Summer 2012

In case anyone hasn't yet noticed, I have taken off the Summer so far. Fact is, I either didn't think there was anything worth posting, or I was tearing out my hair from sheer panic and stress. So now that I have a momentary breather before really big stuff starts happening to me (Really. Big. Stuff. [like a total lifestyle change, and nicer scenery {hopefully}]), I thought I would basically compile what my Summer has come down to so far.

#1: All Staff Advance
Location: Lubbock, TX
Date: June 1-2
Pics or it didn't happen?

That's me, the guy with his hair partially cut off.

Beginning the day after the most successful primary the PAC has ever had, it marked the first official convocation of all Texas Home School Coalition staff, plus some rather notable volunteers *cough*. I got to personally meet my effervescent, intense co-director of THSCPAC, Beka Ingram. She was even more effervescent and intense in-person. I brainstormed a project that was dubbed, at the time, important but not urgent. Laughing about that now. I'll give you the important details later in the post. A good time was had by all, and we got the necessary inspiration to make it through the hectic Republican primary runoffs.

#2: NCFCA National Tournament, 2012

Location: St. Paul, MN

Date: June 17-25 (Including four days of travel time)

Pics or it didn't happen?

End of long day + always being caught in dorky poses in these kinds of pics = above image.

For all of two days of competition, I was a national level extemporaneous speaker. The other seven, I was having the time of my life retiring my four-year NCFCA career. That puppy has been laid to rest. Got to meet some awesome people, give some mediocre speeches, and have really, really good barbecue in Kansas City on both the 17th and the 24th (I have pics of that, too). Bittersweet memory, as it was my last NCFCA tournament (as a competitor, watch out for me as a judge). I have to highly recommend the league as a good life-experience that is already bearing fruit.

#3: Camping with the Guys

Location: Inks Lake State Park, TX

Date: July 6-7

Pics or it didn't happen?

Super manly t-shirts? Check. Mental preparation for intense mockery by my offspring? Checkaroo.

The camping trip to end all camping trips. I had the distinct pleasure of visiting the location of many a church camp-out (most recent of which occurring around 2002). In addition, I had the distinct pleasure of both viewing some previously hidden foot muscle, and cowboying off the previous covering thereof. Also, I made a foray into bacon-frying, which turned out rather well. The cliff jumping was awesome, and I totally look forward to my next trip, where I might be able to pull off more than one jump before having my foot savagely assaulted by said cliff. Oh, and did I mention that the other dudes in the picture are basically the guys I grew up with? Yup. Big heaping helping of awesomesauce.

#4: Republican Primary Runoff Election
Location: Austin, TX
Date: July 31
Pics or it didn't happen?

I'm the guy with his back to the camera. Because I was working, unlike my boss, who took the picture.

I participated in my first war-room session. The local members of the PAC bundled ourselves (after voting, of course) to a borrowed conference room in central Austin, where we labored to get out the vote for our candidates. This included yours truly developing the most popular post in the history of the THSCPAC FB page. I guess I'm awesome that way. Anyway, the highlight of the day was getting to witness Ted Cruzalicious help David Dewhurst steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Pretty cool stuff. Other highlight of the day? Being able to use a 24'' monitor. I'm not really into tech anymore, but I got pretty psyched about that.

#5: THSC Convention 2012
Location: The Woodlands, TX

Date: August 2-4

Pics or it didn't happen?

Power photo taken courtesy of the talented Christina Hastings, yes that Christina Hastings.

Three straight 14-hour days. Really good food every night for dinner. And my 'brainstorm' was publicly announced as an official program of THSCPAC without my foreknowledge. Things move fast with Paul Hastings and Tim Lambert. Other than that one shot of instant adrenaline, it was a pretty chill conference. I got to finally see what a conference run by people other than my parents looked like, and was duly impressed. Plus I got to visit with some friends, and go to the Cheesecake Factory for the first time, though admittedly I was served at midnight. Oh, and how could I forget having a front-row seat for the Bob Smiley show. If you don't know who he is, look him up. Last but not least, seeing John Erickson perform Hank the Cowdog. It was goodness.

And basically, that's what my Summer has boiled down to this year. In between the above events, I was working my job at The Gap, slaving for THSCPAC in less glamorous locales, and doing a bit of swimming and movie watching.

The True Gospel

The Gospel is central to the Christian faith. Without it, we have no purpose, no hope, and we lack a basis for practically all we do. However, we must take care to preach and teach the True Gospel. While this seems like an obvious point, because the Gospel is so essential, it is worth examining some false gospels common in the Church, and seeing what the True Gospel is, and why it matters.

The first type of false gospel is the Me Gospel. This one is especially pernicious, yet woefully common. It takes the emphasis off of Christ, and puts it on each individual. Focusing on specific things that must be done, it is works based. It tells us that if we don't do certain things, or feel certain ways, or say certain things, then we are not saved. These are things that we all tell ourselves that we have to do. Am I saved if I haven’t prayed the "sinner's prayer"? Am I saved if I didn't feel 'spiritual' during worship on Sunday? Am I saved if I didn't tithe 10% of my income? All of these things are extra-biblical requirements. The consequence of this gospel is the despair that comes from using finite methods to reach an infinite goal.

The next kind of false gospel is the Conditional Gospel. It is similar to the Me Gospel, except that it is composed of requirements put on us by other people. We aren't saved in their eyes if we don't meet certain conditions. The idea that one's salvation depends on someone other than Christ's opinion of you is heretical. You may believe this gospel if you think that someone's salvation is in doubt if they haven't been slain in the Spirit, spoken in tongues, or prophesied in church. The problem is that, again, Christ is not at the center of this. Extra-biblical requirements are. Additionally, this gospel ends in fear that other people may make another criterion defining true salvation

The third variety of false gospel is the Uncertain Gospel. The main idea of this one is that ultimate salvation is constantly in doubt. One never knows for sure whether they have done enough to deserve, or receive salvation. You find yourself asking, "Have I given enough money?" "Have I repented of my sins enough times?" "Have I lived in such a way as to deserve salvation?" This is the beginning of the road to legalism, because it necessitates certain rules to make us feel as if we're good enough. This is totally false, and inspires arrogance and pride in those who subscribe to it.

The last kind of false gospel I want to address is the Elite Gospel. This gospel centers on the belief that the Gospel isn't appropriate for everybody, that you have to be good enough, and know enough. Basically, it preaches that the Gospel is an exclusive form of elitism. You might not be saved if you're not a Calvinist. You might not have salvation if you don't home school. You might not be saved if you listen to secular music. This is has much the same end result as the Uncertain Gospel, in that it creates legalism. The Gospel is not about being better than anyone else, or being more pious than God. Extra rules do nothing to secure salvation, but do a lot to create false assurance.

Now that we've seen several kinds of false gospels, the obvious question is, "What is the true Gospel?" The Gospel may be defined as: The teachings of Jesus and His apostles regarding salvation. Which are the promises of justification and forgiveness of sins for the sake of Christ alone. One thing to notice about this definition is that it clearly limits itself to what is actually in Scripture, and the two foundational doctrines of justification and forgiveness of sins. There are four specific traits of the True Gospel that I want to address.

The first is Solus Christus, which is Latin for "Christ alone." The Gospel's unavoidable center is on Jesus Christ. Romans 10:8-9 says: "But what does it say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." We see that the Gospel revolves around Christ alone. Nothing else. It doesn't matter what clothes you wear, how or when you were baptized, or how much you have contributed to your church's building fund.

The second trait is Sola Gratia, which means "Grace alone." According to Galatians 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." In other words, it is impossible to keep the law of God. Since it is impossible, we have to totally rely on the grace of God to justify us. If it weren't for divine grace, there would be nothing that could achieve salvation for man.

Another trait of the True Gospel is Sola Fide, or faith alone. We read in Galatians 2:16, "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." So we see that it isn't any standards that we come up with that save us, but only faith in Jesus Christ. Compare this to all of the false gospels I have discussed, where the requirements are faith plus something else.

The last trait of the True Gospel is Sola Scriptura, which means scripture alone. Everyone knows John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." You see, the scriptural view of salvation is not elitist. It is not uncertain. It is not legalistic. It is not bleak. It epitomizes hope, and that only by the grace of God.

The result of the True Gospel, what it inspires in us, is both freedom and slavery. First, it removes us from bondage to sin. When we are justified before God, we no longer are seen as sinful to God. No longer do we have to live sinful lives with a destiny in Hell. Second, we become slaves. We become slaves to righteousness. We are purchased by Christ to become His servants. Being a slave to righteousness is like being forced to eat chocolate, we have to do something we know is awesome anyway.

Why does this matter? What consequence is it what each individual believes? Quite simply, there is eternal life in the balance. Giving oneself, or others, rules that do not have any founding in scripture, and claiming that these will save you is arrogant, sinful, and foolish. Worse, it detracts from the work Christ has done, and makes man seem capable of his own salvation, thus negating the need for Christ's death and resurrection in the first place. We should constantly strive to preach and teach the True Gospel, so that eternal life and salvation may be ours, and we do not lead others into error.

Re-Blog: Discipline

Note: This post was originally written on my good friend Nathan's blog: www.beekeeperontheloose.wordpress.com. It is part of a fantastic series of posts on manly virtues. After reading this particular one, I thought it good enough to share with my own readers.

Eric Weisz was born in Hungary in 1874 and immigrated to the U.S. at a very young age. The rest of his history is obscure, but he grew into a young man who knew locks. Eric was also very good with sleight of hand tricks and became a big attraction at the local circus dime show. He wasn’t there long because his skill was in much more than just cards and locks, it was in escape. Eric grew in fame as he escaped every pair of handcuffs with which he was shackled. He also got out of strait jackets, coffins, jail cells and six feet of earth. Eric Weisz gained national fame and traveled the globe as the Handcuff King and Escape Artist Extraordinaire. But we know him better as Harry Houdini.


How did he do it? Discipline. The training he put himself through is enough to make anyone cringe, but he could escape because of it. Resolve is a good pre-cursor to discipline because you must have the discipline to carry out your resolve. They are two sister virtues that must come together or not at all. From resolving to read this horrendously long article, to resolving to escape six feet of earth alive, it all takes discipline. But I hope you will do it. There are four parts to discipline: Habit, Will, Focus and Efficiency. Discipline is the difference between escape and death, success and failure, riches and bare existence, Godliness and foolishness, manliness and boyhood. It doesn’t take being a Houdini to be disciplined; it only takes understanding its rudimentary parts.


Discipline through Habit
“This fact applies to everything that we do, and to every relation of our lives. We can make a habit of honesty, of industry, of kindliness, of attention, of courtesy, and of whatever we will. Indeed, Aristotle, one of the wisest men of antiquity, defined virtue as a habit of right doing… Another great advantage that springs from the fixity of habits is found in the fact that, by means of this, our lives may make real progress.” ~ Charles Carroll Everett.


Discipline through Will
“I want to be first. I vehemently want to be first. First in my profession… For that I give all the thought, all the power, that is in me. To stand at the head of my rank: it is all I ask… so I have struggled and fought. I have done and abstained; I have tortured my body and risked my life, only for that – to have one plank on the stage where they must fall back and cry “Master!”… I am strong, as you see; strong in flesh, but my will has been stronger than my flesh. I have struggled with iron and steel, with locks and chains; I have burned, drowned, and frozen till my body has become almost insensible to pain; I have done things which rightly I could not do, because I said to myself, “You must”; and now I am old at 36. A man is only a man, and the flesh revenges itself. Yet the will is its master when the will is strong enough.” ~ Harry Houdini
Discipline through Focus
There are two parts to focus: doing but one thing at a time and being one in purpose and action. In a letter to his son, Lord Chesterfield wrote:


“A man is fit for neither business nor pleasure who either cannot, or does not, command and direct his attention to the present object, and in some degree banish, for that time, all other objects from his thoughts… There is time enough for everything, in the course of the day, if you do but one thing at once; but there is not time enough in the year, if you will do two things at a time… This steady and dissipated attention to one object is a sure mark of a superior genius; as hurry, bustle, and agitation, are the never-failing symptoms of a weak and frivolous mind.”
Second, you must be one man; one in purpose and in action:


“My man, first of all consider what kind of thing it is: and then examine your own nature, if you are able to sustain the character… different men are formed by nature for different things…You must be one man, either good or bad. You must either cultivate your own ruling faculty, or external things; you must either exercise your skill on internal things or on external things; that is you must either maintain the petition of a philosopher or that of a common person.” ~ Epictetus


Discipline through Efficiency
Houdini was a master in physical efficiency. He tied knots with his toes and worked a deck of cards while conversing with guests. He also took ice baths and submerged himself under water to where he could hold his breath for four minutes. Because he was physically efficient, he was the best in what he did. But what about being mentally efficient? Here is the kicker. We are notorious for all of the diets and work outs we put our body through to get it in shape. However, we are sorely lacking in having our mental faculties as sharp as they should be. Being mentally efficient is just as important as being physically efficient in discipline. Here are a few tips from a 1911 article by Arnold Bennett:


“A strange thing – was it not? – That I never had the idea of devoting a quarter of an hour a day after shaving to the pursuit of mental efficiency… Your conscience tells you that your mind is less active and less informed than it might be… you say to yourself that you will take your mind in hand and do something with it. Wait a moment. What precautions are you going to take against failure this time? For your will is probably no stronger now than it was aforetime… What are your precautions? Have you thought of them? Failure in the past was due to one or more of three causes. And the first was that you undertook too much at the beginning… do not form an elaborate programme. Simply content yourself with a preliminary canter, a ridiculously easy preliminary canter… The second possible cause of previous failure was the disintegrating effect on the will-power of the ironic, superior smile of friends… Therefore don’t go and nail your flag to the mast. Don’t raise any flag. Say nothing. Work as unobtrusively as you can… The third possible cause was that you did not rearrange your day… Robbing yourself of sleep won’t help you, nor trying to ‘squeeze in’ a time for study between two other times. Use the knife, and use it freely. If you mean to read or think half an hour a day, arrange for an hour. A hundred percent margin is not too much for a beginner… We come now to what I may call the calisthenics of the business… [first exercise] There are few mental exercises better than learning great poetry or prose by heart… The chief, but not the only, merit of learning by heart as an exercise is that it compels the mind to concentrate. And the most important preliminary to self-development is the faculty of concentrating at will… [second exercise] the exercise of writing is an indispensable part of any genuine effort towards mental efficiency. I don’t care much what you write, so long as you compose sentences and achieve continuity. There are forty ways of writing in an unprofessional manner, and they are all good… After writing comes thinking.”
… And proficiency in thought is our ultimate goal.


Wrapping it up, I was particularly struck by the words of Harry Houdini in his quote under “Discipline through Will.” His words reminded me very much of Apostle Paul’s creed and I decided to re-phrased Houdini’s quote to reflect Paul’s thoughts and turn it into something we can declare as well.


I want to run well. I vehemently want to run well. For that I give all the thought, all the power that is in me. To stand before my King and hear Him say “Well Done!” It is all I ask… so I have struggled and fought. I have done and abstained; I have tortured my body and risked my life, only for that – to hear the praise of my Maker. I am strong, as you see; strong in flesh, but my will must be stronger than my flesh. I have struggled with iron and steel, with locks and chains; I have been beaten, spat upon, and harassed till my body has become almost insensible to pain; I have done things which rightly I could not do, because I said to myself, “You must”; because of Grace; because of faith; because of my King. I am only a man, and the flesh revenges itself. But the King is the master of my will, my will is the master of my flesh and my flesh will run this race well.


Amen


Be strong and courageous. Be disciplined.

What Is The Meaning of Life?

Why are we here? What is the point of our existence? Upon a quick perusal of the Wikipedia article for this topic, one is bombarded with many different views. These are incredibly varied, from "To realize one's potential and dreams" to "To achieve biological perfection". On the surface, these seem like good things. After all, if one is born with amazing natural talent, shouldn't they work extremely hard to develop it and showcase it? If I cognitively realize how terrible the world is now, shouldn't I work extremely hard to make sure the next generation is better than this one?

What is the solution that each of these ideas reaches after? I believe it is ultimately the fulfillment of each individual. At the end of the day, if I can say I moved towards my meaning of life, and provided further reason for my continued existence, then I can look past all the bad that I have done, pat myself on the back, and try to do the same thing tomorrow. The only thing this really accomplishes is to release endorphins and make me happy. If all I try to do is realize my potential and dreams, I am solely working for me, making sure my priorities are above everyone else's. If all I try to do is achieve biological perfection, and try to make the next generation better, I know that everyone after me has me to thank for their great lives.

We can easily see that all of this is, in the end, amazingly self-centered. Everything we do, we do to get ourselves something. The problem is that we are inherently finite beings. We cannot know everything, do everything, see everything, feel everything, touch everything, or even live long enough to give ourselves the chance to try. Following any of Wikipedia's answers leads to ultimate failure.

What is the Christian's answer? What is the meaning of our lives?

 I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God's gift to man. - Ecclesiastes 3:10-13

Our meaning in life, the point of our existence is to be joyful and do good. Doing these two things puts us in direct contrast with the world. Being joyful does nothing to make people cater to your needs. Doing good and serving oneself cannot both be done. If a Christian does not do these things, he puts his meaning of life in something else, something other than what he is called to.

Author Stephen Covey in his book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People writes that an effective person should begin with the end in mind. Basically, one should envision one's eulogy being read. What goes into it should determine what we do with our lives. If the Christian was to begin with the end in mind, he would center his life on being joyful and doing good. This is the only way to do what God has called us to do, and it also puts on a totally opposite path from the rest of the world.

Rick Santorum

The son of Italian immigrants, an in-your-face Catholic, and a staunch social conservative, Rick Santorum is certainly a unique candidate. While most of the field would rather not deal with social issues typically championed by the GOP, he embraces them and makes them the highlight of his campaign. Currently, he is battling with Romney for the lead in the primary race, while staving off renewed support for Gingrich. With that in mind, let's look at his stance on the issues.

#1: The Economy: He promises a lot. And it all makes good, old-fashioned business sense. He plans to cut the corporate tax rate in half to 17.5%. As I have asked of practically every other candidate, why? Where does the arbitrariness come from? Why not set it at 0%? The good thing about it is that he takes a cue from the best congressman in office, Paul Ryan, when he states that it will be a flat tax. No more loopholes for Big Business.

The best part of his plan is the budget cuts for the federal government:

I’ll propose spending cuts of $5 trillion over 5 years, including spending cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. I will propose budgets that spend less money each year than the year before, and I’ll reduce the non-defense related federal workforce at least 10 percent, without replacing with contractors. 

That is change we can all believe in, eh? I mean, it matches Ron Paul, the extreme fiscal conservative as far as spending cuts go.

One part that should be troubling to anyone paying attention, though, is his idea of making Social Security and Medicare so that they are "fiscally sustainable." In a country where children are making up a smaller and smaller portion of the population, this is pretty much impossible. I'll be interested to see just how exactly this comes about.

#2: Immigration: Santorum takes a tough-on-immigration stance. He proposes securing the border first, asking questions later. While this is a wonderful plan as far as national security is concerned, it sort of puts a damper on our relations with Mexico, whose government we should be wholeheartedly supporting. In addition to extending the border fence, he wants to implement an E-verify system, so that companies can make sure that they are not hiring illegals, and the government will have an easier job enforcing the law. Anytime the government says it wants to increase identification measures in the interest of enforcing the laws, run. Run far, far away. At least the E-verify system has little support in Congress, so it isn't realistically going to come into being. Other than this, he pretty much states the party line on other facets of immigration.

#3: National Security: His views on national security are inextricably tied to American Exceptionalism. He takes a strong stance against the ideology of radical Islam, saying we should deal with it like we dealt with communism under Reagan, yet he acknowledges that it is perfectly acceptable to work with Muslim nations, as long as we point out their flaws.

He also takes a particularly strong position on Iran saying that if Israel doesn't remove their nuclear facilities, we'll do it ourselves. Obviously, the US hasn't been this belligerent toward a country since 2003, and this always means war. Whether or not we can launch a military strike against Iran without kicking off a  regional-, or maybe a global-war is for the experts to say, but everyone can agree it is risky at best.

There is nothing wrong with condemning war-mongering countries as long as we don't participate in it ourselves. If Iran continues on their collision course with world stability, those countries in a position to do something about it should. Until then, threats of military strikes should be left for pundits.

#4: The Constitution: While siding with the non-Paulites in the campaign by not making the Constitution an issue in his message, he has taken the wise road of encouraging a strong moral standard in culture. Too many times do politicians hem and haw over the question of morality, often taking a totally different ethical stance personally than they preach publicly (Enter Gingrich), Santorum is the exception to this rule. He bravely holds the social conservative line, defending traditional marriage and the dignity of all human life. When America's leaders are openly discussing these things, there is hope yet for the country. A belief system identical to the Founders' will mean a return to the pro-Constitution values that are desperately needed in this day and age.

In conclusion, Santorum is a candidate who easily wins the American heartland with his free-market economics and conservative ethics. The problem with this is that he can be a tad over-zealous when enforcing the law, which leads to the same thinking that lead to the Patriot Act and the NDAA. The trick for winning the nomination for him will be broadening his appeal by emphasizing his economic policy. All things considered, he probably makes the most ideal Republican candidate in the field.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney has been the perpetual front-runner since... forever. Other candidates are judged not only on whether they can beat Obama, but also on whether they can beat Romney. Currently, despite commanding a luxurious lead over the rest of the field overall, he has come under fire for both his time at Bain Capital and the fact that he has hidden millions in off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands. At a time when Americans just want to get back to work, his private sector experience shows resounding success at firing people. When Americans are looking for fairness, he gets away with paying only 15% of his income in taxes. But let's look at the issues.

#1: The Economy: His tax plans are interesting. On the individual level, he insists that America become fairer, while giving only those who make below $200,000 any kind of actual tax break. Perhaps this gives us a look inside of his ideology. Why keep the Status Quo in the area of taxes for those who make more than $200,000? Is it fair that they pay more taxes? Why punish those who can do the most good for the economy?

On the corporate tax level, he proposes reducing it to 25%. Where did he get this number? While it is below some of the more established world economies, it is at the same level or above countries considered "emerging markets." Is this really going to help us compete worldwide? Why not reduce it to some other round number like... 0%?

He has much more to say on the economy, in fact, one can get an e-book copy of his entire plan from his website. However, his tax stance was too good to pass up.

#2: Immigration: It is troubling that his campaign website does not include any links on the issue of immigration. Apparently making our borders secure is not one of his top priorities.

#3: National Security: This may be the area in which Romney gets the most support from the conservative Republicans. It is also, incidentally, one of the main areas that he is diametrically opposed to Ron Paul. Basically, he wants to bring defense back as the main sacred cow of the federal government, with enforced spending of at least 4% of GDP. In addition, he wants to dramatically increase the rate at which new ships are being built for the Navy from nine to fifteen per year. Interestingly, he is strong ballistic missile defense. This is not a main issue with most other Washingtonians, given that, though ballistic missiles have existed for about 50 years, the results of such defense initiatives thereof are still highly erratic, regardless of what you thought you knew about SDI.

Also, he supports continuing the military's role on the world stage as a "global force for good." This means more projection of power in the Pacific, to counter China, and more robust support of allies such as Israel, which means taking a strong anti-Iran stance.

#4: The Constitution: Given the strong influence of the Tea Party very recently in the GOP, one would think that Romney would have some things to say about the Constitution, at least a rebuke of some governmental policies as being unconstitutional. Yet he supports the NDAA, which gives the government the power to indefinitely arrest and detain perceived terrorists. He states in the video above that members of Al-Qaeda, whether or not they are citizens, do not have the right to due process. However, he does not give his definition of a terrorist, nor does he explain his rationale behind arbitrarily denying some US citizens the right to due process, upon which our government was founded. This is a signal of an obvious lack of respect for our nations founding document.

In conclusion, Mitt Romney is a great American. He has done much to further good business initiatives that have strengthened our economy. However, his politics are centrist. While this may earn him a wider voting base, it abandons the core of his own party. While his national security policies are strong, everything else does little to inspire voters looking for a candidate who embraces the Constitution and conservatism.

Ron Paul

The fourth candidate to be reviewed is Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has had a long career in both medicine and government, becoming famous for his policy of never compromising on his interpretations of the Constitution. While his extreme libertarian views have gained him a cult following over the years, this is the first election cycle where he has garnered more general support. He has been speaking and writing a ton (side note: he is the only candidate who has written a book that I have read) on the main issues, so let's cut to the chase.

#1: The Economy: This is perhaps his most famous issue, and it has many facets. First, he wants to audit and end the Federal Reserve, returning the power of the purse to Congress. Good so far. Then he wants to return the dollar to the gold standard. While this is the ideal state of any currency, the political feasibility of this action near nil. To be clear, his value is in the right place, but like so many of his views it has little support in Congress. In addition, it will be hard to convince an economically illiterate nation that we need a stronger dollar until they see effects like 1920's Germany. Truth is tough.

His tax policies are good, but have little chance of actually being put into place. I'm sure none of us would mind eliminating the income, death and capital gains tax. But the federal behemoth is not going to change overnight. The government is not going to take a 50% income reduction lying down, and we have to question the effects of a much smaller budget. When the sacred cows are lead to the slaughter house, will our aging, government-dependent population support defense spending or entitlement programs?

Finally, he refuses to allow Congress to pass an unbalanced budget. Given the mood Congress is currently in, playing chicken with their own policies, a super-majority would become a real threat. An irritable Executive combined with a pugnacious, stubborn Congress will not mix well. However noble the cause, compromise is almost universally necessary. A balanced budget is good, but not paying serviceman because of an impasse is immoral.

#2: Immigration: Here is where he will probably gain the most support. His tough no amnesty policy would deprive illegals of a way out while enforcing our laws. However, his plan to end birthright citizenship is odd, and wide open to corruption. Who will make the final decision on a child's citizenship? What criteria will be used? If two legal immigrants are in the country, does their child become a US citizen? It's pretty scary to think about the implications, when the government arbitrarily controls citizenship.

#3: National Security: Congressman Paul is often accused of having an isolationist defense policy. But the truth is that he has an isolationist defense policy. While approving a clear mission and definition of victory are key in any military campaign, so also is sending a clear message that America will not tolerate regimes that harbor our enemies. In addition, a policy of using force only when we have been attacked may be un-Constitutional. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it says, "[Congress has the duty] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; "Therefore the United States has the duty to enforce international law, but don't depend on Paul to agree to that. As to the rest of his policies in this area, little argument can be made against them.


#4: The Constitution: Unlike most presidential candidates, Ron Paul has read the Constitution. He can quote it at will, typically within the correct context. However, when someone knows the most about an issue than anyone else in the room, it can be tempting to say that their opinion is final. So while it may appear that he supports the founders ideals, let us not forget a certain sentence in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The pro-life community has taken this as grounds to repeal Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul has stated that abortion is an issue that states should decide, neglecting to make governmental protection of its citizens a national issue. An inconsistent position at best, a cowardly one at worst.


In conclusion, it can be safely said that Ron Paul is as opposite to Newt Gingrich as one can get in this race. While Newt will probably pass every program he wants, at the high cost of compromise, Paul will doubtlessly pass few of his aspirations, at the high cost of no compromise. Paul knows how the game is played, but prefers to read the rule book.