Schaper's Corner

Jesus Restores All Things Lost

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Sat, 18 May 2013 18:12:00 +0000

"1If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." (Exodus 22: 1)

In this verse, the word "restore" renders the Hebrew word "shalam", which is the base word for "shalom", or peace, wholeness, health, wealth, consummate peace.

Christ is our peace (Ephesians 2: 14), and in Christ we receive all things (Romans 8: 32; Ephesians 1: 3)

In fact, we can rest at ease in Christ, knowing that anything that was taken from us He will restore to us fivefold.

In order to emphasis his strength to restore all things, Exodus provides an interesting teaching:

"If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double." (Exodus 22: 4)

If the thief is caught, the victimized party only gets double, yet if the thief then kills the animal or sells it -- meaning, the thief gets away with the animal -- then the original owner gets five-fold for an ox, and fourfold for a sheep. An ox is worth more, and the original owner gets more.

What's going on here? This distinction magnifies God's grace through Christ in our lives, in stark contrast to the wisdom of the world:

"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:" (Romans 5: 20)

and

"9And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Corinthians 12: 9-10)

And for this reason also, Paul would admonish the Corinthians:

"7Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren." (1 Corinthians 6: 7-8)

Paul reminded them of their standing in Christ, that they are now the temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6: 12-17), and that they would judge angels (1 Corinthians 6: 3)

Jesus does not want us to go about avenging ourselves for any loss. Rather than trying to hide or compensate for any loss, let us rest and receive, in fact keep receiving the gifts of righteousness and grace in Christ (Romans 5: 17), and the greater any loss which we have suffered, we can trust in God's love and both know and believe that He will make better for any good which we have lost! (Romans 8: 28)

Prodigal Son Graced Because God is Faithful and Just

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Thu, 16 May 2013 22:11:00 +0000

"31And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 32It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." (Luke 15: 31-32)

Many people will read the parable of the Generous Father (not "Prodigal Son") and wince.
The younger son was a rebellious, incorrigible brat. He demanded his share of the inheritance right away, and then went and wasted his wealth on wanton living.

After months of living in privation and loss, the prodigal son went back to his father, convinced of his indulgent heart, since under the Mosaic law a rebellious child would expect to be executed by stoning for his flagrant disobedience and disrespect to his parents:

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21)

Yet the son believed that the Father's love would be great enough to overlook his rebellious decision to take his inheritance and squander it. Yet even then, the Father's love was beyond what the son could ask or think (Ephesians 3: 20)

Now, many readers will conclude that the Father was neither faithful not just for permitting his son to receive not just everything that he had lost, but to receive even more.

Yet in fact, God the Father is indeed both faithful and just to bless the prodigal son, and all of us in turn, through His Son Jesus Christ:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1: 9)

When we confess ourselves sinners, completely destitute and lost without Himself, we can receive the gifts of righteousness and grace, which God the Father provided for us at the Cross, through the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus:

"8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Romans 5: 8-9)

What is this love, specifically?:

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4: 10)

Jesus called God the Father Abba (Mark 14: 36), yet at the Cross Jesus became sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5: 21), that we might receive the Spirit of adoption in Christ (Romans 8: 15), that we may call God "Abba".

Just like the prodigal son, we can all come boldly to God (Hebrews 4: 16), knowing that we can receive grace in time of need, because Jesus died the death that we all deserve. He died for us and as us that we may boldly claim:

"17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. " (1 John 4: 17)

Watergate Revisited -- Obama Administration

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Thu, 16 May 2013 20:13:00 +0000

The Santa Monica Daily Press has been gracious enough to allow a Torrance, CA – South Bay resident to contribute to the daily commentary-goings on in Santa Monica. I had not often read the paper, until I began following the political and academic turmoil at Santa Monica City College. Then the connection continued when the California Citizens Redistricting Commission decided to connect West Los Angeles to the South Bay in one Congressional District, with well-known, rabid Republican-baiting “progressive” liberal Henry Waxman vying for reelection in the new district.

I was both surprised and disappointed, to say the least, that this Congressman had remained in office for nearly four decades, a Congressman who did not even know the basic laws regulating steroid use, yet who chaired oversight committee hearings on steroid abuse in baseball. The same Congressman had declared in open committee “We’re not broke!” in the face of trillions of dollars of public debt. This same Congressman has overseen the Brentwood VA during his tenure, yet to this day tens of thousands of homeless veterans struggle to get buy from day to day. This egregious negligence is inexcusable.

I was further dismayed when I learned that Congressman Henry Waxman entered office in 1974, along with the rest of the “reform” class which followed in the wake of the Watergate Scandal of 1973-1974. Waxman was elected in reaction (and revulsion) to the growing widespread distrust and disrespect for Government, at the time under the administration of Richard Milhous Nixon, a ruthless politician who has used the IRS to intimidate and discriminate against political opponents, a leader who had covered up the Watergate break-in, only in the end to inadvertently uncover his blistering virulence toward the press and the public integrity of the United States Federal government.

Besides President Richard Nixon, if anyone today wants to see what unfettered power and uninhibited promotion can do to a man, look no further than President Barack Obama who still retains an ally in Congressman Henry Waxman. Today, their party is implicated in numerous scandals. The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees has been investigating the gun-running scandal “Operation Fast and Furious” for years. Attorney General Eric Holder remains in contempt of Congress for his non-answers regarding the “felony-stupid” operation.

Then there’s Benghazi(-gate). The terrorist attacks on the US Embassy in Libya erupted on the eleventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The Obama administration initially reported that a protest turned violent following an offensive YouTube video. UN Ambassador Susan Rice reported the same narrative from her talking points on Sunday talk shows two weeks after the incident, and weeks before the 2012 election. Months later, Congressional investigations confirm, along with colleagues of friends and relatives and concerned diplomats, that those talking points were “scrubbed and edited” to misrepresent the real source of the attacks: a planned terrorist infiltration. Furthermore, the State Department dismissed the consulate’s frequent pleas for more security, leaving the embassy a sitting target for violent encroachment.

Following his narrow, bitter reelection, Obama’s incapacity to lead seemed headed for worse, leading (and lede-ing) developments. From the fiscal cliff, to the federal sequester, to the debt ceiling dances which have expanded the American public’s appreciation of our country’s mounting debt, President Obama has been on the losing side of the narrative. In a first, Washington Post columnist Bob Woodward, famous for breaking the Watergate story, exposed the Obama administration’s attempt to silence his reporting on the narrative around the sequester: it was Obama’s decision all along. Nevertheless, fellow media colleagues distanced themselves and marginalized Woodward.

Following the three breaking scandals this week, the press which fawned and favored President Obama can no longer hold back. Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s “Hardball” has lost the tingle up his leg. Matthew’s colleague Andrea Mitchell has condemned the Department of Justice’s seizure of AP reporters’ phone records. Another NBC journalist finally exposed the Obama Administration’s culture of intimidation toward the press (President Nixon’s “Enemies List”, anyone?)

In a previous column (“Mr. Seinfeld Goes to Washington”), I commented that our “Do Nothing” Government could learn something from the sitcom “about nothing”. Just this past week, one editorial criticized that President Obama’s ongoing lack of oversight is turning him into “The Bubble Boy President,” an executive disconnected from the daily demands of governing: hardly “The Master of His Domain”. Yet unlike the four main characters in the final episode of ”Seinfeld”, President Obama is on trial not just for doing nothing while our rights, our finances, and our standing in the world have been robbed. His criminal indifference to the Constitution and his constituents – all of us -- is starting to look like more like purposeful malfeasance, like Jerry stealing bread from an old lady.

To all of this one can only say: “There is something wrong with that.”

Walker: Practicing What He Preaches

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:09:00 +0000

Running on issues and results, Governor Walker has resolved since the beginning of his political career to advance limited government with local control. As state assemblyman, Walker supported welfare reform, spending caps and reductions, with a strong pro-life record. A harbinger of reforms to come, Walker expressed concern and expedience on reforming state labor laws.

As Milwaukee County Executive, Walker returned almost half of his pay while cutting costs, reducing employees, and lowering tax rates. His push for privatization of state facilities facilitated cost-cutting measures. Overriding the scandals of Operation Freedom appointee Kevin Kavanaugh, Walker ran successfully for Governor in 2010, only to implement necessary reforms, which ended statehouse-union hall corruption and collusion while benefitting Wisconsin taxpayers.

Like the conservative groups targeted by the IRS, Walker was unfairly pegged “a rock star for the far right” by his two-time political opponent Tom Barrett of Milwaukee. Twice Walker won, not just on style or substance, but a substantial record of practicing what he preached.

Recently, Republican Governors Association Vice-Chair Walker, along with Chairman Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, have called for a special prosecutor to investigate the skewed, biased, and discriminatory investigations by the IRS against conservative groups over their tax exemption status.

Walker once again maintains a low-key status in high-profile cases, but his leadership on major issues deserves as much scrutiny, if not more. His call for accountability is both principled and prescient, as his own record promotes a leadership legacy of doing what a leader asks citizens to do.

President Obama: Your Administration is a Sideshow of Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:39:00 +0000

President Obama has taken nothing seriously during his administration: not the United States Constitution, not the Checks and Balances of the Federal Government, not the will and or the voice of the American People, and now he does not even take the Press seriously, according to recent revelations of Justice Department seizure of AP phone records over the past two months.
Instead of leading, Obama has been perpetually campaigning, raising money and promoting his own legacy, while the country suffers through the anemic economic recovery, while forty-three million people struggle to survive on food stamps, while terrorists attack our nation's consulates across the Middle East, while Israel remains alone fighting against an embroiled civil war in Syria.

No wonder New Jersey Governor Chris Christie rebutted "bystander" President Obama:

What the hell are we paying you for?

During the first months of his "historic" administration, President Obama ushered in a stimulus plan which stimulated nothing but taxpayer dollars to non-existent Congressional districts or increase the salaries for federal bureaucrats.

Wealthy Virginia socialites crashed a White House function, and he did nothing about it. No wonder his administration has not taken security, domestic or international, very seriously. He traveled around the Middle East on an apology tour for previous administrations, as if the efforts of President George W. Bush and predecessors were to blame of the cult or religious fanaticism and political tyranny which grips the Arab World. He lobbied for Chicago to be the future site of the Olympics, yet his city was rejected in the first round of candidates. He received the Nobel Peace Prize, only to create more political division at home and send more troops into Afghanistan. Iranians protested the "official" election of a fanatical president. Despite the outpouring of protests, President Obama sat back and said nothing.

President Obama's Democratic majority in the House of Representatives then pushed an abortive Cap and Trade Bill (co-sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-California) and Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts), which thankfully died in the US Senate. The legislation would have killed millions of jobs while doing nothing to diminish carbon emission. Cap and Trade is a Wall-Street Ponzi Scheme which would enrich the "rich" insiders at the expense of Main Street Outsiders (the rest of us).

Then came Obama-WaxmanCare. After hundreds of speeches, the American people liked the bill less and less. With procedural shenanigans and backroom deals, Obama-WaxmanCare passed the US Senate and pushed through the House of Representatives through reconciliation. As recently as last month, one of the major legislators behind the law, US Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) called it a "train wreck". Democrats continued to vote for repeal of the law even until the 2012 election.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms initiated a gun-running scheme, Operation Fast and Furious, which would supposedly have permitted Bureau officials to track down and trump Mexican Drug cartels along the United States-Mexico border. Instead, those very firearms contributed to the deaths of federal agents and numerous crimes.

Let's talk about Solyndra, and eighteen other green tech companies which went bankrupt, even after receiving millions in taxpayer dollars. Those companies had connections with the Obama administration, as did the subsidies provided to special interests in Obama-WaxmanCare.

Then there's Benghazi.

September 11, 2012, not even two months before the 2012 election, a terrorist attack erupted at the US embassy in Libya. Four people were killed, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. First attributed to a spontaneous break of violence following outrage over a YouTube video, the talking points about the attack changed considerably. UN Ambassador Susan Rice directly contradicted the President of Libya about the attacks. Further investigations reveal that the officials in the consulate had reported a rising number of attacks in the region. They request more security, and were rebuffed.
Regarding the roaring uproar over the scrubbed and distorted Benghazi talking points, President Obama commented :

The whole issue of talking points, frankly throughout this process has been a sideshow. There's no there, there.

With all due respect, President Barack Obama's administration has been a sideshow. During his tenure in the Oval Office, there has been a long chain of abuses, waste, fraud, and outright politicizing which has impoverished the many to enrich the few, which has trampled on the will and wisdom of the majority of voters while making end-runs around Congress, from gun-running, to the green tech subsidy failures, to the Benghazi failures and cover-ups, to the invasion of privacy of AP reporters, to the outright intimidation and humiliation of conservative groups receiving tax exemption status or application from the EPA.

President Obama: You're administration is a sideshow, a shameful sideshow of scandal.

Waxman --- Impeach Obama!

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Mon, 13 May 2013 17:56:00 +0000

In 2007, Congressman Henry Waxman attended a town hall meeting sponsored by left-leaning interests in West Los Angeles. In a matter of minutes, the members of the audience excoriated Waxman for refusing to sponsor or endorse articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush, for they believed the oft-repeated, now retired cliche: "Bush lied. People died." Shortly after the Wikileak cables were leaked, diplomatic cables indicated that the Hussein regime did have extensive chemical weapons supplies and capabilities.

Today, President Obama is facing a growing backlash for increasing abuses of federal power. In Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials sold guns to illegal purchasers along the Southwestern border in order to track down Mexican drug cartels. Those guns were involved in numerous crimes, including deaths of federal agents. One September 11, 2012, armed terrorists attack the United States Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, in which four state department officials, including the US Ambassador, were killed. The administration's talking points on the attack changed frequently, suggesting that an unplanned demonstration exploded into violence outside of the consulate. Democrats and Republicans decry a lying "cover-up". National media outlets have confirmed that the IRS was targeting conservative groups with the name "TEA Party" or patriot, or any institution hostile to Big Government".

Nixon faced the threat of impeachment for obstruction of justice and IRS abuse. President Clinton faced impeachment because he lied under oath to a grand jury. Will Congressman Waxman sponsor articles of impeachment against President Obama for his high crimes and misdemeanors?

Yes, Hillary, It Does Make a Difference! (on Benghazi Attacks)

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Thu, 09 May 2013 21:09:00 +0000

Before the United States Senate foreign relations committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took "full responsibility" for the Benghazi security breach, which lead to four deaths, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

While answering questions about what she knew, and why the failure of security which misjudged the attacks, from US Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), she then made a fool of herself, dismissing the concerns of lawmakers. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel provided the full transcript of Sec. of State Clinton's exchanges with Senator Johnson. In frustration, Clinton erupted at the committee:

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

The whole point of the investigation is not just whether four members of the United States Diplomatic corps were killed, not just why they were killed, but whether Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her superior the President of the United States ignored frequent requests for more security, or whether they were trying to cover up their lack of security oversight in the matter.
Yes, Hillary, it makes a difference!

Victims of the terrorist attack have taken Clinton's meme, and excoriated her for her impassioned insouciance. Greg Hicks, one of the foreign diplomats, Deputy Chief of Missions in Libya,
Charles Wood, whose son Tyrone was killed during the attacks, shared with Sean Hannity his disgust with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

Sean, Hillary, she asked a question. If she asked that question of me, you know for six years, I was an administrative law judge, and credibility is the issue. I would say what difference does it make? Credibility because in a courtroom situation. We have a rule that says if a person's testimony is proven to be false in any part, the rest of their testimony is to be disregarded on that subject, and that's basically what we have here. The difference is credibility.

Yes, Hillary, it makes a difference!

Critics of this investigation will counter: Oh, that's Sean Hannity. He's a right-wing nut job (Yawn)
Just before the election, then US Senator John Kerry (also of Massachusetts) had circulated a bipartisan letter "accounting of the attacks against US missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen", in effect requesting further information on the Benghazi attacks.

Yes, Hillary, it makes a difference!

More Democratic Congressmen are piling on the Obama administration. Liberal Democrat Stephen Lynch of South Boston, Massachusetts also discredited the Obama administration's talking points shortly after the attack:

They certainly weren't accurate. I don't know what the process was there. But absolutely, they were false and wrong. They were. There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate.

Lynch then repeated: It [the talking points report] was scrubbed. It was inaccurate.

Yes, Hillary, it makes a difference!

During Wednesday's House Oversight Hearing, the following testimony from Obama administration officials should shed further light on growing concerns.

Eric Nordstrom, the regional security officer posted in Libya when the U.S. Embassy, shared through his tears, that the investigation mattered for all who were harmed in the attack, the families of those who died, and the American people, so that they would know what happened.

Yes Hillary, it makes a difference!

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also acknowledged on last Sunday's "Face the Nation" that the facts as told by UN Ambassador Susan Rice were wrong. He then acknowledged that Congress needs to get the full story on the matter.

Yes Hillary, it makes a difference!

Following the hearings, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa on CBS News could not have been more compelling about the need to investigate the Benghazi attack, including the talking points, the sudden "scrubbings" or changes in the Obama administration's account, the lack of security at the compound, and even the draw-down for more forces at the US consulate:

"It matters because the truth matters, and the American People are entitled to the truth."

Yes indeed, Hillary, it makes a difference!

About LA Times Media Bias on "Divided GOP"

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Thu, 09 May 2013 19:44:00 +0000

Every week, the LA Times covers the “divisions” among Republicans, as if their friction and factions are foremost, and will forever fracture the Republican Party.

The liberal-leaning media bias could not be more blatant. Yes, Republicans differ over key issues, but so does the Democratic Party. The XL Keystone pipeline extension has pitted environmentalists against union interests. Gun control has split the Democratic caucus wide open, with Blue senators in Red States resisting any gun control provisions, which would weaken the Second Amendment and cripple their reelection chances. Obamacare is weakening an already warped Democratic brand, with high-ranking liberals declaring: “It’s a train wreck.” The Benghazi foul-up is pitting Democrats against each other.

Even President Obama’s Secretary of Labor nominee has raised concerns with some top-ranking Democrats, including the ranking House Oversight Committee member Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland).

The Democratic Party’s divisions over many issues will diminish their chances in 2014.

Thank You, Congressman Stephen Lynch

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Thu, 09 May 2013 07:00:00 +0000

Benghazi is back in the news. Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa (R-California) refuses to allow this massive failure of national security and territorial integrity to lapse or disappear below the radar of national discourse.

9-11-01 was a national tragedy, a disastrous failure of leadership from the previous administration, in which President Bill Clinton insisted on civil law enforcement efforts to deal with an international, terrorist organization. 9-11-12, a terrorist attack massacred the US Embassy in Banghazi, Libya, the headquarters for the anti-Gadhafi rebellion, and an unshakable sign of violence and chaos erupting in the region. While diverse reports suggested that a YouTube video sparked sporadic violence, a growing chorus of critics within the Obama Administration and throughout the diplomatic corp are countering the initial reading. The diplomats stationed in Benghazi requested further assistance, which they did not receive from the Obama Administration. Furthermore, the assault on the consulate was more likely planned than spontaneous, and it appears as if the Obama administration went out of its way to cover up their negligence toward the diplomats and their insouciance to protect their state officers.

Today (May 8, 2013), Chairman Issa pursued further investigations into the matter, questions whistle-blowers who indicated that the State Department's talking points, repeated ad libitum (or ad nauseaum) by former UN Ambassador Susan Rice.

So, was it a demonstration that turned into a demonized frenzy, or was it a terrorist attack?

South Boston Congressman Stephen Lynch attested to the latter on a recent visit to Fox News Sunday. Regarding UN Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points, Congressman Lynch commented:

They certainly weren't accurate. I don't know what the process was there. But absolutely, they were false and wrong. They were. There were no protests outside the Benghazi compound there. This was a deliberate and strategic attack on the consulate.

Lynch then repeated: "It [the talking points report] was scrubbed. It was inaccurate."

When Chris Wallace asked Lynch to explain why the report from the Obama Administration differed so widely, Lynch waffled:

"It was a victory of hope over reality."

Granted, Congressman Lynch went on the defense for his party in a terse debate with Congressman Jason Chaffetz(R-Utah), but his candor about the misinformation from the Obamaadministration's initial response and appraisal of the Benghazi attacks were refreshing.

Thanks again, Congressman Lynch, for speaking out, even if it went contrary to the expectations of the leadership of your party. It's too bad that Congressman Ed Markey had nothing to say about this matter. Markey, who has discredited the "fiscal cliff crisis" in this country in place of the "climate change" crisis, had nothing of merit to say about the Benghazi attacks. What's the use of talking about climate issues if an administration cannot protect its own diplomatic corps in a hostile, chaotic country?

Once again, Markey missed the mark, but Lynch stood out on national security issues. Let us hope for a victory for all who have been harmed and affected by the Benghazi tragedy, that the truth will come out, and the national security forces of the United States will be better prepared to protect our overseas diplomatic forces.

Sanford Wins in South Carolina -- And So Did We

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Thu, 09 May 2013 06:25:00 +0000

Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina) just captured the First Congressional District, which straddles the rugged coastline of his home Palmetto state. Prognosticators on the right and post-mortem pundits on the left will dish and decide the pertinent and importune elements of this race.

First, a little background, or rather, an extended summary in short of the drama that drove this race into national news.

However South Carolina has often had the rebel-streak, starting with its dalliance into nullification, when Vice President then South Carolina’s US Senator John C. Calhoun rebuffed President Andrew Jackson over the “Tariff of Abominations”. During the “irrepressible conflict” over slavery, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner excoriated South Carolina’s senior counterpart. His nephew publicly bludgeoned Sumner with a cane, received censure, then reelection. Confederate Carolina seceded firs from the Union, shortly after “Abolitionist’ Abraham Lincoln’s certified electoral win). In 1877, the Great Compromise following dispute Presidential votes in South Carolina deconstructed Reconstruction.

Today, South Carolina is a conservative, individual liberty paradise, a ruby red state where one-party Republican rule has forced cuts in spending and cuts in taxes, while marginalizing negligible pressures from unions, where minorities thrive at all levels of government. Perhaps “Don’t Mess with Texas!” should be replaced with “Don’t Press the Palmetto State!”

South Carolina is a crucial primary state for anyone running for the White House, or into obscurity. In 2000, while George W. Bush revived his campaign, then survived to the nomination, McCain never recovered. In 2012, Newt Gingrich briefly revived his Presidential fortunes, and successfully reviled the Mainstream Media’s vain preoccupation with President Obama as Messiah in contrast to Newt’s “messy” private life.

South Carolina is home to Mick Mulvaney, the District Five Congressman who trashed Congressman Henry Waxman following his unglib yet overtly flippant attitude about the GM bailouts ---- “Did GM go bankrupt?” – “I don’t know.” – “Well, it did. I am surprised that you hadn’t heard about it.” Outrageous.

South Carolina also spotlighted Mark Sanford, one of few Republicans governors who refused Obama’s 2009 federal stimulus kool-aid. Five years prior, Sanford had satirized his “conservative” colleagues in the state legislature for excessive spending. To expose his disdain, Sanford usheried into the legislature two pigs, “Pork” and “Barrel”, for legislators’ profligate ways with the taxpayers’ dollars. (Nearly a decade later, Congressional candidate Sanford wryly admitted that the two pigs were subsequently barbequed). Sanford is also on record – with libertarian columnist John Stossel, no less – for attempting to enact a statewide voucher program in a state which had the lowest SAT scores. Despite the failure of his effort, Sanford’s heart, at least in public, was in the right place.

Sanford also had a troubled private life, troubles of his own making. In 2009, while claiming to be hiking along the Appalachian trails, he was meeting with a “soul-mate” mistress in Argentina. As soon as the Latin liason hit front-page news, Sanford came clean, tears and all: “I have been unfaithful to my wife.” He had also been unfaithful with taxpayer dollars, which he used to pay for the trip. He paid it back with a hefty, $70,000 fine, the largest in South Carolina’s storied history. Following the censure of the state legislature, Sanford finished out his second term in office. His frustrated wife terminated their marriage. His political career, including a possible presidential run, was also finished.

Small business owner Nikki Haley, Indian-American of Sikh ancestry, replaced Sanford, retaining the Republican Party’s position in state politics, in spite of her predecessor’s impolitic personal life. Following her lead on limited government and limiting taxes, junior Senator Jim DeMint ended his legacy in the upper chamber of Congress to lead the Heritage Foundation. Governor Haley appointed Black Republican Congressman Tim Scott of the First Congressional district to finish DeMint’s term.

With the First District up for grabs, Sanford stepped up to represent the district which he had represented nearly two decades ago. Whether out of red-blooded redemption or red-handed arrogance, Sanford triumphed out of sixteen Republican challengers (including a primary runoff). The Democratic candidate, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, sister of Daily Show parodist Stephen Colbert, would challenge him for the May 7 special election.

Within days, Sanford trespassed on his ex-wife’s property to see his son, a reminder that personal failings always carry a lingering cost. The Republican National Committee hedged their funding. Democratic contributors showered Busch with cash. Brother Stephen stumped for sister on TV. Sanford campaigned harder, debated cardboard House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The outside dough plowed the Democrat’s chances. A double-digit Democratic lead shrank to “too close to call.” The voters final call: Sanford, by nine points.

To summarize the District One special election: Democrats lost $1.2 million because they could not buy South Carolina voters (so much for “the race was not a big deal to us”). All local politics is national (a tip that would tip “Tip” O’Neill off kilter). “Disgraced” Sanford proves that sin cannot stop God’s grace from standing up a fallen man to run again. Redemption is real, Republicans are rallying, and political reality trumps rhetoric once again. Sanford won in South Carolina, and so did we.

Ted Cruz: A Real Hispanic, and a Republican

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Wed, 08 May 2013 16:29:00 +0000

Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson criticized US Senator Ted Cruz because he opposes illegal immigration and amnesty. He also opposes letting the government doing for men and women what they can do for themselves. In a racist invective, Richardson even claimed that Senator Cruz is “not Hispanic.”

In reality, Richardson went on the attack against a committed, conservative Hispanic Republican who is breaking the old, tired narrative of the Democratic Party, which has repeatedly misrepresented the the Republican Party as the party of rich, old, white men.”

Yet the outstanding Hispanic leaders in our country belong to the Republican Party. Not just US Senator Ted Cruz, but also US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who defeated an establishment candidate and a Democrat to win the Senate seat in 2010. In Nevada, Governor Brian Sandoval has pushed for school vouchers. Susana Martinez, the current Governor of New Mexico, has balanced budgets and cut spending, and also has led the charge to repeal former Governor Richardson’s’ ill-conceived, legally disastrous, and politically pandering law which allows illegal immigrants to get drivers’ licenses.

Voters are tired of politicians who get along to go along in Washington. Senator Cruz refuses to “wait his turn”. Both fearless and forceful, He demands that his colleagues respect the United States Constitution and honor all law-abiding citizens, including the millions who have sought citizenship through the legal process.

Ted Cruz is responding to the frustrations of many Americans, Hispanic, black, or white. He represents the kind of citizen-legislator that every American wants.

Media Bias in the Media, Conservatism, Sanford, and Grace

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Wed, 08 May 2013 02:31:00 +0000

Republicans get nothing but tongue-lashing and race-baiting in most “mainstream media” outlets.

The double-standard is all too strong when it comes to politicians’ seeking redemption. The Santa Monica Daily Press permits weekly columnists to pile on Republicans, including George W. Bush, with a frequent refrain which repeats: “Bush lied. People died”. To this day, the evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction suggests that our country’s leaders advanced invasion operations on a genuine belief, even if the premise in the end was false.

Still, the media bias often skews voter polls and exit results at least five points to the Democratic side.

Yahoo.com often highlights the big divisions within the Republican Party, even though bipartisan efforts from Democrats and Republicans have been defeated by a growing number of Democratic US Senators who face tough reelection prospects in red states. Gun control, environmental issues vs. union interests are also splitting the Democratic Party. Now the Benghazi mishaps/cover-up is getting the press which it deserved months ago.

One columnist once taunted me with “Being a Republican is just plain sad.”

I cannot disagree more. South Carolina’s “disgraced governor” Mark Sanford won reelection to the First Congressional district. Despite his previous record, marred with personal and financial infidelity, Sanford rose above his past, repented of his failures, and struck forth once again to represent his former district in his home state.

This kind of grace is a conservative trait all around. Free choices, individual liberty, and local control grant all of us “second chances”.

A Qualification for Conservatives and Libertarians

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Tue, 07 May 2013 18:56:00 +0000

Men and women of the conservative movement:

All of the talk about independence, limited government, individual liberty is missing one key element.

We were not brought into this world in order to be independent of everyone and everything else.

We were not brought into this world in order to take care of ourselves by ourselves.

In fact, we are not independent of ourselves in any way shape, or form.

Liberty means nothing without security, just as life without meaning has no sense to it, nor any respectable precedent.

In short, we are not the center of our own little universes.

It was and never is and never will be about us twenty-four seven.

Indeed, we are all called to be dependent on something, on someone, on somewhere.

The Truth sets us free, which means that we cannot believe in anything that we want to believe in and expect to have any life or liberty in our lives unless we base our lives on what is true.

Every human being has the opportunity to embrace life and that more abundantly through Christ. We can have perfect rest and respect and resources in one Person -- Jesus!

We are not called to live completely isolated. Not at all.

We are not called to be dependent on the state, or to depend on other people, for that matter:

"Cursed is the man who trusts in man, who makes flesh his arm." (Jeremiah 17: 5)

There are many conservative voices who cry out their faith in God, yet they live their lives as if everything depends on them. This mixed message diminishes the awesome grace and power of God, who gave us His own, and He will freely give us all things with Him (Romans 8: 31-32)

We are called to be dependent, on God, not on the state.

But we are called to be dependent, no doubt about it.

The Declaration of Independence was a break from the British Empire, and a reintegration with the Divine Creator. Unfortunately, if men and women do not see God as Savior, they will inevitably "acknowledge God", but depend on someone or something that they can see.

The qualification that I share with conservatives and libertarians, the impulse which liberals understand, yet seek to answer on their own -- people do need to be dependent, but they need to be dependent on the Truth which sets us free, not on the state which ends up bringing bondage, neither security nor liberty.

Markey for Ice Cream Truck Driver -- Gomez for US Senate

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Tue, 07 May 2013 07:01:00 +0000

Congressman Edward Markey (D-Malden) has "served" in Congress for thirty-seven years. Before he ran for Congress, he was "serving" ice cream. He should have stayed in the dessert business, because the residents of Massachusetts and the country deserve better than a middling legislator from Malden who spends more time in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

If Markey is so concerned about the climate, then he should find a cooler venue for work besides the heated halls of Congress. . .like an ice cream truck. What does he have to share or show for his decades in Washington, aside from finding prime real estate for his family and for himself?

While the fiscal cliff was raging, Markey claimed that the "climate cliff" was worse. 30,000 respected scientists have disputed that climate change (or "global warming" or "ozone depletion") is a serious matter. During his tenure, Markey raised the debt ceiling, he rejected legislation which would ban lobbyist influence. He has voted against tax cuts for working Americans. His most recent legislative "accomplishment", Cap and Trade, would have bankrupted this country. If he wanted to bring down carbon levels while also preventing pollution with serious legislation, then he needed to meet with fellow Senators, who were all but certain to kill any bill which would have hurt business interests and prevented hard-working Americans from finding a job.

Markey's only job, besides ice cream, has been to keep his job in Congress. To this day, neighboring constituents have no idea that where he lives, or that his listed adress is just down the street from them. Perhaps if he drove around in a white truck, playing childish muzak and handing out treats, people would start to notice him.

Now Markey wants to "serve" in the US Senate.

His challenger, Gabriel Gomez of Cohasset, has served his country and his constituents, without setting foot in federal government to "earn" the privilege. Public servant in the Navy, then investor in private equity, Gomez' early years should embolden any American. Born of native Colombians, Gomez learned to speak English in kindergarten. He graduated with merit from the United States Naval Academy. Nothing soft about him, Gomez is reaching out to all voters, with no cold stain of Washington influence on him.

Congressman Edward Markey should go back to scooping chocolate and vanilla. Markey for ice cream truck driver. Vote for Gabriel Gomez for US Senate on June 25.

About "Ballots, not BS"

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Tue, 07 May 2013 06:16:00 +0000

Random Lengths News editor James Preston Allen complains about low voter turnout in the Los Angeles-Harbor Area.

I do not know whether to agree heartily or to disagree vehemently. For starters, he cites relevant statistics, which expose unequivocally that people do not vote. On the other hand, does it really matter in the short-term? Between Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel, Los Angeles voters will be choosing a future leader who will be beholden to unions, and be holding up any real reforms in public sector. With a state that is dominated by a Democratic supermajority, and a Democratic governor bent on punishing suburban schools at the expense of inner city schools, one can understand why voters feel powerless.

Voter apathy turns out in large part because voters feel that they cannot turn out the results which they want to see. Consider the local example of City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, who had promised to publish full-page broadsides stating “I AM A LIAR” should he choose to run for district attorney during his first term in office. He broke his promise not to run for higher office, yet he refused to honor his part should he break his word. Is it any wonder that voters feel disillusioned and disinclined to vote in the Los Angeles area? Broken promises, opportunism, and unaccountability have not changed much. Perhaps politics has all too much in common with the oldest profession, except minus the entertainment value, and less costly all around. In at least one instance this past year Angelenos made their voice known. On March 5, the majority of voters rejected another sales tax increase, proving once again that people want their handouts from the state, but they do not want to pay for them.

Instead of focusing on votes, let us heed free-market economist Milton Friedman, who suggested that we “get the wrong people to do the right things.” An enlightened, engaged citizenry is crucial to democracy, whether local or national. Voter activism has reached an all-time high. A possible recall effort intimidated State Senator Ted Lieu from attempting to triple Californians’ car tax. Suburban parents and students are protesting Governor Brown’s unjust and inequitable school funding formula reforms. Constituent calls moved Congresswoman Hahn to reject the debt-ceiling deal, and protected the Second Amendment in the US Senate. Therefore, even if voter turnout is depressed, there is no reason to be depressed in turn.

Republicans: Find a Candidate who Appeals to All Voters

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Tue, 07 May 2013 05:45:00 +0000

The Republican Party is facing soul-searching following the crushing loss in 2012. The party needs to increase the "Hispanic vote". If only Romney spoke more Spanish, did not say "self-deport", and demonstrated an assiduousness to reach out to people whose skin color was darker than his.
However, if Romney had pulled off a greater share of the Hispanic vote -- Bush's 44% in 2004, or as much as Obama's 71% in 2012 -- he still would have lost the election. He still would have lost the election.

No matter how many Hispanics would have voted for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts still would have lost. Why? The white vote did not turn out in November.

White voters were turned off by a candidate who would have reintegrated American forces into Afghanistan. They did not trust a man who had tacked so far to the right during the primaries, only to surge for the center once again, and show little fight while doing so. "RomneyCare" was Obamacare-lite, and was on everyone's lips during the long, fraught, and long-fought primaries from the middle of 2011 until April of 2012. Romney had no serious plan for bringing down the debts and deficits damaging this country. Most of all, people simply did not believe that guy.

The Republican Party has to accept the unpleasant truth: Romney was a bad candidate. He sucked the enthusiasm out of the base for the whole political process. Yes, Republicans need to reach out to Hispanic voters. More importantly, the party standard bearer must reach out, attract, and impress all voters.

Republicans need not worry. Ted Cruz of Texas, along with more libertarian leaning Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with the compelling legacies of thirty governors, including the first Hispanic female governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, are all qualified, capable, and compelling leaders for the future.

Byron York Confirms the Obvious: Romney Sucked

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Tue, 07 May 2013 04:07:00 +0000

The Republican Party is facing soul-searching following the crushing loss in 2012. Should the party be more "Gay Friendly"? Should the party move to the center on key social issues, like abortion and gun control? The Republican Party has turned into a tired bastion of rich, old, white men who control Wall Street and contort national policy to suit their minute yet elite interests.

And then there's the "Hispanic vote". If only Romney spoke more Spanish, did not say "self-deport", and demonstrated an assiduousness to reach out to people whose skin color was darker than his.

Conservative columnist Byron York ran the numbers. If Romney had pulled off a greater share of the Hispanic vote -- Bush's 44% in 2004, or as much as Obama's 71% even -- he still would have lost the election. He still would have lost the election.

Coulter was more gentle about the outcome (in large part because she had supported Romney long before other conservatives grudgingly supported the Establishment candidate). She concluded that any sitting incumbent President is hard to defeat, especially when no one is dragging down the person in office through primary and third-party challenges. In 2002, and to a lesser extent 2004, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader siphoned away votes from the Democratic Party, helping to nudge more electoral votes to the Bush column.

No matter how many Hispanics would have voted for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts still would have lost. Why? The white vote did not turn out in November. The low-voter turnout also explains why Democrats won the US Senate seat in a number of very winnable races, including North Dakota and Montana. Despite the onerous gaffes of the candidates in Missouri and Indiana, Romney was a wet blanket on the entire national conference.

White men and women in the United States were turned off by a candidate who would have reintegrated American forces into Afghanistan. They did not trust a man who had tacked so far to the right during the primaries, only to surge for the center once again, and show little fight while doing so. "RomneyCare" was on everyone's lips during the long, fraught, and long-fought primaries from the middle of 2011 until April of 2012. How else can one explain a candidate as weak and marginal as Rick Santorum springing from single digits to second, then first place in Iowa, followed by jockeying back and forth, with some takings by Newt Gingrich? ABC News speculated until April that another, dark horse candidate could have stepped in to win the nomination for the GOP, and take back the White House.

The Republican Party has to accept the unpleasant truth: Romney sucked. He sucked the enthusiasm out of the base for the whole political process. Pundits like Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan had to contort themselves to minimize the GOP Presidential candidates self-inflicting wounds: "I am severely conservative!" "47% won't vote for me." "

Romney was not a good candidate, ladies and gentlemen. Simple as that.

He had no real plan for bringing down the debts and deficits damaging this country. He refused to come clean about which loopholes to eliminate in the taxcode. He presented no credible plan for bring down the cost of entitlements. Most of all, people simply did not believe that guy. Even he admitted that he really did not want to be president (per one of his sons)

The infuriating element of a depressed and depressing national standard-bearer is that many competitive, winnable races throughout the country were sandbagged. Scott Brown of Massachusetts would have trumped Elizabeth "Faux-cahontas" Warren without much ado. The Northern Plains states would have flipped back to Republican control without much trouble. Perhaps California today would not be saddled with a Democratic tax-and-spend supermajority if another Presidential candidate had motivated voters to get out and cast their ballots.

With this cynical appraisal in mind, conservatives and independents, Democrats and Republicans, need not worry that one-party rule is coming to California or the country, for that matter. The Republican Party does not have to take cues from liberal pundits or mainstream media mediators. New leaders like Ted Cruz of Texas, along with more libertarian leaning Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with the compelling legacies of thirty governors will provide a front-bench of qualified, capable, and compelling leaders for the future.

In the end, the aftermath of 2012 boils down to this:

Romney sucked.

Jacoby on GOP Resurged in Massachusetts

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Mon, 06 May 2013 06:04:00 +0000

Jeff Jacoby’s sobering optimism shines forth in his recent Op-Ed about Republican opportunities in deep-blue liberal Massachusetts. Following the 2013 special election primaries to replace John Kerry, long-time politician Edward Markey of Malden will face Republican Gabriel Gomez, who has the chance to give every voter in Massachusetts a reason to vote Republican once again.

Learning English in kindergarten, he rose from obscure immigrant to Navy Seal to private equity investor. He has served his country and his constituencies with honor and dignity. Pro-life yet pro-immigration reform, Gomez brings a balanced view of "right" thinking with “live and let live” Republican values.

Congressman Markey defines “career politician”. Living in Chevy Chase, Maryland, Markey rarely visits his home district. Many have rightly labeled him “the reason for term limits”. While Markey represents the Democrat Party’s statist status quo liberalism, Republicans can rebrand their party not just as “not the Democrats” or “Democrat-lite centrists”, but as diverse, different, and diffident leaders who respond to the needs of all voters, regardless of race, class, or creed, and seek to make government respect the rights and preserve the home and security of all Americans.

Gomez can tap these traits and reclaim Massachusetts for Republicans.

Walker: Reforming Education and Welfare

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Mon, 06 May 2013 05:20:00 +0000

The Republican Party held a convention at Rothschild’s Patriot Center, near Wausau, Wisconsin.

Governor Scott Walker shared two agendas of his administration. First, he wanted to expand educational access and excellence. Branching out a voucher program from two to nine counties, Walker countered that educational reform will bring out the real meaning of the “R” after his name. Not just a Republican but a committed reformer, Walker’s credentials, from cutting taxes and spending to transforming collective bargaining, has also brought out the true meaning of “progress” in the cradle of the modern Progressive movement: less control, limited government, lower taxes, and looser regulations.

In contrast to expanding school choice, Walker is contracting easy access to food stamps. Rather than playing defense to liberal cat-calls of impertinence and ruthless, cold-hearted budget-cutting, Walker shared the following pithy remark: “I'm not making it harder to get government assistance. I'm making it easier to get a job."

Walker’s resistance to establishing Medicare exchanges per Obamacare should also embolden conservatives nationwide while also assuring voters in Wisconsin that he cares for their well-being, short and long term, not just his own political aspirations.

Granted, Governor Walker has not trumpeted the limited job growth in his state. Austerity takes time before prosperity manifests in any locale. Ronald Reagan cut taxes in the early 1980’s, with high unemployment shortly afterward, followed by massive deflation, then roaring economic recovery to follow.

While reform is not easy, and recovery can take time, Republican Governor Walker is leading the way.

Mark Sanford for Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Mon, 06 May 2013 04:49:00 +0000

Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford engaged in personal indiscretions. To the point, his behavior was reprehensible. He lied to his state, claiming to be taking a trip along the Appalachian trails, when he was visiting his mistress in Argentina. Shortly after the revelation, the South Carolina legislature censured him, and he had to pay the largest ethical fine in South Carolina's history.

Despite his personal failing, one should not neglect the greater good that he encouraged in his state.

He attempted to pass a statewide school choice program, which would have permitted students to enroll in any school of their choice. ABC libertarian journalist John Stossel spotlighted this courageous effort, which unfortunately failed in the state legislature. He refused the Obama administration's wasteful stimulus dollars in 2009. He also resisted pork and excessive spending, even bringing two pigs to the state legislature to mock the spend-thrift laws passed.

These reminders are not meant to minimize his personal failing, yet voters should not neglect the good which he did for his state.

If Mark Sanford was seeking higher office merely because he wanted to solidify any forgiveness for his previous peccadilloes, that would be unfortunate. However, the state of South Carolina should not settle for a liberal Democrat just because of the one-time libertine past of the fiscal conservative, limited government Republican running for the seat.

A short rundown of Sanford's Democratic opponents major views should be enough to discourage anyone from giving her a term in Washington:

On fiscal policy, she refuses to rule out higher taxes:

In the short-run, I do not support new taxes. Before we raise taxes, we need to drop the foolish idea of across-the-board cuts and use the regular Congressional process to enact measured, targeted cuts. I’m not saying that will be easy or make everyone happy, but that is Congress’ job.

"Before we raise taxes". . .as if taxes need to be raised! She outlines the non-partisan sources which expose the waste and fraud in government. As if cleaning out the waste and fraud justifies taking more from hard-working families.

Colbert Busch's statements on economic policy and green technology should also raise red flags.

I support investing in a clean-energy economy. Here in the 1^st District, alternative energy provides good jobs with salaries above the national average. The market is growing—projections estimate that the wind industry alone will add an additional 20,000 jobs, $2 billion in wages and $600 billion in state and local revenue in the next two decades.

Has she already forgotten about Solyndra, the $500 million boondoggle which cost taxpayers because of faulty, perhaps fraudulent, loan guarantees to a California solar panel company that went bust in 2011? The Obama administration floated taxpayer-backed loans to nineteen green tech companies. Clean energy investments will only clean out the taxpayer and will not clean out the waste and fraud which Colbert-Busch claims to care about.

Regarding health care policy, she refuses to recognize the outrageous cost overrruns associated with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Around the country, media pundits and middle income earners are complaining about the rise in premiums. Obamacare is taxing everyone. Businesses are struggling to catch up with the growing regulations emanating from the law. Insurance carriers are raising costs or leaving the health insurance industry altogether. While trumpeting her father's connection with health care, Ms. Busch offers a flimsy non-stance on the issue:

The debate in Washington has been just as frustrating because too often it’s just about politics. Everyone is either all for the Affordable Care Act or all against it.

It’s time to be practical and not political. I believe there are good and bad provisions in the new law and that more needs to be done. I will work with patients, providers, hospitals and businesses in the 1st District to implement what works and fix what doesn’t.

The law needs to be repealed. Even members of her own party have called the law "train wreck." Despite the Supreme Court ruling in 2012, the law faces new, "taxing" legal challenges.

Mark Sanford has a record of cutting costs and cutting spending. Looking past his personal failings, South Carolina voters in the first Congressional District should not fail to elect Sanford to Congress, and prevent one more rubber-stamp vote for President Obama's liberal agenda from advancing any further.

Analysis of Toomey's Background Check Bill -- And Media Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Mon, 06 May 2013 03:31:00 +0000

US Senator Patrick Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) fought his way from the House of Representatives to the United States Senate. The President for the fiscal conservative interest group Club for Growth, Toomey first ran for the US Senate in 2004, hoping to edge out the more liberal Arlen Specter. George W. Bush stood with Specter, yet the centrist eventually switched parties in 2009, then lost his primary battle in 2010 against Joe Sestak. "I switched parties so that I could get re-elected" was repeated at length. Specter became a specter of his former self, lost the primary, then died after a long bout with non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Toomey has distinguished himself as an independent voice, willing to make sacrifices and compromises in the best interests of the country, but never caving on principle. A Tea Party affiliated legislator, he even called for shutting down the federal government shortly after the fiscal cliff deal, if that would be the only way to force the federal government to cut the spending and deal with entitlements.

Toomey has been plastered, and blasted in the press recently for staging a gun-control like compromise with fellow NRA enthusiast Joe Manchin, the conservative Democratic US Senator from West Virginia. Their compromise legislation would have extended background checks, which a number of conservative voices have endorsed, including Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of Breitbart.com.

Despite attempts from the conservative Democrat and his Republican colleague to advance something, their bill failed to overcome cloture by six votes. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for and against the legislation.

Yet recent reports have attempted to lambaste one party at the expense of another in the final analysis-autopsy for why the bill failed to pass the US Senate.

MSNBC reported "Toomey: Background check plan failed because of Republican politics"

However, in his brief interview with "Morning Joe" Scarborough, Toomey mentioned the "polarization of our politics" currently at play in Washington. Both parties are responsible, not just Republicans.

The editorializing from the piece was just too biased to be based on any basis of reality:

His comments suggest that his fellow Republicans' votes weren't governed so much by judgment of good policy so much as a desire to deprive Obama of a political and legislative victory.

A more partisan post from Daily Koslaunched "PA-Sen: Pat Toomey (R) Blames Pres. Obama For Toomey-Manchin Compromise Failure"

So now Toomey blames Obama? Toomey shared:

"I understand why people have some apprehension about this administration," he added. "I don't agree with the conclusion as it applies to my [background checks] amendment, but I understand where the emotion comes from."

The writer has more terse curses for Toomey, including "F---. This. Guy." Partisan and vulgar.

The editors seemed to forget that five Democrats, mostly in red states, also voted against the legislation, Senators who are facing fraught election fights in 2014, as well.

Which brings up another, more tactical point about this legislation. Contrary to the outrage from social conservatives and Tea Party activists, I do not believe that Toomey is caving on principle, or even caving to Washington interests. One article from the National Journal, "How Pat Toomey Became the Face of the Blue State GOP" suggests that he is tacking toward the center on social issues so that he can run without facing a fierce primary fight in 2016, yet still remain true-red on fiscal issues.

Yahoo.com took another of Roarty's National Review articles, with this title:

Pat Toomey’s Tilt Toward Middle Angers Conservative Base

One part of the piece suggested less rancor than the post title:

“The hardest part about doing my job well is to do what I believe is right, even when many of my friends and supporters don’t agree with me,” he said, according to the Harrisburg Patriot-News. “That does happen from time to time and I think that’s the real test of character.”

The audience responded far more favorably to Toomey afterward. “This had all hallmarks of a family gathering where we said, ‘Oh, naughty boy!’ but in the end, ended up hugging,” Henry said.

The media bias, or spin, on the Toomey-Manchin compromise is too evident to ignore. Republicans cannot afford to look like unrepentant obstructions whose only interest is to frustrate Barack Obama. Besides the follies of running an empty suit of a moderate-turned-conservative at the top of the ticket, Republicans, conservatives, and any party for that matter cannot advertise to the country "We are not going to do anything" and hope for victory.

However, Toomey's willingness to push just a little to the left on the background issue not only gave his party, and himself, a blues-state Republican, some breathing room to reach out to more liberal constituencies. The bill forced the hand for vulnerable Democratic Senators in red states, including Mark Pryor of Arkansas, along with Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Max Baucus of Montana, who has declined to run. The bill also permitted more moderate Republicans to maintain their own independence from the National Conference. Last of all, gun control is a weak point for President Obama and the Mainstream Media, since the National Rifle Association has a strong caucus of organizers throughout the country, plus recent rulings from the Supreme Court, which have expanded the Second Amendment provisions.

Pat Toomey should be celebrated for offering a basic compromise which would have expanded background checks, a good-faith gesture which demonstrates a willingness from some Republicans to move anything in the Senate. At the same time, the legislation pushed the Democrats into a bind, since President Obama's agenda was frustrated by his own party. For all intensive purposed, Mr. Toomey should be able to weather this storm with a strong base for 2016.

Ronald Reagan and the "Leaderless" GOP

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Fri, 03 May 2013 02:27:00 +0000

Stepping out of his quiet retirement, George W. Bush dedicated his Presidential Library last month. Later in an interview with FOX News, Bush 43 commented that the Republican Party is "leaderless". This assessment gathers support if one surveys the primary battles from the past two Presidential elections. More than any other politician, the 40th President Ronald Reagan. Guiliani appealed to his leadership. Tancredo blasted his immigration amnesty. The cult of Reagan has taken hold of the Republican Party for the last ten years. Even President Obama has gone out of his way to compare himself with his Republican predecessor, with a swift amount of press from the media.

The former Screen Actors Guild President cuts quite an outline.

As Governor of California, he took a state which was teetering under Pat Brown's soft-hearted liberalism, a mind-set which did not set well with voters as Brown failed to quell student revolts on campus, nor deal with spending problems. He won reelection, and left office with a state on the mend, with a surplus in the treasury.

Ronald Reagan ran for President three times. He first ran for President in 1968, the same year that he called for the demolition of the Berlin Wall. The Republican National conference supported Richard Nixon. In 1976, following the upsets which had shaken the country, from Vietnam to the War on Drugs to the Environmental Protection Agency to Watergate, House Minority Leader turned Vice President turned President Gerald Ford had to clean up the mess left by his former boss. Two years later, the more conservative element in the Republican party were rising up against the liberal-moderate faction. Reagan should have won, but didn't.

His perseverance paid off. His time finally came, and united the otherwise fractious national, social, and fiscal conservatives into a winning coalition. Indeed, he triumphed over Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1980, and he trounced Walter Mondale in 1984. In 1988, his successor the moderate George Herbert Walker Bush thrashed Michael Dukakis.

Reagan resurged conservatism, patriotism, and dedication to this country's future, fiscal prowess without military failure. For good reason, Ronald Reagan has been bandied about as the standard-bearer for the Republican Party for the last six years.

But Ronald Reagan is dead. He has been dead for nearly a decade. Despite the tax cuts which spurred economic growth during his first term, this country cannot ignore the budget deficits and the deficit spending which ensued during Reagan's Presidency. One of the 40th President's ardent supporters, George Will, noted that "Reagan's Conservatism" allowed Americans to love big government and hate it at the same time. This political schizophrenia has emerged into the Republican public consciousness, with the "superego" of fiscal restraint pressing against an Establishment bent on winning elections, maintaining power, principles and people be damned.

Ronald Reagan's conservatism was not just amiable patriotism, nor should anyone slam or discredit his policies to promote the preeminence of the American people. The defining element of his Presidency was not domestic discipline, but a foreign policy polarized around the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a useful as well as inescapable adversary, one which was teetering on the brink the moment that final premier Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985. The Cold War is over, the "bad guys" lost, and Ronald Reagan is dead.

Following his election, US Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul wrote in his book that the Party has to cut the spending, not just say "government is the problem". Ben Shapiro slammed Reagan's support for an assault-weapons ban. "He's not a god", Shapiro chided Piers Morgan. No he isn't. God are supposed to be immortal.

While liberal bloggers have taken Patti Reagan's voucher of his father's tolerance to assume that he would endorse gay marriage, no one should write off the strong policy legacies of the president, who supported the traditional family, he endorsed the scope of the parent as greater than the power of the state in the lives of our youth. "The Gipper" was quite a trip. A great communicator with a working-class background, yet elite connections, including long-standing rapport with Hollywood as well as an affable ability to enfeeble the press.

But Ronald Reagan is dead, and the country which he presided over, which he oversaw for eight years, which he represented, is with us no more. The United States is navigating in a very different world, not the era of Conservatism relaunched against the "Keynesian" cult of the 1970's. The global markets, the teeming ethnic minorities with their divisions, are more than a mere diversion which a misplaced "amnesty (cf. Simpsonn-Mizzoli, 1986) can fix. Urban development and transportation renewal are a must, but so is a balanced national budget with diminished national debt. Entitlements consume 20-22% of GDP, and an unprecedented 43 million people are taking in food stamps.

The rhetoric of "return" will not turn many, who have no past to look to, besides a nation still reeling from terrorist terrors and sub-prime mortgage crises. Internet, Twitter, Facebook, and the Republican Party still seems caught in a net of techno-ignorant twits who will not face the facts: the party's best years cannot be found going backwards, into the past, but stepping forward into a different schema. A revelation of relevance for those who are down and out, for those who see no options, who hear, who feel that they cannot speak for themselves, is needed.

To quote a recent article slamming GOP fanaticism with Ronald Reagan, it's time to "Tear Down This Icon." Not a cult of "leadership", but a culture of leaders can promote the message which individual governors, which composite statehouses, have advanced. From Indiana and Alabama, where voucher programs are reaching out statewide, to Wisconsin and Michigan, where labor reforms have welcomed expanding business interests while empowering the individual workers, to Kansas, where the elimination of the income tax will force surrounding states to compete with reforms, not play with tax payer dollars.

Real Leaders Change Polls, Governor! (They Sure Have Changed You)

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Thu, 02 May 2013 00:15:00 +0000

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was the "Rock Star" for the conservative moment from the moment he took office in Trenton following the 2009 upset against embattled, entitled incumbent Jon Corzine. He told off teachers in town hall meetings who demanded more pay for their work:

"You know what, then you don't have to do it." Loud applause followed.

Another lady complained about the libraries closing in her city. "Unlike the federal government, lady, we cannot print money."

He told it like it is, and that's that way it was. And I liked it that way.

So he said too much sometimes. Yes, he engaged in name-calling here and there. Yet he stood his ground as needed

He's pro-life. That scores points with many. He refused to sign off on a gay marriage bill, demanding that the voters in New Jersey make that decision through ballot initiative. One of his key phrases, at the time, which defended that decision: "I am in lock-step with President Obama on this issue." His talking point became the balking point for Democrats in the statehouse, who resisted floating a voter initiative. He's backing away from climate change as a serious policy issue, even if the New Jersey coastline has been ravaged twice. He wants less government, lower taxes, and local control, so he announced in his first major press conference after his election. Notice that he did not talk about cutting spending, but at least New Jersey had the highest rating for corruption-busting.

In 2012, Christie was the Keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention. Before making his case to the convention, he rallied support for California Republicans, glibly mocking the Golden State's "Moonbeam" Governor Jerry Brown: "Jerry Brown? Jerry Brown? That guy's an old retread." To the convention he esteemed our entitlement classes: "Our seniors will not bankrupt this nation for the future generation." He stood up to President Obama, saying: "Real Leaders change polls, not follow them."

Then Superstorm Sandy thrashed the Northeast. I understood his warm affection working with President Barack Obama during Hurricane Irene, then Superstorm Sandy. The residents of the Gulf Coast did not face the delays which frustrated relief and recovery in the North East following those terrible storms. If President Obama has kept his promises, then he has kept his promises, and the Governor of New Jersey has no problem honoring that fulfillment.

When he went on the attack in December 2012, thundering at the Republicans in Washington, specifically the House Majority, conservatives and Republicans started to worry. The pork-laded bill which was going to grant millions of dollars to disparate interests in Alaska and elsewhere besides Sandy-stricken states just offended lawmakers, and the conservatives who want to cut the spending even while they help the country did the right thing and rejected the bill.

Frankly, I was willing to see Christie's bravado as a brave attempt to shore up a disparate caucus, especially following the unexpected loss of the Presidency, in spite of unprecedented job losses, anemic business development, and an unprecedented increase in government dependence. Then CPAC 2013 said "No thanks" to Christie. I saw that as a win for the New Jersey Governor, since he faces reelection in two-to-one Democratic New Jersey, where conservative principles have not taken root, as they should, in spite of a recent spate of Republican governors.

Christie still shoots for gun control, a non-starter for any serious leader, politician, or executive. Newark and Trenton have outrageous crime rates. and residents have even pleaded for the National Guard to step in step up law and order. Christie opposes gay aversion therapy, and he has even admitted that he agrees with liberal Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo "98%" of the time. Now Christie has gone on the attack on Twitter, trying to back-pedal from his previously open censoriousness against the House GOP for not passing the pork-laden Sandy-aid bill: that kind of double-dealing is not leadership. It appears that instead of changing the polls, Christie is following them, trying to ease back into a centrist position to maintain his high poll ratings.

I supported Governor Christie's tough talk on cutting taxes, cutting the pork projects, including the outrageous tunnel expansion which would have put New Jersey billions of dollars more in arrears. He stood up to the public sector unions, refusing to spend more tax dollars, while taking from the poorest as well as the business interests in the state. He wants to pass a real voucher program, where California at best mustered an open enrollment bill for all public schools, which died in the state senate two weeks ago.

Governor Christie looks more and more like the moderate which the New Jersey Star-Ledger called him out to be. There's nothing wrong with being moderate, or conservative, or even liberal, as long as it’s based on principle, as long as a man or woman is willing to look facts in the face and change one's mind. His stance on gun control, his uproarious behavior with national Republicans, and his attempt to strand away his previous support for pork without purpose have diminished his credibility considerably.

Real leaders change polls, Governor. Right now, it seems that they have sure changed you!

Ayotte on Target About Gun Control

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Wed, 01 May 2013 05:03:00 +0000

US Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) voted against the abortive background check bill last week, despite the emotional pandering of President Barack Obama, who used the Newtown, Connecticut victims to stir up shame and sentiment to force a vote on the issue.

No matter how much liberals plead, no matter how hard progressive interests push against Washington, US Senators in purple-red states, most of whom are Democrats facing a tough reelection fight in 2014, will not vote against the grain and bearing of their constituents. The expanded background checks bill failed to breach cloture by six votes, including Democrats from red states.
Republican US Senator Ayotte, former Attorney General for the state of New Hampshire, has been a reliably conservative vote in the upper chamber in Congress, and her vote against the gun control bill crafted by Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey shines out. Now gun control advocates have her in sight, aiming to take her down with attack ads shaming her for refusing to support the legislation. Ayotte even faced a strident and emotional daughter at a recent town hall meeting. This woman's mother was the principal killed at Sandy Hooke Elementary School in the Newtown, Connecticut shooting late last year.

Ms. Ayotte's response to the daughter's frustrated outrage was reasonable and respectable:

Erica, certainly let me just say that I'm obviously so sorry, and as everyone here no matter what our views are, for what you have been through.

Later she explained why she voted against the Manchin-Toomey bill:

The enhanced improvements to our background check systems, as you and I know, the issue was not that system. Mental health, I hope, is the one thing that we can agree on.

Voters in New Hampshire and commentators around the country should commend Senator Ayotte for her principled and calm explanation. Too much of the debate in this country around fraught issues like gun control, health care, and even fiscal and foreign policy has devolved into "shame, blame, defame" rhetoric, both anti-intellect and anti-civility. Gun control has had no effect on detering crime. Preventing law-abiding citizens from purchasing a firearm has not prevented criminals and the mentally ill from harming others.

Ayotte's vote also reflects the balanced values of the Granite State. New Hampshire is home to a different stand of conservatism, one based on a more libertarian tempo of "live and let live", which matches with the state motto: "Live Free or Die." The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary should invite pause and reflection, yet the heated debate which pushed gun control with enhanced background checks was the wrong route for all intended purposes. The aggravated tragedy of twenty children and six care givers is beyond description, and the pained frustration of the victimized daughter should not dissuade anyone from facing this issue of gun violence on our schools. However, the spur-of-the-moment emotionalism which has pressed liberal legislators and frustrated independent thinkers and Second Amendment Advocates can never serve as the first or final basis for comprehensive legislation. All the laws in the world cannot uproot the evil in men's hearts. Proper protection best eliminates the threats of sudden gunfire. "The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

Senator Ayotte's assertion about mental illness deserves greater attention, and her insistence on refusing contoured measures which would have appeased vocal interests and assuaged temporal fears deserves more praise than Ayotte is currently receiving. However, the greater issue which left an elementary school an easy target has not been addressed. Connecticut, like many states in the country, has concealed-carry laws, yet "gun free zone" provisions which prevent lawful, trained gun owners from bearing arms on public school campuses. Such backward policies have created "safety free" zones on public schools, and deranged assailants can attack these schools and hurt children without fear of reprisal.

Ayotte was on target about gun control because she refused to endorse a bill which would have expanded background checks, only to hinder law abiding gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, while at the same time doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Newtown, Connecticut victims, both the families and the community at large. If only more US Senators like Kelly Ayotte served in the US Senate. Her presence of mind to ignore the pressures of the media and heated special interests, as well as the blatant emotional pandering of President Obama by using the Newtown children and grieving parents as political props, deserves props and praise from all voters.

Markey is "All Miss" -- Go for Gomez (Gabriel Gomez for US Senate)

noreply@blogger.com (Arthur Christopher Schaper) — Wed, 01 May 2013 03:41:00 +0000

Gabriel Gomez for US Senate

When US Senator Ted Kennedy passed away, Massachusetts had a special election in 2010 to replace him. The Bay States' Attorney General Martha Coakley ran against Scott Brown, the Republican state senator from Wrentham. He was a surprise, and surprisingly good candidate, one who revved up from a double-digit deficit to win the senate seat by five points in three-to-one Democratic Massachusetts.

Why did Brown win in 2010? Pundits argue that the Democratic Party machine was not paying attention, and Brown took advantage of the slothful disarray. In reality, President Obama was an anchor on the national conference, hurting candidates even in reliably blue bastions of liberal sentiment. He hurt the Democratic Gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia in 2009, and he killed his Democratic Majorities in 2010 in the House while diminishing his delegation in the US Senate.

In 2012, the standard bearer for the Republican Party was weaker than President Obama, and definitely than the US Senate candidate running for reelection in Massachusetts. Romney was a confused general election Presidential contender who had tacked too far to the right during the primaries against raging opponents and a ravenous media willing to highlight discrepancies. Furthermore, Romney ran for office more out of obligation than voluntary ambition, and he refused to honor statewide candidates in US Senate or Congressional races when they were struggling to make traction in otherwise winnable contests. Romney commanded little respect with the national electorate, including more conservative Republicans who doubted his credentials. The reluctance lasted for months, and long enough that three million Republicans stayed home on election night. A stronger, more unifying GOP Presidential candidate would have strengthened US Senator Scott Brown's election chances hand, and he would be in the Senate serving his first full term. Many are confident that there will be a Governor Brown in Massachusetts in 2014.

The troubling legacy of a bad standard-bearer, or a bad standard, has frustrated campaign opportunities before. US Senator John Kerry faced the same challenge in 2004 that Mitt Romney faced and fell to in 2012: an incumbent with no primary challenger and no third party dragging away votes. Losing his chance to be President, Kerry then took the offer to serve for the chief executive when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opted to step down in 2012.John Kerry, the second choice for the office, took the assignment, thus opening up the third US Senate race in three years in the Bay State. With this background mind, and with the US Senate special election primaries ended, Navy Seal Gabriel Gomez will challenge Markey for the vacant US Senate seat.

Indeed, Massachusetts is a liberal bastion. There is a time and a place for government to move in more strongly for those who are in need. In the long run, it would be better to help people out of need than to prolong their dependence, and certainly with the help of someone whose livelihood has depended on more than government. Liberal Congressman Edward Markey has "served" in Congress for nearly thirty-seven years. While still a law student, he ran for the office, and he has stayed in office all this time. A career politician like Markey has no business making the government his business, especially when his claim to fame is . . . "Cap and Trade".

This bill, pushed in 2009 with the assistance of fellow virulent liberal Henry Waxman (D-California), would have raised a tax on all carbon, which in effect would tax every form of energy. Requiring businesses to purchase a "carbon credit" creates a third-party racket for profiteers to plunder businesses, agriculture, and economic enterprises. The program in Europe created wild speculation, more pollution, and higher fuel prices. The whole scheme is a Wall Street-style scam.

Yet Markey to this day stands by his abortive bill, which did not have a chance of passing in the Democratically-controlled Senate, where statewide business interests pressured their lawmakers to reject the bill. West Virginia's Joe Manchin ran for the US Senate, pledging that he would shut down Cap and Trade, even shooting a bulletthrough the bill in one campaign commercial.

Gomez, a former naval pilot and Navy Seal, has worked in private equity for the last twelve years. Private sector experience is a must in this crucial time. His training in national security with a better understanding of the daily lives of Bay State residents is a plus for Gomez, while locals to this day complain that they have not seen much of Ed Markey in his local district. The bombings during the Boston Marathon should remind every Massachusetts voter that moral equivalence in the face of latent terrorism is a losing proposition, one which President Obama and the Democratic Pary do not seem to take seriously.

Markey-Obama policies are killing the middle class and taking away chances for the working class. President Obama once again is dragging down his own party as well as the entire country, from ObamaCare, with high taxes and regulations spiraling out of control, to stagnant employment, to food stamps for 43 million Americans, and a staggering foreign policy which has emboldened Islamist radicals in the Middle East. Besides, what good is a politician who pushes everything but the better solutions for the better interests of Bay State voters?

Markey is "All Miss" and No Hit. Go for Gomez. Vote for Gabriel Gomez for US Senate on June 25.