On the future of the party...

I was hearing and reading that the Republican Party is having trouble determining future strategy. This election was a disheartening defeat for the party. Now I have heard many comments about this subject. "Reagan had a strong military but didn't use it" - suggesting that Bush shouldn't have gotten us in two wars. It has been suggested that the Republican Party should look to attract "young evangelicals" who don't vote on abortion issues, but are more concerned with global poverty and fighting AIDS in Africa. Some have said that the Republican Party needs to focus on cutting spending. I have several thoughts regarding the future of the party. But, I'll try to limit the length of this post.
First, The future of the party is secondary to what is best for the country. I don't care if the Republican Party ceases to exist. What I care about is that we get politicians who will care about the things I care about and have the right views on major issues.
Now, if the Republican Party decides to focus on what is best for the country rather than the party, they should focus on three areas.
1) Morals/ Social issues. It is critical that our country promotes good morals. Paul says that governments exist to reward good and punish evil. A proverb says that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. This area must remain a top priority. This means that we continue the fight against abortion. The deliberate killing of innocent people must be an issue that ignites Christians. From a government perspective, this includes making it illegal (Churches should also support pregnancy centers and find other ways to help individuals, but I digress). Bans on homosexual marriage are another area where the Republican Party can hold fast to good morals. There are other areas where we can promote good morals through good laws. Beyond legislation, the party should promote family values and a good work ethic, which are essential to any society.
2) Government. Limiting spending is good, but not enough. Let's go back to the principles of limited government. Burdensome taxes, regulations, and such do not help the economy of a nation. Low taxes and free market are the best routes we have available. It is true that some youngsters are a little naïve (I don’t mean this as an insult to anyone) and think we should give socialism another try because of its good intentions and the tendency to make people feel good about themselves. But, reality shows us that a free market does more to reduce poverty than a myriad of government handouts and social programs. Our constitution was not written by idiots. They were highly intelligent and informed men who framed some of the greatest documents ever produced in the realm of government. The Republican Party, if it seeks the good of the nation, should seek to preserve our constitution, instead of going along with the ideas that government is the answer to all problems and that our constitution is outdated. It also should avoid the trap of thinking that the US is responsible for global poverty and AIDS in Africa (either for causing them or alleviating them).
3) National defense. A strong national defense is essential to our nation. We have many enemies, and everything else is academic if we were to end up being dominated militarily. We must maintain a strong military. A strong national defense includes the willingness to use the military in accordance with the principles of Just War. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" only works if we are willing to use the stick if needed. If our enemies perceive that we are unwilling to use our military it will benefit us nothing. I think that Reagan would have used the military if he were confronted with a 9/11-like attack. A strong national defense also means secure borders. We must also maintain internal order and rule of law. When we create peace (yes, I am saying that our military is one way we create peace), we allow people to exercise the freedoms and rights that God has granted us, and that our country endeavors to protect.

Again, I don't really care if the Republican Party embraces these correct views on our nation, or if the Democrat Party does. I will support any party or candidate who is willing to stand on principles that are right, regardless of popularity.

Putting 2 and 2 together...

Here are quotes from some articles I have read recently. They seem to go together well.

"The U.S. government stepped in Tuesday to rescue American International Group Inc., one of the world’s largest insurers, with an $85 billion injection of taxpayer money. Under the deal, the government will get a 79.9 percent stake in AIG and the right to remove senior management." - MSNBC

"Members of Congress are being exhorted to stampede, like lemmings in reverse, away from a postulated cliff. But some of the economic geographers who say they know that the cliff is there, and that the economy will plunge over it if Congress stops to think before empowering the secretary of the Treasury to control the flow of capital through the veins of American capitalism, are some of those experts who said in March that prophylactic federal intervention in the matter of Bear Stearns was necessary to contain the crisis.

Everything that has been done for the last six months has been done to cope with what previous actions were supposed to prevent. A perhaps pertinent axiom: There is no education in the second kick of a mule. " - George Will

"What we need in this situation is authority. Not heavy-handed government regulation, but the steady and powerful hand of some public institutions that can guard against the corrupting influences of sloppy money and then prevent destructive contagions when the credit dries up." - David Brooks

"Chile's Salvador Allende... had become Latin America's first democratically-elected Marxist president" - BBC

"Allende is much more than a Latin American president deposed by a military coup,” Bachelet [Chile's current president, a socialist] said. “He is a symbol of the defense of democracy, of human rights, of republican values and especially of political consistency." Bachelet added that Allende worked to build "a balance between the economic and the social, as well as rules and regulations that protect companies and individuals from greed."- Santiago Times

"Economists say the 1970-1973 Allende experiment - which saw the nationalisation of the banking and copper industry - was nothing short of a disaster." - BBC

[all italics are mine]

My take: Our federal government is buying financial institutions with these bailouts. Congress is being pushed to do even more of this. And, in addition, give unregulated power to unelected government officials (the Fed and Sec. Paulson), and to congress. It is done under the guise of preventing "corrupting influences of sloppy money" just like Allende was trying to protect against greed. He did it by nationalizing industry and banking. We are now socializing banking, and my previous entry was about Democrats wanting to nationalize oil. There are already bailouts for the automobile industry being discussed.

Where are we headed?

Dems or Commies?

Here is a link to a news story from Capitol Hill. Of course, we've known for a long time that many Democrat politicians are really socialists or communists in disguise (turns out to be a thin disguise for some). Yet more evidence surfaces today. Democrats in congress want to nationalize oil refineries. Here is the relevant quote from the article: "Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply." The last thing we need is the government in control of (and messing up) more in this nation. Do these politicians not know the principles that the country was founded on? Do they not know that those principles brought us to be the world's lone superpower? Do they not know that we have experiences unprecedented prosperity, rapid technological improvement, and one of the highest standards of living ever? Yet they would reverse all that to follow the models of Cuba, the USSR, and other communist/socialist governments. We need to get anyone who is confused on such an easy matter out of our government. They shouldn't even be on the local school board!

I found this video on another blog that I read occasionally. It is worth viewing.

I wanted to comment briefly on the recently released movie by Ben Stein - Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

I wanted, for one thing, to remind folks out there in internet land that Ben Stein's movie, by no means proves that the Darwinists like Dawkins are wrong about evolution. It would be a logical fallacy to believe so because it is possible that the scholars representing Darwinism may not be the best debaters on their side (though they are popular). What I am saying is not, of course, that the Darwinists are right either. We must acknowledge the limits of the movie honestly. If we remember the main intent of the movie, however, I think that we will see that it did well toward accomplishing its purpose (to show that views opposing Darwinism are rashly rejected by the scientific community and are censored in classrooms). I believe that teachers ought to be allowed to question Darwinism in class. It is a violation of no one's rights for a teacher to raise questions about Darwinism.

Secondly, the "alien" explanation of how life got started is really no answer at all. It simply pushes back the ultimate question - how did life get started? Now, if we posit that an alien race started life on earth, allowing evolution to take place, then we must ask "where did the alien civilization come from?" "Did it evolve?" "How did the alien life get started?" The questions would lead back to needing an explanation of how nonliving material can become living material. It is similar to the way proponents of the big bang theory push back the origin of matter. "It came from a tiny speck that exploded." "Where did the speck come from?" It usually leads to some kind of cycle that pushes the question of where matter came from farther back. In both cases, pushing the issue back is an inadequate explanation. It is an option that lacks any actual answer to the question.

I also think that Intelligent Design is a form of theism of deism that is afraid to admit that it is so. It points to a Designer without any attempt at explaining who the Designer is. Many times it is accompanied by a firm assertion that it is NOT the God of the Bible. It is asserted that scientists in the ID camp are not saying that God is the Creator. If God is not the Designer I do not wish to side with the ID camp either. Thankfully, they are not the only two options.

I still hold that anything dealing with origins can never be answered by science. Science is limited to phenomena that can be observed.¹ What we observe are the results of something that happened long ago. This evidence can then be used to build a case. The case is more like judicial evidence than scientific proof. The evidence is interpreted by someone. That person can then present it in a way that uses logic and/or emotion to persuade others of his position. A good argument uses both logic and emotion to persuade. One must be very careful to use emotion in ways that will not cause people to accept a position that is weak solely on emotional appeal. Ben Stein's use of images of the Holocaust was an appeal to emotion. The other side appeals to emotion by talking about people of the past being enslaved to religion. This movie partially builds a case against Darwinism. On the grounds stated above, neither side can be scientifically proven. Darwinists can no more observe how nonliving matter became living than I can observe God creating the world. I can see evidence, though. I can weigh that evidence. I can determine what scenario I think best explains the evidence. In a trial the prosecutor will present one scenario, which he believes to be correct - one that involves the defendant committing the crime. The defense explores one or more scenarios in which the evidence would be explained without the defendant being implicated. Atheistic Darwinism will try any and every explanation of how life began except those that involve God. No matter how ludicrous their ideas are, they prefer them over admitting the possibility that God exists. Unfortunately, students in public schools and many universities in our country only get to hear one side of the trial.

In the case of people who have decided for themselves that the Bible is accurate, the issue is much clearer. Having God's testimony on the matter is the best evidence one could ever hope for. This is the evidence that tips the scale, no matter what is on the other side.

¹See www.m-w.com's definition of science (this is the one relevant to our discussion): "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" And the definition of the scientific method: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"