John Dickerson has an interesting article over on Slate magazine regarding the future of Evangelical Christian loyalty in the GOP:

The greatest re-ordering in evangelical politics may come in the 2008 presidential
race. George Bush’s policies, personal conversion, and political acumen won him 78 percent of the evangelical vote in 2004. There is no current candidate who can match that, and none have a strategist like Karl Rove, who fixated on building the evangelical vote.

U.S. Senator Barack Obama urges the Democratic Party to “acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people,” and compete for Evangelical voters last Wednesday. His remarks earn him the wrath of liberal bloggers on CorrenteWire:

This is pre-presidential run pandering, plain and simple. The last thing we need is more evangelical Christianity in the political process. Perhaps even more importantly, it’s ridiculous to think that evangelicals are ever going to vote for a Democratic candidate. Yo, Barak- look a little closer at the numbers. Who is the strongest, most reliable, most regular Republican voter group today? Evangelicals, you fool. If you think they’re going to vote for your black ass just because you make a speech or two about “protecting” religious expression, you’re way more stupid than I thought. You can give speeches like this till the cows come home; what you say to the press has absolutely no weight when compared to what they are told by their ministers. And you know what that is? Vote Republican.

Its vitriolic remarks found on that post that underscores the Democrats big problem for Evangelics: they leave us virtually no room in their Party.

When faced between liberal and liberal-lite or do-nothings, Evangelicals will likely stay home and not vote.

Unlike what our liberal friend from CorrenteWire says, Evangelicals are issue-voters, not Party loyalists. I say this despite the fact that I’m an Evangelical and an elected Republican Ward Leader. Evangelicals support the GOP in strong numbers for very big reasons. Namely the Democratic Party’s embrace of Roe vs. Wade, denying the personhood of the unborn, forcing the homosexual agenda on the American people, and showing hostility towards public expressions of faith from the Pledge on down to Valedictorian speeches and saying grace in school cafeterias. Worse of all: using the courts to rewrite the Constitution to force all of this on the American people, who would never have chosen it for themselves.

If the Democrats backed away from those issues named above, maybe they could become competitive among Evangelical voters.

I constantly weigh the issue of how I honor God with my politics. So far I’ve managed to conform my politics to the Bible while arguing for the same goals in secular terms. For instance, my religious interpretation of the Bible leads me to believe that the unborn are people, but there are secular arguments, libertarian and feminist even, that lead to the same conclusion.

But how far can Evangelical Christians compromise in our society? How does the Bible guide our views? There are some issues that we simply cannot compromise and Wayne Grudem discusses them in this sermon on October 17th, 2004 concerning the Presidential election. You can download the MP3 here.
Wayne Grudem is a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and author of Systematic Theology.

He first makes a distinction regarding means to an end in politics. Both parties claim to have similar goals, but different means to achieve those goals (as conservatives, we know that liberals claim to care but their policies actually hurt those they claim to help, but that’s a digression.) As Christians, we have an obligation to analyze those means on our own and make our own choice. This leaves open the issues of economics and government spending for Christians.

He then gives us an imperative on why we must engage society on social issues. Liberals and RINOs should take notes:

“Should Christians speak out at all about the large, moral issues facing our nation, issues of abortion or homosexual marriage or any of the other things we can think about? Should Christians say anything about those things or is that just politics and we should stay out altogether?

“I think Christians should speak out on these things. Why? Because if Christians do not speak out about the moral and ethical issues that face a nation, who will? If Christians do not speak out about moral and ethical issues, where will people learn about ethics? Where will our nation learn about matters of right and wrong? What will be the source of ethical norms? Well, if we don’t speak out, I guess people will learn about ethical norms from Hollywood movies and from feelings and conscience– those feelings and conscience may or may not be instructed by God’s principles. Or they’ll learn about ethical norms from friends at work, or from friends at the local bar that they talk to, or they’ll learn about ethical norms from going to professional counselors, or children will learn about ethical norms, I suppose, from their kindergarten teachers. …

“But that just throws the question right back again, where do kindergarten teachers learn about right and wrong? Or where do professional counselors learn about right and wrong? … Where do we learn about right and wrong? Where is the source for ethical norms?

“The simple fact is that if Christians don’t speak about what the Bible says about issues of right and wrong, there aren’t really many other good sources for finding out any transcendent sources of ethics; any source outside ourselves. So I think its right for us, both when speaking to Christians and even to non-Christians– I think its right for us to speak up and say ‘This is what the Bible says,’ or ‘This is what I understand the Bible to teach’ and then people can accept it or reject it as they wish, but at least we borne faithful witness.”

Liberals should think about Grudem’s words the next time they tell us to be quiet and just keep our views to ourselves or that our morality in our society is “constantly progressing.”

Grudem also discusses at length in his sermon various social issues:
purpose of government
abortion
homosexual marriage
embryonic stem-cell research
military force
Supreme Court power and judicial activism

WASHINGTON - US SENATE: US Senator Maria Cantwell (D) - 47%, insurance executive Mike McGavick (R) - 43%. (Strategic Vision-R).

H/T Politics1.com

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Thursday he would push legislation allowing President Bush to use military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay.

“To keep America safe in the war on terror, I believe we should try terrorists only before military commissions, not in our civilian courts,” said Frist, R-Tenn.

“Congress should work with the president to update our laws on terrorist combatants to respond to the new threats of a post-9/11 world,” he said.

Responding quickly to the Supreme Court’s ruling against the White House, Frist said he would consult with the administration and his colleagues and introduce legislation when Congress returns from a weeklong break.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_go_co/congress_guantanamo_1;_ylt=AtwafisPk_9wVJcqpUxplR83NiUi;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Thank you, Billy. It’s nice to see some spine in the Senate from time to time. However, can you get it passed the RINOs?

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa is hoping to stamp out the sex trade by taxing pimps and prostitutes, then jailing them when they don’t pay.

Uh-huh……

If passed, the provision will authorize at least $2 million toward the establishment of an office in the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation unit to prosecute unlawful sex workers for violations of tax laws.

Which is, of course, exactly what we need…. more power to the IRS and government bureaucracy.

Currently, the IRS has to prove a prostitute’s or pimp’s income to pursue a tax law violation. But under Grassley’s proposal, a pimp could get up to 10 years in prison for each prostitute for whom the pimp hasn’t filed a W-2, which means a pimp caught with 10 unregistered prostitutes faces a century in prison.

So let’s see if I have this right. A pimp would be required to file a W-2 for all of his hoes, both of which are illegal professions to begin with, and if he doesn’t he would face 10 years in prison. 10 years, mind you, not for being a pimp or advancing in the illegal act of prostitution itself, but for not filing tax forms on them……..

Oh, brother………..

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/

My friends, next time the topic of minimum wage filters into your conversation with liberals, stick it to them– higher minimum wage laws damage the poor. Pennsylvania is a case in point.

The Pennsylvania Senate voted last week to phase-in a higher minimum wage of $6.65 in 2007 and $7.15 in 2008.

This sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? The liberals who voted for it now get to parade around the voters and tell them how much they care about the poor while those evil conservatives care more about businesses.

They have a slight problem: who exactly earns minimum wage in PA?

The Commonwealth Foundation and Employment Policies Institute comissioned a study to find out:

65% work part-time

56% are less than 24 years of age

45.9% live with their parents

10% were single parents or a single earner in a married couple with children

So most of these people are young or working part-time.

Voting for higher minimum wage laws is like sending companies an invitation to leave the state or cut back on jobs (or both).

The study also shows that these higher rates would cost the PA economy $350 million per year and at least 10,000 jobs– half of the loss would hit those less than 25 years old. So we’re putting the kids out of work, folks.

Next time liberals flout the minimum wage issue at you, put them in their place– higher minimum wage laws are among the worst we could do for the poor. Don’t let them succeed in misleading the public.

It’s a wonderful opportunity to join an excellent group of conservatives!

My name is William Mulgrew. I was born in Philadelphia in 1984 and never really left the area — I grew up in Millbourne Borough right outside Philly, attended high school with Carmine Iccarino, and became an Eagle Scout. I’m currently a third year history, political science, and English student at Drexel University. At Drexel, I am Chairman of the College Republicans and Editorial Editor for The Triangle, the student newspaper, where I am known as “The Archconservative” formerly known as the “Foot-soldier of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.”

I attended the 2005 College Republican National Convention where Michael Davidson lost by a handful of votes. I served as the State Field Director for the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans under Chairman Nick Miccarelli. I managed the very first PA CR field program, where I targeted CR expansion in other schools and conducted a six week field expedition, recruiting students in over 40 different schools and starting new CR chapters.

Last May, I was elected the youngest Republican Ward Leader for the 24th Ward of Philadelphia at 22 years old. I urge fellow conservatives to take control of the Party directly by becoming committeemen where they live. Committeemen in many different counties (except Philadelphia) usually have the power to recruit and endorse candidates for public office, which carries a lot of weight in shaping the direction of the Republican Party.

I am a fundamentalist Christian, a social conservative, an economic libertarian, a constitutional originalist, and a foreign policy democratic realist.

I urge others to remember the words of F. Holderlin, “What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.”

I’ve been getting my fill of nighttime politics watching O’Reilly and Hannity & Colmes intertwined with a little Friends and Shania Twain concert on CMT (nobody can say I don’t have diverse interests…). They just don’t get it. They being the attack America first crowd.

First of all, in regards to the NYT story about a covert, completely legal program tracking and freezing money being transferred internationally to fund terrorist operations: will the Times please just change its slogan to, “All the secrets al Qaida’s fit to know”? Come on, guys, if all you are going to do is reveal classified programs that are useful in the War on Terror, at least be intellectually honest about it. This is getting ridiculous. Valerie Plame, who by all evidence was not a covert agent, gets her name in the press because her husband misleads the administration about what he saw in Niger, and everyone throws a fit; then Fitzmas doesn’t come after all, and Rove gets off, and the Times sees it fit to continue printing sensitive information (after revealing the NSA wiretapping program) regarding our counterterrorist programs. Give me a break.

Second of all, now Jack Murtha’s new battle cry is that the U.S. is a more grave threat to worldwide security than Iran or North Korea. Last time I checked President Bush wasn’t calling for a country to be wiped off the map. Oops, that was Iran’s leader who called for that. Last time I checked millions of people around the world counted on the United States for protection and economic prosperity. Last time I checked someone making such an absurd statement would be found on Daily Kos, not representing people in the House of Representatives.

Of course, Newt Gingrich was excellent on H&C tonight, and Alan Colmes really shouldn’t have opened his mouth. I’d take the guy more seriously if he would join most ordinary Americans and admit when the anti-Bush vitriol on the left has gone too far. He actually tried defending the Times printing the story, and completely blew off the fact that the program is fully legal. Heck, even the NYT made it clear that the program was legal, and they were the ones revealing the confidential program. Sometimes, on nights like these, I just sit back and laugh in sheer amazement… and think to myself, Colmes, Bill Keller, et al just don’t get it.

I kind of thought this was just a joke, but I guess not.

Thank you Mr. President.

h/t Drudge.

Yes this is a video of William Shatner singing (kinda) “My Way” to George Lucas.

Thanks largely to her support for the war in Iraq, electoral support for Senator Maria Cantwell (D) has slipped once again—for the fifth survey in a row.

In the latest Rasmussen Reports poll of an increasingly competitive U.S. Senate race, Senator Cantwell now leads former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick (R) 44% to 40%. She led by five points in May, eight in April, thirteen in March, fifteen in January.

I was not aware that Cantwell supports the war, but nevertheless this is good news. For a Republican Senate candidate to be doing this well against a Democratic incumbent in a heavily Democratic state is a good example of how all politics are local. Regardless of the overall sentiment about the GOP, the people in Washington obviously yearn for something more than politics as usual in Washington.

Breaking news tonight on Fox News with the revelation that roughly 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq between 2003 to the present day. Apparently, these were part of a classified report that Senator Santorum fought successfully to have declassified and he held a press conferenc this evening to make the announcement of the report. He also appeared on Hannity & Colmes this evening.

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

“We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons,” Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Elite “Townhouse” email list of liberal bloggers kept word of Kos’s pay-for-play scandal from breaking wider, until The New Republic ran the story.

When will they learn that decentralization of power is better… tsk tsk

The Kennedy amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY07 that would have raised the minimum wage to $7.25 by 2009 failed 46-52-2 (it would have taken 60 votes to pass).

“Republicans” voting for the proposal were: Chafee, Collins, DeWine, Lugar, Snowe, Specter, and Warner.

The fact that a majority of Senators voted for the proposal is a good reason why it is essential that the GOP retain the House in November, even if it doesn’t deserve to.

I think there’s some stuff wrong with this article, but I wanted to clear up an important factual error.

Clinton, a senator from New York and a former first lady, is considered by many a front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

Senator? Check. Former first lady? Check. Front-runner in 2008? Check. From New York? Right…. The writer ought to more accurately say she “represents New York in the Senate, despite living in Georgetown. She occassionally shuttles up to Manhattan for fundraisers, and every year deigns to go to the State Fair in Syracuse for an hour or two. This passes for residency.” Of course, that wouldn’t be good copy.

We have no one to blame except ourselves

Is nothing sacred anymore?

Well, I guess no bill isn’t so bad considering what could have happened if something had passed. We could have ended up with the McCain-Kennedy bill which would pretty much have put the final nail in the coffin of the beginning of America’s downfall as far as I am concerned. What worries me is that they might drudge this up again next year since there will be no elections in 2007 and some of the House members might be more inclined to pass the McCain bill in that environment.

WASHINGTON - In a defeat for President Bush, Republican congressional leaders said Tuesday that broad immigration legislation is all but doomed for the year, a victim of election-year concerns in the House and conservatives’ implacable opposition to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

“Our number one priority is to secure the border, and right now I haven’t heard a lot of pressure to have a path to citizenship,” said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., announcing plans for an unusual series of hearings to begin in August on Senate-passed immigration legislation.

“I think it is easy to say the first priority of the House is to secure the borders,” added Rep. Roy Blunt, the GOP whip.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/ap_on_go_co/immigration

How much you want to bet she wouldn’t have got yanked for dropping some explentitives or talking about Buddha, or Mohammed…
Graduation speaker cut off for mentioning… Jesus

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb’s mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

Man gotta love the ACLU… defenders of free speech unless that speech is about Jesus.