Krauthammer claims. The lack of religion in Europe has much to do with that. Romney was right, freedom does require religion.

But why do we hold liberty to be sacred and beyond the reach of government? We believe that our rights come from God, not government, not society, not nature, not ourselves. The rights of man transcend all the powers of government because they come from a Power that transcends all things. Our sacred documents, our charters of freedom, declare this in majestic prose, “all men are created equal,” and, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . .” Our Founders declared that they are undertaking the dangerous task of creating a new nation founded upon Liberty “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” Maggie Gallagher argues,

The reason God is on our coins and in our Pledge is not that He is practically necessary to democratic liberty, but rather that He is the philosophical foundation of it. Our rights come from a sphere outside the reach of the state. Government may or may not recognize our rights, but it can never repeal them.

Now to Krauthammer’s second point, that religion in the Middle East “has been used to impose the worst kind of unfreedom.” It is true that religion is used in the Middle East to support oppressive governments. But, let us not forget the other side to Romney’s statement, that religion requires freedom. Religion in the Middle East has become corrupted by a lack of freedom.

It is no coincidence that religion, whether it is Islam, Christianity, or even Secularism, quickly becomes the tool of the state when there is no religious freedom. Introduce religious freedom into the system and religion soon becomes a force in opposition to oppression. Even Krauthammer agrees that religion has helped make society better:

Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty -- a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation.

But such good work on the part of religion comes only when the religious are free to assert their faith as opposed to having it dictated to them by the state. In states such as those in the Middle East, religion ceases to be religion and instead is simply a tool used by the state to control the populace. If Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the others allowed free exercise of religion (or if the people learn to assert it themselves), we would see a powerful force rise up to oppose the radical terrorists and the oppressors. The problem in the Middle East is not too much religion, but not enough religion.

In Europe we see liberty dying alone without religion. In the Middle East we see religion dying alone without liberty. Romney was right: freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom. They either stand together or they die alone.

–J.E. Heath

From the home State of Carroll Shelby,
Doyle Brunson, and Stevie Ray Vaughan

That’s a Novel Idea
Pollution, Traffic, and Ending Public Buses
Could it be that cars actually help the environment?
On Recycling