Caffeinated Thoughts

Brief History of the Modern Christian Right
VEEPStakes: Condi Rice for VP?
Rick Santorum Stumps for Ben Lange in Iowa 1st Congressional District Race
Report Reveals Embryonic Stem Cells Have Stalled Out
Branstad, Latham Testify Against Air Force Plans to Retire Iowa Air National Guard F-16 Squadron
Give Cures Launches With Rick Santorum as Spokesperson

Brief History of the Modern Christian Right

Posted: 13 Jul 2012 03:09 AM PDT

There is nothing vainer than the idea that we can restore a nation, rebuild our once great country, and leave Christ out. That's the whole conservative movement in a nutshell. It's been apart from Christ.[1]

Without much fanfare, Evangelicalism and conservative politics got married in the 1970s.[2] Its progeny, the Christian Right,[3] was conceived in the shadows of Roe v. Wade (1973) and saw the light of day in the release of Francis Schaeffer's books[4] and films How Should We Then Live (1976) and Whatever Happened to the Human Race (1979); the ascendancy of James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio broadcasts (starting in 1977); and the founding of the Moral Majority by Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich (1979).

Political foundations for the evangelical surge were built a bit earlier when Phyllis Schlafly started the Eagle Forum in 1972, which eventually led to her successful fight against the Equal Rights Amendment. Though a Catholic, she could be called the midwife of the Evangelical Right.

Many evangelicals voted for the "Born Again"[5] Baptist Sunday School teacher Jimmy Carter in 1976, but Ronald Reagan wooed them to the Republican Party in 1980 and 1984 with his strong pro-life message and book, The Conscience of a Nation.

The growing movement did not generate a candidate of its own until 1988, when Christian Broadcasting Network and 700 Club founder and broadcaster Pat Robertson finished a strong second in the Iowa caucuses behind Bob Dole. Robertson's campaign rather quickly fizzled not long after he finished fifth in the New Hampshire primary. From 1992 to 2000, evangelicals split their support among many candidates during Republican primaries, including Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, Orrin Hatch, John Ashcroft and Gary Bauer, but they also helped propel George W. Bush to the White House. Bush had given a credible testimony of his personal conversion and faith in Christ during the primary season leading up to the 2000 election.

For almost 30 years then, politically-minded evangelicals worked mostly through the Republican Party, arguably seeing little progress[6]. For years we played second-fiddle to other conservative interests, most of which we whole-heartedly agreed with: lower taxes and less regulation, strong defense, home-grown energy and free markets. We have been strong advocates of the Constitution, whether the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms or the 10th Amendment limits to the power of the federal government. Questions remain. Have we been wasting our time seeking political solutions to what are essentially spiritual problems? Or have we been going about politics the wrong way all along? Are evangelicals gaining influence in the Republican Party and the country? If so, is this a good or bad thing?

In the chapters that follow, I will try to provide an antidote to our political ills, which I believe are a symptom of spiritual ills. And I will demonstrate that the problems do not come from too little political involvement, but rather from lack of knowledge concerning who God is and what He requires in the political process. Bright ideas, hard work and lofty goals, as important as they are, can never replace the blessing of the Maker of Heaven and Earth.

Few Christians today look to the Bible for guidance on the question of who to vote for or what government is supposed to look like. We've been hoodwinked or browbeaten into thinking that it is illegal or unethical to mix church and state, politics and religion. We have had a vague sense that we have a duty to vote for candidates who advocate prevailing conservative notions about abortion or homosexual marriage, but, sadly, this sense of duty is fading in the face of "more pressing problems."

In 2008, 24% of professing Evangelical Christians voted for Barack Obama,[7] even though as a politician he had never lifted a finger to protect any unborn children[8] nor protected any of those that mercifully managed to escape the hand of the abortionist.[9] It should have been apparent where he would take the country. He strongly supported homosexual marriage[10] and the agenda of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement, [11] though his public stand seemed more moderated.

Other believers think the Bible doesn't address issues specifically enough to be helpful in our modern society, or they don't want to offend someone by taking a stand on controversial issues lest they lose the opportunity to share Jesus with them later. These are some of our ills.

[1] John Lofton, quoted in Gregg Jackson and Steve Deace (2011) We Won't Get Fooled Again, JAJ Publishing

[2] For a discussion of earlier influences on the Christian Right, see Steve Wolfgang, Millennialism and The American Political Dream Guardian of Truth XXVI: 4, pp. 54-58.

[3] Politics also had a sister who got married to liberal Christianity and helped spawn the religious left.

[4] Schaeffer's books have been cited by both Mike Huckabee and Michele Bachmann as having a profound impact on their lives.

[5] Newsweek, October 25, 1976, cover story, "Born Again—Evangelicals".

[6] Other than the G. W. Bush appointment of two assumed pro-life Catholics to the US Supreme Court (John Roberts and Samuel Alito), the religious right has seen little progress. See Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America? Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson (1999) Zondervan: Grand Rapids, and also Why Government Can't Save You: An Alternative to Political Activism by John MacArthur (2000) Word: Nashville

[7] New York Times, 11/07/2008, Obama Made Gains Among Younger Evangelical Voters, Data Show by Laurie Goodstein

[8] http://www.issues2000.org/social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

[9] http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide

[10] http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6307

[11] http://obama.3cdn.net/36ddd2f5daac41cb21_rym6bxaax.pdf

_________________________________________

Part Two of the Introduction to With Christ in the Voting Booth

VEEPStakes: Condi Rice for VP?

Posted: 12 Jul 2012 10:00 PM PDT

Matt Drudge reported last night that Romney is narrowing his choices for Vice President and that Condoleeza Rice was a frontrunner.

Late Thursday evening, Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign launched a new fundraising drive, ‘Meet The VP’ — just as Romney himself has narrowed the field of candidates to a handful, sources reveal.

And a surprise name is now near the top of the list: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice!

The timing of the announcement is now set for ‘coming weeks’.

MORE

It was Condi who received two standing ovations at Romney’s Utah retreat a few weeks ago, and everyone left with her name on their lips.

Rice made an extended argument for American leadership in the world.

In recent days, she emailed supporters:

"2012 is perhaps a turning point for the United States."

"The upcoming elections loom as one of the most important in my lifetime," she warned. "I'm very often asked to speak about our current foreign policy and the challenges that lie before us. However, we, as a country, are not going to be able to address any of those international challenges unless we first get our domestic house in order."

John Tabin at The American Spectator reminds his readers of Drudge's terrible record on VP speculation. Erick Erickson said it won't happen and he has received assurances from the Romney camp that it won't happen.

Here's what I wrote a month ago about Rice's VP prospects:

I've heard her name mentioned. She would provide balance and be a historic pick if chosen as the first African-American woman VP nominee. She's bright and articulate and I'd love to see her debate Vice President Joe Biden. She certainly would bolster foreign policy cred for Romney. The downside is that she would also give the Obama administration the excuse to drag the Bush administration back into the campaign and continue to play the blame game.

Personally she has some good qualities. I'm not sure where she stands on domestic policies. I would suspect she would certainly be more competent as President than Barack Obama is, but outside of foreign policy she's kind of an unknown. There are many people who won't vote for him regardless of who he picks so I don't think his VP pick will help solidify the base like what John McCain say with Sarah Palin. A bad pick could possibly alienate more people though, so he does have to be careful. That said, I don't believe it will be Condi solely because of her association to the Bush administration.

Romney's looking, I'm sure, for a "safe" pick. Condi Rice wouldn't be it.

Rick Santorum Stumps for Ben Lange in Iowa 1st Congressional District Race

Posted: 12 Jul 2012 03:00 PM PDT

Former Senator and Presidential Candidate, Rick Santorum, stumped for Ben Lange the Republican candidate for Congress in Iowa's First Congressional District Race yesterday and Tuesday. Santorum also attended events for John Archer who is the Republican running against Congressman Dave Loebsack (D-IA) in Iowa's Second Congressional District race. After appearing at a press conference for Give Cures, Santorum attended a town hall in Marshalltown, IA with Lange.

Approximately 50 people attended the event held at Pizza Ranch in Marshalltown. After local candidates spoke, including Jane Jech the Republican Candidate in Iowa Senate District 36 (whom I endorsed in her primary), Santorum spoke about the need for Iowans to send conservatives to the House. He said that "we don't have a conservative majority in the House, we may have a Republican majority, but not a conservative one." He also pointed out how Congressman Bruce Braley has been backed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. You can watch the video of his comments below:

Lange talked about why he decided to run again after being narrowly defeated by Braley in 2010. He said that Governor Terry Branstad won the First Congressional District by 5000 votes so if there is a good turnout to the polls it is possible to overcome the deficit he had in 2010. He addressed what he felt were the important issues in this campaign, both men talked of the importance of this year's election. You can watch the video of Lange's comments below:

Here is the video of the Q&A session Lange had with those in attendance.

Report Reveals Embryonic Stem Cells Have Stalled Out

Posted: 12 Jul 2012 02:00 PM PDT

Washington, DC – A new report released today by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) analyzes the history and trajectory of funding for stem cell research by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), revealing that the scientific community now views morally unproblematic alternatives to embryonic stem cells as the best hope for progress toward effective treatments and therapies.

Launched in 2004 as a response to the Bush Administration's unwillingness to fully support embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds, the CIRM funneled $75.7.million in California state taxpayer funds to embryonic stem cell research projects in its first year. But that funding pattern has now decisively changed. The CLI report argues that CIRM's growing preference to fund ethical stem cell projects is evidence of the scientific community's acceptance that the best hope for progress lies in the funding and pursuit of morally unproblematic alternatives like adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells.

"A decade ago researchers, media, and Hollywood alike dismissed moral and ethical concerns to hail stem cell research using, and destroying, human embryos, as the 'only hope' for developing efficacious therapies," saidChuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. "But despite the millions of dollars spent on this research, cures brought about by embryonic stem cells have continued to prove elusive, while adult stem cell research applications have exploded. As the leading funder of stem cell research, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has made grant decisions that show where the industry sees promise. In the past six years, where that promise lies has become increasingly clear: ethical adult stem cell research."

The full report can be read online here.

Branstad, Latham Testify Against Air Force Plans to Retire Iowa Air National Guard F-16 Squadron

Posted: 12 Jul 2012 01:00 PM PDT

Below is Iowa Governor Terry Branstad's testimony o the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Readiness regarding the importance of the Air National Guard today in response to the news that the Air Force planned to eliminate the Iowa Air National Guard's 132nd Fighter Wing's F-16s as a way to reduce their budget.

Testimony of Governor Terry Branstad About Importance of National Guard

Here are letters that he referenced during his testimony:

DOD Response letter:

https://governor.iowa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DoD-Response-Letters-4-23-12.pdf

Co-Chair letter to Secretary Carter

https://governor.iowa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Co-Chair-Letter-to-Secretary-Carter.pdf

Co-Chair letter to Air Force

https://governor.iowa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Co-chair-letter-to-AF-3-19-12-FINAL.pdf

Letter to Secretary Panetta

https://governor.iowa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Letter-to-Secretary-Panetta.pdf

Also, Congressman Tom Latham (R-IA) argued against the retirement of the squadron during the committee hearing as well. His office released the following presser:

WASHINGTON, DC – Iowa Congressman Tom Latham defended the Iowa National Guard's 132nd Fighter Wing from proposed aircraft cuts during remarks before a House Armed Services subcommittee on Thursday.

Congressman Tom Latham took part in the hearing, which focused on Air Force cost reduction plans, at the request of the House Armed Services Committee. The Air Force has proposed a reduction of hundreds of Iowa Air Guard positions due to recent recommendations to retire the F-16 mission of the Des Moines-based 132nd Fighter Wing as part of cost-saving measures, a plan Congressman Latham strongly opposes.

Congressman Latham gave a statement during the hearing and asked questions of witnesses who testified before the panel. During the hearing, Congressman Latham noted that the decision to eliminate the F-16 mission appears to have been reached without proper concern for the impact such a reduction would have on national security.

"I'm concerned that the aircraft reductions being recommended to Congress are based purely on meeting the right budget number in the short term," Congressman Latham said following the hearing. "These decisions should be based primarily on the expected future national security environment and on finding the most cost-effective ways to address it. The proposal to retire the 132nd Fighter Wing's F-16s simply does not make sense under these considerations and could weaken our national security."

Congressman Latham has taken action on several fronts to protect the highly decorated fighter wing from retirement. Congressman Latham has worked closely with House leadership and colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee to include language protecting the fighter wing in the 2013 Defense Appropriations Bill. He's also testified before the House Armed Services Committee about the potential damage closure of the air wing could do to national security and the local economy.

Give Cures Launches With Rick Santorum as Spokesperson

Posted: 12 Jul 2012 10:30 AM PDT

Former Senator and Presidential Candidate, Rick Santourm (R-PA), was the special guest to kick off the Give Cures campaign yesterday in Coralville, IA. Santorum announced that he is the new national spokesperson for Give Cures.

Below is a video of Santorum's remarks:

Santorum in a statement released yesterday after the press conference said:

I’m honored to serve as the national spokesperson for Give Cures, the John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute. It’s exciting to be a part of innovative research that uses cutting-edge, disease-specific adult stem cells to find treatments for rare diseases and cancer. Human life at the earliest stage is still a life — valued, loved, and created by God, and I believe to use and kill a human embryo for research is wrong. Creating ethical stem cell lines for people with rare diseases is ethical and innovative. Our mission simply put is to find cures while giving value to the dignity of every life. Through the Institute’s ‘Give Cures’ campaign, we will be doing more than find cures – we will also protect life.

I commend those who work for rigorous and fact-based science and for progress in biotechnologies and medical therapies that honor and affirm the value, worth, and dignity of every individual member of the human community. We must speak expressly for those at the ‘edges of life’ who have no voice.

Give Cures is the John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute's national gift campaign that raises funds to advance ethical, non-controversial, adult stem cell research for cures and to raise funds to build a cord blood bank so moms can donate their newborn's cord blood. Give Cures connects people, patients and partners to the life-saving ethical research of the Institute.

Additional Videos:

The Director of Give Cures, Kim Leman's, remarks: