by J.C. Phillips

“Race has no place in American life or law.” President John F. Kennedy spoke these words the evening of June 11, 1963 following the desegregation of the University of Alabama. In the speech Kennedy delivered that evening he chose not to appeal to legal arguments; rather he asked Americans to look into their collective hearts and weigh the moral question of continued racial discrimination. “The heart of the question,” said Kennedy “is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities…”

This week the Arizona state legislature answered that question with a resounding, “yes!” The state legislature cleared the way to place the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative or ACRI, on the Ballot in 2010. ACRI is a constitutional amendment that would prevent the state from discriminating on the basis or race or sex in the areas of public employment, contracting or education.

The action taken by the State legislature now makes it possible for the people of Arizona to actually decide if their state (and ultimately our nation) agrees with the sentiments of former President Kennedy.

That is not to say the opposition rolled over. No longer able to gum the petition process; they resorted to stalling tactics and back biting.

Hispanic legislators claimed that Rep Steve Montenegro, who sponsored the measure in the assembly, was not truly Hispanic because he is Puerto Rican and not Mexican. No doubt this must come as a shock to the Obama Administration. Judge Sonia “wise Latina” Sotomayor is being hailed as potentially the first Hispanic to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. The good news is that thanks tot his revelation Senate Republicans are now free to oppose Sotomayor. Because she is Puerto Rican and not Mexican, Republicans need no longer fear losing the Hispanic vote.

More fascinating were the words of State Representative Cloves Campbell. During testimony before a legislative committee Campbell insisted that special preferences [based on race] would be necessary for years to come. When asked exactly how many years he responded, “400 years!” Thus Campbell provided credence to the growing sense that he took the small bus to school and also that a good many supporters of racial preferences are more interested in exacting payback then they are in actually realizing equity.

The Rationale of Campbell and others that favor preferences is that they are needed to ensure diversity. Racism in America is systemic so if left to its own devices the system will naturally deny Black people (and other minorities) access. As proof they offer what is known as disparate representation or disparate impact. In other words the fact that a particular minority group is not statistically represented in any endeavor or policy at the same percentage they are of the population is proof of discrimination and it is therefore necessary to cook the books as it were.

The problem, of course is that people are not statistics they are individuals and ought to be judged as such against the same criteria. The very idea of disparate group representation as a rationale for race preferences turns that proposition on its head as it also does the idea of equality before the law and equality of opportunity. It is as if in answer to Kennedy’s question supporters of preferences have said, “Not so fast.”

They must be made to explain how this nation will ever move beyond its ugly history of racial discrimination if we not only allow but encourage government to discriminate based on race. They must tell us if they believe “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” Finally they must explain to the citizens of Arizona (and the larger American citizenry)– what could be more important than having a state constitution unequivocally affirm that it must treat all of its citizens equally and without regard to race?

In 1963 Kennedy asked the country to make a moral decision. In the age of Obama those that continue to support racial preferences must do likewise. They must ground their opposition not in legalese or political correctness but in the terra firma of moral correctness. They must follow the lead of the Arizona legislature and examine their consciences and then take the fist steps toward a truly post racial society.

by J.C. Phillips

It was a glass mug that I treasured dearly. My sophomore year in college my little sister, Carole, had given me the mug for Christmas. As a special treat she had engraved my nickname, “Joey” into the Mug. It wasn’t fancy or expensive; just a regular glass mug. After my sister passed away the mug took on a sentimental value and I loved it. It was a beautiful reminder of a sister that was also my best friend.

This mug had survived a year of dormitory life, 9 years of Brooklyn apartment living, a move to New Jersey, a cross country move to California and three moves around the city of Los Angeles. Alas, the mug couldn’t survive children.

Unfortunately for me, my favorite glass also struck the fancy of my number one son. When reaching for a mug to drink from, this was the one he often chose. I explained the significance of the mug to him and he promised to be careful. Of course little boys always promise to be careful just like they always promise to be good. Given enough time they always end up breaking both promises. One day while not paying attention he went to set the mug on the edge of the counter and missed. The glass fell to the floor shattering into 20 pieces. My wife was sure that all hell was about to break loose, but I have really been working hard on understanding what is important in life. It would be a lie to say that I didn’t remind my son of the mugs history through slightly clenched teeth. However, to my credit (I think) and my wife’s surprise I didn’t yell. I took a breath, reminded myself that this was only a glass, grabbed the broom and dust pan and swept the pieces into the garbage. Se la vie.

A wise man once told me that nothing real can ever be taken away. The mug is gone, but the love, respect and admiration I feel for my sister remains. That’s the good stuff. The same is true of being a parent.

A few weeks ago I watched this same son perform a karate form for his school talent show. It was one of those moments that parents are all too familiar with: your heart swells, your throat tightens and the water comes to your eyes. It is a feeling of transcendent euphoria that is difficult to describe to those that have not felt it.

My sons often ask me what heaven will be like. I playfully respond it will be like taking a bite of the most perfect pepperoni pizza you have ever tasted or lifting your head into the most perfect breeze. I think I will add that heaven must certainly be something near to the good stuff of parenting: kissing the softest, fattest, most milk smellingest cheeks of your new born, the sweet comfort in the hug made with little arms, bathing in the most radiant smile of your son when he hits his first homerun or scores his first touchdown, or watching from the audience as your child performs.

I have often wondered about parents - fathers in particular that choose NOT to experience the good stuff. These are the fathers that choose not to take an active role in their children’s lives. We know the statistics all too well: 85% of children from ‘this” group do not have regular contact with their fathers, 55% of children from “that” group do not see theirs.

The studies are clear on the negative impact absentee fathers have on their children. What we don’t know is what affect absence has on fathers. I can only imagine that a man that fathers children yet chooses not to raise them suffers some deep damage to the soul. If being immersed in the good stuff is heaven then being removed from it must certainly be hell.

I treasure fatherhood especially because it’s replete with broken mugs, broken beds, sunflower seeds in the dryer, socks on the ceiling fan…All of it is the good stuff. I wouldn’t miss any of it for the world.

by J.C. Phillips

The fact that those of us opposed to abortion find the work of late term abortionist George Tiller perverse and immoral does not mean that we give sanction to his assassination - either overtly or privately.

Scott Roeder, Tillers alleged killer, is misguided — and according to the New York Daily News, mentally ill. He is a man that has gone to great lengths to set back a cause he held so dear. Pro-abortion activists on the left have long accused the membership ranks of the pro-life movement as being filled with religiously rabid hypocrites and domestic terrorists, and of being part of a growing cadre of right wing extremists. Roeder’s lack of moral clarity has now provided them with a poster child. Just as the pro-life movement was winning converts and making legal headway with passionate, but reasoned and civil arguments against the practice of abortion, Roeder steps forward to tear down what had taken decades to build. He deserves our scorn (and pity) as much as Tiller. Murder is wrong. Roeder must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if found guilty he must be punished.

In fact, it is our collective inability to bring such moral clarity to the entire issue of abortion that has led to the deep cultural divisions and produced the kind of violence that killed Tiller.

It is also further indication of just how out of sync our moral clocks have become that those of us that abhor the practice of abortion must work overtime to distance ourselves from Roeder, while those on the other side of the debate are under no similar pressure to distance themselves from the depravity of Tiller. Indeed they have used the occasion of Tiller’s death to point an accusing finger at anti-abortion activists and wrap themselves in the cloak of righteousness.

It is only moral ambiguity that allows the death of one doctor to indict an entire cause while the death of millions of children remains rather unremarkable.

The one concession we have heard from the new left on abortion is that they wish to discourage the practice(in fact we heard similar rhetoric from President Obama immediately prior to his reversal of U.S. policy on overseas abortions thus ensuring that in spite of his stated desire there will be MORE abortions during his administration; but I digress). What remains unclear is why? If abortion is not murder, if it is not immoral and unhealthy; if what is sucked out of a woman’s womb is in fact only a blob of tissue, why would we wish to discourage it? Do we also wish to “discourage” tonsillectomies? Or is the wish to discourage abortion made precisely because deep in the abortionist heart there is the recognition that what is carried in the womb is more than a blob of tissue, but is in fact a human life? If it is wrong why do we not treat it as such? No doubt Scott Roeder and those of similar imprudent tendencies will be happy to hear that we only wish to “discourage” the killing of abortionists.

The sad truth is that in spite of all the talk the same folks that are intent on regulating everything that we put into out bodies from tobacco to Grape Soda are not willing to put the same energy into discouraging abortion. In fact they seem to do everything in their power from fighting parental notification and prohibitions against partial birth abortions to encourage it. Moreover, not only did the political left embrace Tiller as a brother in arms, accepting campaign cash by the truck load and protecting him from prosecution, in his death they have eulogized him as a hero for women’s health. Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, described Tiller as “a hero to those seeking help in the most desperate of situations.” That is rather like suggesting that Sherriff Jim Clark was a hero for civil rights. During testimony published by the Pro-life Action League’s Luhra Tivis, a former employee of the good doctor’s says, “…out of those two dozen [8 and 9 month pregnant women] a week, only about 2 percent had medical deformities. I thought I was pro-choice back then, but week after week I kept seeing these women coming in with healthy babies…” According to records from Tillers practice some of the “desperate situations” offered as pretext for the murder of these healthy children were: needing to go to a prom, the desire to go to a rock concert and depression. Talk about being out of sync…

Resolving the question of abortion will only come with moral clarity. Consistency must be demanded of those on both sides of the debate.

by J.C. Phillips

John C. Calhoun, father of the confederacy, said about the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “there is not a word of truth in the whole proposition, as expressed and generally understood.” These sentiments were echoed by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney. Writing the majority opinion for Scott v. Sanford, Taney also denied the veracity of the founding noting, “…the Declaration of Independence shows that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.”

It is a continuing source of fascination that the new left has chosen this view of the founding, replete with its historical inaccuracies, while the political right has adopted that of Abraham Lincoln and Justice John Marshall Harlan. It was Harlan who wrote in his famous dissent in Plessey v. Ferguson that, “Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

This brings us to the current controversy surrounding the president’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.

During her Judge Mario G. Olmos Lecture at Berkeley Sotomayor remarked, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Revelations of the remarks were met with condemnation.

Democrats were shocked-yes shocked!-to discover that some Americans find repugnant the idea that one’s ethnicity makes them more qualified to make decisions. The left has responded to the reproof of Sotomayor with stuttering indignation, accusations of a latent fear of brown people and claims that Sotomayor’s reputation was being besmirched unfairly. (The fact that Democrats have routinely besmirched the reputations of brown justices nominated by Republican presidents on far less substantive grounds or outright lies seems to have slipped their minds. But I digress.)

In point of fact, Sotomayor is not a racist. She is, however, clearly enamoured with the identity politics of the left.

The denial of a universal human nature is the philosophical heart of multiculturalism. For those steeped in multiculturalism there is no objective truth or objective right and wrong because reason is purely the result of different cultural and environmental influences. Therefore the values of every culture are equally valid. The individual ceases to exist except as part of that larger culture from which he receives his identity, his rights and his very life. This is a direct contradiction of the Declaration, which recognizes certain self-evident truths that exist for every individual in every time.

The political extension of multiculturalism is diversity. We are now taught that diversity (as opposed to racial non-discrimination) is a virtue - that we must have critical mass in our schools and universities and that in order to respond to the varying needs of a varied people our government agencies and courts must be made to “look” like America. The political method turns the foundational principle of judgment “without regard to race” on its head. What we learn is that there is some inherent value in race, that in fact race is primary. And after rejecting the idea of a universal human nature and the universal truths that should apply to all men we are met with the revelation that our ideas of justice and compassion are not the result of reason and an association with the divine, but of “inherent physiological and cultural differences,” which make Latina jurists superior to white male jurists.

Had similar sentiments been expressed by a white man his career as a justice would be over. And properly so. Isn’t the disapprobation of Sotomayor a sign that we have entered into a true post racial society? Isn’t the vision we have for America one in which we repudiate the idea that race conveys some value or detriment to ones ability?

The left cannot have its racial cake and eat it too. The founding was either true or it was not. If true then Justice Harlan was correct and our constitution is color blind, racial non-discrimination is in fact an essential building block of our republic and a value to be encouraged in our society. If the founding was untrue then Justice Taney and Calhoun were correct and our ideas of race are dictated not by any universal truth embodied in our founding document, but by the changing whims of men and the onward marching of time.

by J.C. Phillips

The rationale for the “Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” otherwise known as Cap and Trade, is that environmental catastrophe awaits us if we do not control the amount of carbon dioxide (co2) flowing into the atmosphere. This hysteria has been propelled by alarmists using computer models to predict (not to prove) that what-used-to-be-called-Global-Warming-before-it-became-clear-that-the-earth-is-cooling-so-it-is-now-called-Climate Change is caused by man made emissions of carbon dioxide.

The scam-ur uhm- I mean the idea works like this: government will set a limit on the amount of co2 companies may produce. Companies will then be forced to purchase emissions permits for every ton of co2 produced. Companies that exceed their limits will be able to purchase or trade for additional permits with companies that emit less than their allotted cap. Waxman-Markey seeks an “80 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050″ and a “100 percent auction to ensure every ton of carbon is paid for.”

While supporters of Cap and Trade attempt to direct our attention to large scale carbon emitters in the coal and oil industries make no mistake; the repercussions from this tax will be felt in every American household.

The Congressional Budget Office noted that cutting carbon emissions just 15% would result in customers facing “persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.” This conclusion is echoed by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, which further determined that Waxman-Markey will reduce GDP by $9.6 trillion, increase the federal debt by 26%, kill 1.1 million jobs, increase peak year unemployment to 2.5 million workers and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

Of course what is a little economic hardship if it means saving the sky from falling?

Every day new scientific discoveries emerge calling into question the computer models on which this carbon hysteria is based.

Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center realized the models rely on mathematical equations derived more than 80 years ago. These differential equations ignore proper boundary conditions and assume an atmosphere that is infinitely thick. Miskolczi derived a new solution using the proper boundary conditions (the atmosphere is 65 miles thick) and viola no more global warming.

There is also a new study conducted by the university of Wisconsin and the US National oceanic and atmospheric administration, which concludes that 70% of the sharp temperature rise in the North Atlantic over the last 30 years is due to dust blowing out to sea from the deserts of North Africa - A small detail the computer models failed to account for.

What is more remarkable is that, even assuming some human component, if Waxman-Markey meets all its goals of reducing carbon emissions, the EPA calculates that the impact on world temperature would be no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century.

That is a lot of pain for very little gain.

But Global warming is not about science it is about politics and this administration’s choice to ignore facts is about a political means to social control. The President’s own lawyers admit as much.

Three weeks ago Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) produced a white house memo to the EPA that, in his words, repeatedly suggests “a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding” [that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health]. Barrasso then quoted directly from the document, “making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.” If that’s not change you can believe in I don’t know what is.

There is an old joke that if the government could it would tax the very air that we breathe. As social commentary Waxman-Markey’s assumption that we can save the planet by taxing co2 - a substance every human being emits with every breath taken- is absurd indeed. It’s also an old joke that is not very funny.

by J.C. Phillips

Quiet as it’s kept, Hollywood is filled with conservatives. I am not speaking of republicans. You can turn over any rock and find an Arlen Specter waiting to crawl out. I am talking about real dyed-in-the-wool constitution loving, God-fearing conservatives.

I meet them all the time: at auditions, on film sets, at parties. Generally speaking they are rather reserved. We engage in what I call the right-wing tango for a bit, dancing around each other giving vague answers to questions until one of us finally gives the secret password. Following the discovery of shared ideology there is usually a great deal of back slapping and genuine excitement at finding a brother in arms.

Part of this reserve is innate. By nature conservatives are generally not given to loud talking and frenetic displays. After all one of the hallmarks of conservatism is a desire to live one’s life the best way one can without interference or hindrance from our neighbors or the state. Miki Grant may not have intended to, but in her 1972 Broadway musical “Don’t Bother Me I Can’t cope” she gave voice to the conservative mantra when she wrote, “all I need is less fat back, more greenback and YOU [government] off my back!”

There is, however, a part of this reserve that is learned behavior and has become necessary because the Hollywood left, so tolerant and loving of diversity that they have embraced cop killers, child molesters and Marxist dictators are not so tolerant of conservatives.

A brief conversation with any show business industry conservative is to be regaled with stories of lost friendships and business associations and being professionally ostracized — scripts that go unread and phone calls that go unreturned; Liberal berating for so much as hinting at conservative sympathies and leftist inattentiveness to courtesy and decorum. I can personally attest to having experienced all of the above at some time or another, which makes me about average among Hollywood conservatives.

To be certain there are those in this town that couldn’t care less what others think, have the courage of their convictions and let their thoughts be known on any number of issues. Some of these people are well-known in the industry, with money and power; others are, well, struggling to make ends meet. There are also many others with fame fortune and influence that are content to stay in the shadows doing the dance, too fearful to utter a sound.

I understand that most folks have little interest in activism, but all of us desire (and ought to demand) the freedom to be comfortable in the expression of our quite reasonable attitudes about our country and our faith. That is true even among the glitter and glamour of Hollywood. The question then for Conservatives in this town is can we afford to remain silent in the face of repugnant liberalism? There is a conversation taking place about the direction this nation is going to take: are we going to abandon free market capitalism for European soft socialism? Are we going to sacrifice our freedoms in order to save the planet from carbon dioxide? Are we going to banish Christianity from our public square? Are we going to tear down all of our social institutions and rebuild them with post-modernist cement? These questions and others are confronting our republic and we in Hollywood occupy a unique platform from which to influence the discussion.

It isn’t necessary for everyone to pick up a placard and take to the streets. It is however, essential that we speak up if only to defend our good names from accusations of bigotry and ignorance. The excuse for standing silently by while the left runs roughshod over our culture is wearing thin ESPECIALLY when that excuse comes from those fortunate enough to be enjoying the generous fruits borne of labor in the Hollywood vineyards. What is there to fear? Unemployment? Unpopularity? Most of us familiar with the daily grind of show business life are used to periods of unemployment; unemployment is part of the job as is the sound of crickets clapping.

It is worth remembering that the Declaration of Independence -the keystone document of our republic-was a very public document. The signatories were mostly wealthy men that pledged their “lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.” John Hancock is rumored to have said that he was signing his name in large script so King George could read it without putting on his spectacles. Are the convictions of the Hollywood beau monde so easily purchased? Has sacred honor suddenly become cheap?

There is strength in numbers and there are many more of us in Hollywood than most imagine or the left ever feared.

And for whatever it’s worth consider my name writ large. Far be it from me to demand that anyone in this town be forced to put on spectacles.

by J.C. Phillips

“And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” –Mark 3:25

It is both reasonable and fair to ask reformers of the Republican Party - those suggesting that we jettison the right wing and seek the gooey center of American politics — exactly how many of their convictions they are willing to compromise in pursuit of electoral success. It is also fair and reasonable to ask whether the people can truly admire or trust any public servant that is willing to sacrifice their convictions upon the altar of political power.

Party reformers are quick to point to the Democratic Party model that has proved successful, to wit: silencing the far left of their party and supporting centrist or blue dog candidates. Or so they say. The list of pro-life, pro-family, pro-second amendment, Global warming skeptic Democrats in party leadership positions is very short indeed.

More significantly, a new liberal by any other name is, well, still a new liberal. The bed-sheets in the white house had barely been changed before the newly empowered party approved new funding for abortions internationally and attempted to hide funding for domestic abortion clinics in the stimulus bill, moved to nationalize banks and auto manufactures, pushed to nationalize healthcare, reversed welfare reform and killed the D.C. school voucher program. Then they had lunch. No. Far from moving to the center — from abandoning their principles — Democrats simply lied about what they were up to. In some circles this is called being politically savvy; in others it is more correctly called being dishonest. And there is a reason the left is deceptive about their intentions: they know that if they told the truth they could only get elected in California and certain districts of Caracas.

Conversely the conservative principles of family, faith, personal liberty and entrepreneurship are the very values that resonate with the vast majority of the American people; we need not be fearful of espousing them. Indeed we ought to shout them from the rooftops. But principle is not a brand and it is the Republican brand that is in need of a bit of spit and polish. The party brand has become associated with disingenuousness and weakness, two traits the American people do not suffer lightly (as Democrats will no doubt discover after the honeymoon ends.)

Two recent examples.

In March congressional Republicans lambasted the earmarks in the stimulus bill claiming their Democratic colleagues were not serious about cutting wasteful spending. The furor died down when it was revealed that a full 40% of the earmarks were going to Republicans. It is difficult for voters to take seriously Republican promises to guard the public trough from pork barrel spending when they are sopping their biscuits in the gravy.

 Last week the Media reported that the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds will become insolvent much sooner than predicted. Republicans have begun to play “I told you so.” The problem is that 4 years ago when former President George W. Bush attempted to transform Social Security, Congressional Republicans retreated from the challenge. Perhaps they were high on the satisfaction of having created a brand new entitlement: prescription drug benefits. It is next to impossible to present oneself as the party of entitlement reform after having created a new entitlement boondoggle and failing to find the political will to reform another.

On the issues people care most about - health care and the health of this economy– the GOP has failed to define the debate and are in danger of being outflanked by the left just as they were outflanked on social issues. Where the party should have credibility it has lost trust and most importantly when it should have been leading it instead decided to follow.

The conversation Republicans ought to be having is one that has nothing to do with party moderates versus conservatives and everything to do with repairing a brand by standing up for those principles that most Americans still believe in.

by J.C. Phillips

A popular topic of conversation these days is what ails the Republican Party. Everyone from barbershop pundits and opinion writers to former Bush administration officials have waded in with opinions and cures.

More than a few have proffered that the problem with the Republican Party is that it has moved too far from the political center and given too much sway to the fringe right. They hold that in order to survive and become vibrant again the Grand Old Party must jettison (or at least silence) the far right and must begin appealing to the moderate wing of the party. In other words the party must become even more like Democrats. I suspect this brilliant advice was dreamed up by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid while doing shots of Tequila in some smart bar in Georgetown. They never dreamed Republicans would be so daft as to actually consider it.

Giving voice to a version of this madness, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, spoke to a group of corporate security executives and warned that the ills of the party could be traced to the repeating of the far right mantra. Powell went on to say, “Americans do want to pay taxes for services,” he continued, “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”

With all due respect to the general, I beg to differ. I have never heard anyone bemoan the fact that their tax burden is not heavy enough. Americans don’t want to pay more taxes, they want other people to pay more taxes. And this is the problem with the generals’ prescription. “Americans” are prone to want many things. However, what people want is not the pertinent question.

The issue is–do the people have a right to those things they want and, assuming that they do, is government the best vehicle for meeting those wants? This has been and I suspect will always be the primary bold letter demarcation between conservative thinking and that of new liberals. Conservative principles hold that the purpose of government is to protect liberty; that the purpose of law is justice and that the free market is more effective in the allocation of scarce resources. New Liberals on the other hand accept as true that rights flow from the state; that the purpose of government is the distribution of equality and that a bureaucracy made up of really really smart people is better than the free market at dispensing goods and services(to say nothing of virtue).

But I digress.

Just so we are clear: When Powell and others looking misty-eyed to the center talk about the conservative tilt to the party and the party fringe they are not only pointing the finger at tax cutting Republicans, but social conservatives that oppose abortion and homosexual marriage as well.

Of course the issue of homosexual marriage was not thrust upon the American people by the far right. It was the far left that took it upon themselves to remake society’s oldest social institution and normalize homosexuality in our society. When the people were unwilling they were demonized and the issue suddenly became a “wedge issue.” Abortion too is no more a wedge than any other issue. Indeed the question of the sanctity of life goes to the very heart of our understanding of rights and the purpose of government. You can be certain that a government that will not secure the right to life cares not one whit about your liberty or your property.

This blaming of the fringe might hold more sway if Republicans had been booted from power because they were too socially conservative. The truth, however, is quite different. It was not the opposition to abortion or homosexual marriage that pushed republicans from power. Rather it was the Republican failure to articulate a sensible fiscal policy beyond the oxymoron of big government conservatism. The party was shown the door because they promised smaller government and delivered both larger government and larger deficits; they promised free markets and instead protected corporate interests, they promised reform and delivered lip service. In other words the culprit was the rejection of conservative principles in favor of new liberalism.

The Republican Party will not be revived by compromising core principles. If limited government, free markets, personal freedom, American exceptionalism and traditional values are principles republicans can no longer stand up and fight for there can be no resurgence of the party - no resuscitation. The epitaph has already been written.

by J.C. Phillips

This week I had the honor of participating in a panel discussion on Civil Rights in the Age of Obama sponsored by the Milken Institute. Appearing with me on the panel were Ben Jealous, current President of the NAACP, Wade Henderson, President of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Myrlie Evers-Williams, Civil Rights Icon and former President of the NAACP. The panel was moderated by Dr. Beverly Tatum, President of Spelman College. I was, as my father used to say, “Steppin’ in some pretty high cotton.”

I can think of no better proof of the victory of the traditional civil rights movement than that these distinguished individuals (and myself) were gathered together under the auspices of the Milken Institute to ponder what to do next. The battles of the civil rights movement so hard fought have been won. To those heroes, on whose shoulders my generation stands I say, “job well-done.” That is not to say that we need not be jealous of our civil rights. It is to say that it is time to shift our focus toward those things that will best guard our victories and secure those blessings for future generations.

Malcolm X described education as the passport to the future, a sentiment that found general agreement among the panelists. All of us seemed to agree that the current public school system was failing our children – not just black children, but all of our children – and that there was a role for civil rights organizations to play in improving public education. The panel was split, however, on exactly what that role should be. Henderson for example argued for dismantling the state run school system and massive injections of federal dollars and oversight, an approach that I see as gulping down more of the poison that is killing us, while others decried the lack of diversity.

Unfortunately, in spite of all the flying rhetoric there was reluctance to amend the notion of government run schools and embrace the idea of publicly funded education.

For 40 years we have poured money into government run schools and yet math and reading scores have remained flat. Class size has been reduced and yet achievement gaps persist. If education funded from the top down is not delivering the results we want, perhaps we need to consider funding education from the bottom up – that is empowering the consumers of public education by allowing the public dollars to follow the students. Those of us concerned with civil rights in the age of Obama should be in the forefront of the fight for school choice, fighting for charter schools and vouchers, fighting against the legal challenges to homeschooling and demanding greater autonomy for principals in choosing staff and curriculum. There is nothing partisan about fighting for the health of public education and against the sovereignty of government schools.

My suspicion is that once parents have choice- schools will be integrated. More importantly the schools will be effectively educating our young people, preparing them to be contributing members of our society.

Civil rights in the 21st century must finally and unashamedly admit that there is a moral component to the enterprise. There was much back and forth among the panelists about the disparate impact of this or that policy, but we as a community are being dishonest if we do not recognize that very often disparate outcomes are the result of disparate behavior, difference of choices and differences in the values one holds and the traditions and institutions one chooses to recognize and support.

We can convene a hundred conferences on education or jobs, but so long as marriage rates are down and illegitimacy is up, so long as we continue to entertain attacks on religious principles in public life, so long as objective notions of right and wrong are looked upon as the province of bigoted unsophisticates we will find ourselves powerless and continually engaged in gum flapping.

Civil rights has always meant the requirement that this nation live up to the “true meaning of her creed” and secure the inalienable rights to life, liberty and private property for all citizens regardless of race. The victories of the modern civil rights movement were achieved because they were built upon this moral terra firma. Until and unless we regain that footing, civil rights organizations will continue to fight for relevance and we will find further victories few and far between.

by J.C. Phillips

My first thought when I saw Dr. Stacy Spencer’s new book “Naked and Unashamed” was, “wait a minute. A Christian minister preaching about sex?” My second thought was, “why not?” Heathens aren’t the only ones that like to swing from the chandeliers; quiet as its kept Christians enjoy sex just like everyone else. Moreover, good sex is a natural and important part of a good marriage and good marriages are one of the foundations of Christian life.

The book grew out of a “40 Nights of Great Sex” bible study program begun by Spencer, Senior Pastor of the New Direction Christian Church in Memphis Tennessee, and his wife of 16 years, Rhonda. The couple looked into the Christian community and saw marriage - God’s first church - in trouble. The high divorce rate in our country is a well publicized statistic. What is less well known is that, depending on the poll, the divorce rate among practicing Christians is as high as that of non Christians. Christians are also seeing rising rates of adultery and indulgences in pornography. Spencer felt a calling to restore the sheen to Christian marriage and started the workshop as a way to begin healing relationships by providing couples a safe place to talk honestly about intimacy within the covenant of marriage.

I imagine I am not the only Christian that is not used to hearing pastors preach about sex from the pulpit, at least not in the candid way Spencer does. I am far more familiar with the sin and hellfire preaching. You know: “good girls don’t and they certainly don’t enjoy it when they do.” Or “Good men don’t have thoughts like that and they certainly don’t act on them, least ways not without some self flagellation afterward.” There are surveys revealing that in 76 percent of Christian homes sex is never even discussed. Is it any wonder that when men and women of faith come together and attempt to live the partnership God has set aside for us we are thwarted at every turn by insecurities, shame and guilt?

Not all marriages that fail are sabotaged by sexual dysfunction. But certainly for married couples in trouble (and even those that are not) breaking down the barriers to true intimacy, shedding the sense of being nasty or dirty and opening the channels to honest and open communication with our partner can be the road to a healthy relationship inside and outside of the bedroom. And if Christians are going to be successful in marriage we had better begin to have some real talk about sex and the role it plays in Gods plan for marriage.

You will not find the traditional religious sterility on the pages of this book. Spencer uses scriptural references to lay a theological foundation for the expert advice that follows. He spends time exploring the difference between intimacy and sex, the purpose of marriage and the natural tensions that arise between genders. There is also plenty of frank and often quite explicit discussion of sex and sexual relations.

Hebrews 13:4 speaks of the marriage bed as being undefiled. Scripture is also very specific on what God considers to be sexually perverse. So as long as it’s not illegal, immoral or prone to put one or both participants in traction as they say in the vernacular, “it’s on!” Oral sex? You bet. Anal penetration? If everyone is willing. Toys? If that’s what makes your ears wiggle. The marriage bedroom is a place for healthy, loving exploration, communication and most of all fun.

It is this quest for wholeness in marriage that is at the heart of Spencer’s book; a desire for couples to begin to say no to the twin demons of shame and facade and instead say yes to God, yes to each other, yes to openness and true intimacy. Most of all Spencer writes to remind us that sex is a natural and enjoyable part of human life and an essential element in building a solid marriage.

Spencer ends the book with the promise of “40 nights of great sex” — a tall order to fill. However, even if the book only delivers on half the promise, that’s three weeks of great sex. Nice work if you can get it. I suspect however, that whether newly married or rediscovering the passion that brought you together so many years ago “Naked and Unashamed” will be a terrific guide in unwrapping Gods gift of sexual and emotional intimacy in Christian marriage.

by J.C. Phillips

In his book “Democracy in America”, 19th century French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville writes, “the more government stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance.” De Tocqueville recognized that we are making a Faustian bargain when we buy into the political promise of material wealth and well being if only we allow government to manage our society. The promise is false and the result is to put at risk the morals and intelligence of a democratic people.

In recognizing the importance of associations - that is individuals coming together to celebrate and/or address issues in their communities — De Tocqueville gave voice to the real meaning of personal responsibility.

One often hears the term “personal responsibility” or “personal accountability” used in connection with people taking ownership of the consequences of some (usually bad) behavior. Indeed on the political right, the term is also understood to mean taking care of one’s own business or lifting oneself up with their own bootstraps. There is truth in both definitions. However, as popularly read, both characterizations shade the idea with a negative light when in fact the idea is a positive force that, as de Tocqueville indicates, is just as much about taking care of each other as it is about taking care of ourselves.

It is, as the term suggests a question of ownership, but not only ownership of the consequences of our individual decisions and of the thinking that motivates those choices; it is also about ownership of the duties and privileges that come with living in a “free” democratic society. Who owns our bodies and who owns our communities? The quick answer is that “we” do. Every one of us is as accountable to each other for the health of our communities as we are responsible for the conduct of our personal lives. That accountability manifests itself in associations formed by citizens in order to address the concerns of the community. Happily such associations are not dead…yet. We see them all the time: neighborhood watch groups; church ministries that serve the poor; parents groups that raise money for schools to list but a few examples.

Without question, personal responsibility is also manifest in the pursuit of what the Greeks called arête or excellence. It is the striving for excellence in our daily lives — excellence in our work and in our relationships both with our fellow man and with the larger society. The pursuit of that excellence is best accomplished by practicing virtue. So in a larger sense, the idea of personal responsibility is acceptance of the ageless belief in a nexus between virtue and happiness: the better people we are the happier we will be. But it is also recognition that our health and well being are tied to that of our neighbor.

America’s founders of course claimed that not only was there a connection between virtue and happiness, but there also existed one between virtue and freedom.

The most important of the revolutionary ideas upon which our nation was founded is that all men-regardless of race or culture-arrive on earth with inalienable and equal rights to life, liberty and private property. The next most important is the idea that only righteous men can govern themselves. James Madison said that we staked the whole of our republic and all of its institutions on the capacity for men to govern themselves according to the ten commandments of God. Madison, like de Tocqueville, recognized the importance of men’s behavior - their pursuit of arête - in maintaining a free nation. Madison, like de Tocqueville recognized that if Americans couldn’t live virtuous lives then our republic would fail. Americans would not be free. And they would not be bound into slavery by an external enemy, but instead would willingly hand over their freedom to a government that promised wealth, health and equality (as opposed to liberty). Rather than bond together under the righteous banner of loving thy neighbor, Americans would allow their freedom to be crushed under the weight of a constant stream of laws, rules and entitlements designed to deliver on a promise that personal responsibility was designed to keep.

De Tocqueville recognized the enticement of the bargain, but he also understood that in time the resulting subjection would lead men “to surrender the exercise of their own will;” It would break their spirits and sap their character. He grasped the essential truth that personal responsibility is actually the guarantor of our liberty.

by J.C. Phillips

Credit Liz Sidoti with one of the more anemic arguments to date, that this nation still has a long way to go to bridge the centuries old racial divide, even in this post Obama age. Writing for the Associated Press, Sidoti argues that in spite of the election of Barack Obama to the nation’s highest office, “old racial stereo-types and internet-fueled falsehoods flourish.” As evidence Sidoti offers the editorial cartoon which appeared in the New York Post showing two Police Officers standing over a dead Chimpanzee, an email forwarded by Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose of watermelons on the White House lawn and the internet chat surrounding Obama’s citizenship. 

A little historical perspective is perhaps in order. This nation was born in a world of chattel slavery. On the heels of a bloody civil war that ended the institution of slavery came lynchings, Jim Crow Laws, separate-but-equal education and literacy tests at the polls. The fact that the best Sidoti could come up with to bolster her argument were a few off-color emails speaks volumes.

Ignorance, petty politics and downright human ugliness will always be with us. What is more telling is how a society responds to it. There was a time when jokes such as that passed along by Grose would be told in public and greeted with huge guffaws. Thankfully those times are long gone. Today such jokes are relegated to the anonymous and not-as-private-as-the –mayor-thought world of the internet. If and when such attitudes come to light they are met with outrage, ridicule and the indulger is bathed in public humiliation and suffers political ruin. Grose was not celebrated; he resigned in disgrace. 

There is a vast number of Americans that are not even aware that there are ambiguities surrounding the president’s birth certificate or that those questions remain unanswered. The issue is not one promulgated by the opposition party, nor is it one entertained by any mainstream conservative or Republican writers. Sidoti herself writes that this is a conversation relegated to the fringe. This is hardly proof of the boogey-man.

Finally there is the well worn issue of the chimpanzee and the Post. I would love to comment. However, it seems a bit disingenuous for me to object to the portrayal of apes in relationship to this administration when my dear fraternity, the oldest and coldest Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. has adopted a gorilla as its mascot. I would have loved to be in the meeting in which that was decided. At the next national convention I really ought to leave the bar and attend the breakout sessions. Are all depictions of apes in connection with black folk racist or is it only racist when that connection – no matter how tenuous – is made by white people?

What is most distasteful about Sidoti’s article is that it continues to foster the notion that the primary impediment to black success is white racism, and we must therefore remain ever vigilant for signs of its existence– even if we must wander into the brush and beat the bushes to find it. That is not to say that racism no longer exists or that we must extinguish the lamp of vigilance. It is to say that the social power of racism is greatly diminished and that the lamp must now begin to illuminate those cultural and behavioral memes that are now the largest stumbling block to the black community’s finally reaching “the mountaintop.” 

As repulsive as we all find ugly stereotypes and as bitter as the world of real politick may be- neither impacts the individual life as much as the rejection of marriage and the embracing of illegitimacy. Off color jokes told amongst a few idiots does not wreak havoc on a community the way a 50% drop-out rate does or 40% violent crime rate does. Cartoons can’t steal the soul of a man the way drug abuse can and it is impossible for internet whispers to corrupt the moral intellect the way 40 years of cultural revolutionary defiance has. 

No doubt some of the sensitive set will berate me with epithets because of my conclusions. However, if in the age of Obama we are going to bridge the racial divide it is clear we must decide that the focus on what “the man” is doing only distracts us from what we can and should be doing for ourselves.

by J.C. Phillips

Q: Out of 29 participating nations, where did America rank on international student assessment?

A: 24th

Every education reform effort since the National Defense of Education Act signed in 1958 has begun with soaring rhetoric, big promises, and massive budgets and delivered not much in the way of results.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education; George H.W. Bush promised to “map a new approach to education”; Bill Clinton signed his “Goals 2000”; and George W. Bush had his “me too” moment with “No Child Left Behind.” Yet in spite of all these efforts and billions upon billions of dollars only 23% of American students were proficient in reading by graduation in 2005. In fact, according to the most recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), reading scores have remained flat while real federal spending per pupil has more than tripled since 1985. The average freshman graduation rate has also remained flat according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

These statistics give the lie to the myth that increases in educational spending will result in improved academic performance. Moreover, they suggest that it is high time that we recognize the distinction between public schools and public education. Public schools are schools run through the political process while public education is a commitment to spend public dollars wherever children receive the best education, whether that be in the basement of a church or the dining room of your neighbor’s home. 

The point is expertly driven home in the new documentary, “Flunked” produced by Steven Maggi of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. The stars of this 49 minute long peek at education in America are the educators and schools that are achieving results by thinking outside of the box and pissing off the organized, entrenched interests in the process. 

Highlighted in the film are Howard Lappin, former principal of the Foshay Learning Center in Watts, California. When Lappin arrived at Foshay, he noticed that the kids in 7th and 8th grade were basically at a 3rd and 4th grade remedial math level. He insisted that they be made to do grade appropriate work much to the chagrin of the parents and school unions who all complained that algebra was too difficult for them. 

And there is Karen Jones, principal of the Sisulu Children’s Academy in Harlem. Jones has taken this school filled with Title I or at risk children and turned it into one of the top performing schools in all of Manhattan.

However, the star of this film is the outspoken Dr. Ben Chavis, principal of the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, CA. Chavis, a Native American raised as a sharecropper, holds no punches when it comes to his ideas on educating minority children in low income areas: “they need structure and discipline and no excuses!” When Chavis arrived at the Indian charter school in 2001, it was the worst school in the district. Chavis describes it as defined by multi-cultural nonsense – “a bunch of Indians sitting around in a circle weaving baskets.”

Chavis immediately began to challenge all of the orthodoxy. Gone went the middle school rotation of classes. With the exception of gym class, students now spend the entire day with one teacher. Gone went the computers. Says Chavis with a chuckle, “They can’t read. They don’t need a computer.” Forget small classes. Chavis has an average class size of 28. Chavis began to emphasize the basics. The first three hours of each day is devoted to math and English. When Chavis noticed that the North Carolina math curriculum was superior to that proscribed in California, he dumped the California books and began teaching the North Carolina curriculum. Chavis’ unorthodox methods have turned the Indian school into the best middle school in Oakland. 

The approach of Chavis may not work for every student. “Flunked” makes clear that there is no single solution to the problems of our education system or one school delivering the goods. The one size fits all approach to education does not work. What does work, however, is dynamic leadership, high standards and high expectations for students, flexible curriculum and personnel practices and parental participation. 

Public education must empower parents to spend public dollars on education that works. Without options, we can devote all of our GNP towards education and it will only be throwing good money after bad.

by J.C. Phillips

Hot house tomato growers have discovered that enriching their crops with high levels of Carbon Dioxide (C02) produce bigger sturdier plants and higher yields of fruit with increased levels of Calcium, which translates into more money in the grower’s pocket. All of which is good news for farmers as well as for those of us that love salsa.

It is also good news if you love cucumbers, lettuce or just like to look at flowers. C02 is a natural fertilizer for plants, which allows them to grow faster, larger, produce greater yields and to live in drier climates. Warming of the climate is also good for plants. Warmer temperatures stimulate plant growth and provide longer growing seasons. Perhaps most importantly, more plant life provides more food for animals. All of which benefits human health, prosperity and happiness particularly if you like a little carne-asada with your salsa.

In addition to an abundance of food, there are other economic and societal benefits to “global warming.” A 2006 study showed that the “reduction of wintertime mortality would be several times larger than the increase in summertime heat-stress related mortality.” Economist Thomas Gale Moore calculated that “if temperatures were 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in the U.S., 41,000 fewer people would die each year from respiratory and circulation diseases.”

in order to stop the earth from warming climate alarmists are like the Blues Brothers on a “mission from God” to save the planet by reducing levels of man made C02. It is one of the great ironies of the climate alarmists’ claim to superior virtue (to say nothing of intelligence) to that of climate realists: If they are successful in stopping the earth from warming (pause for laughter) they may limit the production of foodstuffs. And in their rush to transform the world economy in order to lower concentrations of a gas essential for human life, they are actually enacting policy that is actually detrimental to the poor and wanting. This is, of course, is bad news if you are destitute and hungry.

Consider the alarmists push to adopt bio fuels as a replacement for fossil fuel.

Bio fuels require a considerable amount of bio mass (the plant material converted to fuel) and that requires a lot of acreage. In order to avoid man-made global warming, the European Union decided to replace 5.75% of its fossil fuel usage with bio-fuels by 2010 and increase that amount by another 8% by 2015. In order to reach this target, Europe would have to use 14-27% of its agricultural land to reach this 5.75% target. Meeting the target requires significant imports from countries like Brazil and Indonesia.

What is the problem with poorer countries exporting bio mass to wealthier nations? Nothing if you don’t care if poor people eat. Even farmers in Indonesia want the best price for their crops. So when growing bio mass is more profitable than food, guess what they grow? The scarce farm land in these developing countries is used to produce fuel instead of food, which reduces the amount of food thus driving up the price.

We are not immune from market forces here in America. Jeff Rubin, a chief economist at CIBC World Markets, a bank based in Ottowa, Canada writes, the “diversion of an ever-increasing share of the American corn crop from human consumption and livestock feed to energy production is putting steady and unrelenting pressure on food prices.”

All this is not to say that bio fuels are bad or that there is no role for them to play in any comprehensive energy plan. Research in making ethanol production truly affordable by turning common garbage products into fuel is extremely promising. However, any energy policy that claims to be concerned with the poor and starving would not focus on policy that rations energy in order to avoid producing C02, but would instead be directed at increasing our capacity to create abundant, low-cost energy. Indeed our industrial and technological civilization depends upon it.

Dr. Willie Soon, chief science advisor at the Science and Public Policy Institute, writes that if through the misuse of “science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives. Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.”

So much for the alarmists’ moral mandate!

by J.C. Phillips

I have been going to the same barber for more than 10 years. I followed him from his own humble shop to his chair in an equally humble store front. He is always prepared with interesting conversation, insights and philosophy and most importantly he gives a good cut. I was happy.

In an effort to, in his words, reach for something higher, he recently upgraded into his own shop that is decidedly less humble and, well, less of a barbershop. Instead of the familiar “man cave”, he has opted for a haven of metro-sexuality. He still gives a good cut, but the jury is still out on the new digs.

Gone are the metal folding chairs. Gone is the linoleum tile floor. Gone is the 19 inch color television perched tenuously on top of the soda machine that rarely worked. And gone is the aura of manly camaraderie that was so much a part of my trips to the barbershop.

Instead of the down scale furnishings I have grown to know and love in my more than 40 years of getting my hair cut, this new shop is outfitted with leather seating, polished wood floors, designer lighting fixtures, plasma televisions and pretty young female hostesses that offer clients complimentary champagne. There are also more PYT’s (pretty young things) that wash and condition the clients’ hair prior to the cut and a masseuse parked in a corner to relieve any stress. Don’t get me wrong. I love pretty women as much as the next guy. I love them so much that I married one! And I am struggling to recall if even she – my wife of 15 years and the mother of my children — has ever washed my hair. I have been washing my own hair for more than 40 years. Is all of this really necessary?

I am not the only client in a state of confusion. To a person, all of the men I have seen enter the shop and stand – bewildered, unsure of what to do or who to talk to and of course, finally, wondering how much all of this pretty, young female attention is going to cost. 

It is not that we men are in love with hard metal chairs or old linoleum tile. And of course, any real man loves big screen televisions. But that is not why we men go to the barbershop and not why once we have found one we like we will drive for miles rather than go to one much closer.

The barbershop has traditionally been the black man’s “man cave” — a place that black men regardless of economic status congregated. Professors mingle with postmen, doctors converse with factory workers and city planners back slap with the unemployed. It is a place of unabashed manhood – that is to say the part of manhood that is brazen, filled with boisterous laughter and a surety of opinion on everything regardless of the facts. It is the place where all men are scholars and philosophers — experts on everything from sports to women. We go to the barbershop to share in a ritual of male bonding. It is not the décor but the camaraderie that brings us back week after week. We go to hear our barber greet us with a hearty, “hey man, what’s happening!” We go to laugh at the lies, to argue sports and to catch up with gossip. And if that atmosphere is enjoyable enough (and the cut is good), we will sit on metal chairs, watch black and white television and of course, wash our own hair. 

Of course I wish my barber all the luck in the world in this endeavor. All of us should reach higher. However, for all its prettiness, this new shop seems to inhibit rather than encourage that boisterousness and conversation. One reason is that the new décor attracts too many women. In addition to the masseuse, the hostess and the woman that washes the hair, there are now wives and mothers lounging around sipping free champagne and watching television. As much as men love women, their presence in a barbershop turns the shop into a salon. And the problem with salons is that while they are comfortable, there is not a Jet magazine Beauty of the Week in sight.

by J.C. Phillips

My son is studying ancient Chinese philosophies in his sixth grade history class. The other day he rushed home to tell me that his teacher had compared modern day conservatism to the ancient totalitarian philosophy of Chinese Legalism. 

I had only had a cursory knowledge of Legalism. However, given what I know of the political leanings of many public school teachers and the brutality of life during the fourth century BC – the era ruled by Legalists — I was certain the comparison was not meant as a compliment. 

Briefly, Legalism holds that order is the highest of all virtues and should be pursued above all other human concerns. They believed that men are basically evil and that if left to their own devices there would be confusion and disorder. The solution was the heavy, brutal hand of government. The idea of the individual was subordinate to the state characterized by large bureaucracies overseeing every aspect of Chinese life. The philosophy was also characterized by the rule of law enforced equally and cruelly for even the smallest offenses, a strong military and an eschewing of tradition and piety. Some of this sounds awfully familiar, but it doesn’t sound like conservatism. 

The idea that men are evil is not unique to legalism nor is it distinctive of conservatism. One of the main tenets of Christianity is that men are fallen and only saved through the grace of God and His blood shed on the cross. More importantly, our American republic was founded upon some very similar notions of the human nature. It was James Madison who wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Of course he continued that, “if angels were to govern men, no internal or external controls would be necessary.” The point, of course, is that the purpose of government is to protect the God given rights of men from the natural inclination of other men to usurp those rights. And that a government of flawed men must be held in check by those it governs lest it also seize those same rights. One of those external checks is the second amendment, another little thing legalists were opposed to. The idea of a powerful government made up of bureaucrats is more akin to the administrative state preached by progressives as are restrictions on the individual right to bear arms. 

The first principles of the declaration proudly proclaim a doctrine of equality before the law that stood and continues to stand as a central theme of the struggle for civil rights. The difference is that while Legalists believed in harsh penalties for even minor offenses – such as reading or having a different opinion – conservatives adhere to the scriptural idea of punishment fitting the crime and also believe in what Jefferson called the marketplace of ideas. I am hard pressed to think of any conservative advocating for the penalizing of those that disagree with them. I am admittedly partisan, but several examples of progressives either advocating for the silencing of conservatives (and/or Christians) or the punishing of unpopular speech come to mind: the fairness doctrine, free speech zones, liberal celebrity rants like those of Jeanine Garafolo (who proclaimed that conservatism was a mental disease and wondered that they should be allowed to participate in the political conversation) and the defacing of houses of worship following passage of California’s Prop 8 just to name a few.

The disdain of tradition and history is also a trait much more likely to be found among progressives. Conservatives believe in a transcendent human nature. In other words there are ideas, traditions, mores and behaviors that are objectively true for all men and transcend time and culture. The relativist ideas of living constitutions and multi-culturalism are grounded in the historicism of the left and necessarily eschew history and tradition in favor of current social science and sophistication.

Conservatives do favor a strong military but not for the purposes of conquest. The Legalist had their eye on consolidating the fragmented regional kingdoms on China and indeed did. The conservative advocacy of a strong military is based in a belief that the ideals that make this nation great are worth protecting. Indeed, that our ideas – those principles articulated in our keystone document – are objectively true for all men and for all time; they are worth preserving, worth defending and most importantly worth sharing with the rest of the world.

My son confided to me that following his teacher’s comparison none of his classmates wanted to be Republicans. And who can blame them? I am a grown man and I don’t want to be associated with a philosophy that seeks to enforce order by stifling individualism and usurping God given rights at the point of a gun. That’s why years ago I rejected new liberalism and became a conservative.

by J.C. Phillips

It is worth recalling that in 1996 when then President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (otherwise known as welfare reform) New Liberals predicted all manner of calamity. We were, they claimed, consigning our nation to third world style poverty. They shrieked that the bill was anti-child and mean spirited. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) called it “legislative child abuse.” Marian Wright Edelman likened it to dropping napalm on a Vietnamese village. 

It is also worth noting that they couldn’t have been more wrong. In spite of all the hand wringing and warnings of the impending apocalypse, the dark days didn’t materialize. The fears were misplaced and instead of hoards of children sleeping in the streets, welfare reform reduced child poverty and has been in the words of the non-partisan Urban Institute, “a bipartisan achievement that shrank welfare rolls and put single mothers to work.”

In the 13 years following passage of the welfare reform law, the Urban Institute reports that welfare caseloads were cut in half; participation by welfare recipients in work activities increased sharply; income among welfare recipients increased and the percentage of recipients living in extreme poverty (income below 50 percent of the federal poverty level) declined by 18 percent. 

For once, it would seem Congress had reason to pat itself on the back, but you would never know it. Not only have Democrats never admitted that they were wrong on welfare reform, they have long resolved to end it as soon as possible. It took Barak Obama and the Democratic Congress exactly two weeks to unravel what has been roundly recognized as a major policy achievement. 

The stimulus bill recently passed by Congress and signed Tuesday by the President begins the process of dismantling welfare as we now know it and puts us on a backward path to welfare as we once knew it. And this, we are told will stimulate the economy, saving us from unimaginable catastrophe. 

One of the linchpins of the original reform was a change in how states received their funding from the federal government. Under the old Aid to Families with Dependant Children, states received funds based on the number of recipients on the rolls. This created a perverse incentive to increase the number of families dependent on aid. Under the new temporary assistance to needy families (TANF), states were now funded at a flat level that did not change with increased rolls and they were mandated to move families off the dole and prepare them for work. 

Somehow the administration’s new transparency failed to reveal “the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history.” The “change we can believe in” reverses these successful reforms and returns us to the old days when states are funded depending on how many families are on their rolls. According to Robert Rector, one of the architects of the original welfare reform bill “the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.”

Criticism of this return to welfare-as-we-knew-it is not limited to conservatives. Mickey Kaus, writing for the left leaning Slate Magazine, laments that the stimulus bills welfare provisions are a “liberal conspiracy to expand the welfare rolls.”

It is logical to ask, if the reforms enacted in 1996 led to a reduction in welfare rolls wouldn’t the rescinding of those reforms and the reinstatement of old incentives begin once again to dictate the behavior of both individuals and government. It will give me no great comfort to say, “I told you so.” However, it is reasonable to ask if at that time Obama, Reid and Pelosi et al. will step forward and admit that they blew it. Something is telling me not to hold my breath. New liberalism means never having to say you were wrong.

by J.C. Phillips

The bully pulpit is perhaps a president’s most effective administrative tool and last week president Obama used it to good measure to shore up support for his economic stimulus plan.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was making a mess of things with earmarks for abortion clinics and public support for the plan was slipping in the polls. In order to bolster that support the president and Democratic leaders have made it clear that they are not going to go back to the failed policies of the past – policies that in the words of Obama “threw our economy into a tailspin.” 

Exactly which policies is he speaking of? Does he mean massive amounts of government spending that increased our national debt, the creation of new government bureaucracies, spending bills filled with congressional pork? That failed policy? 

And make no mistake: in spite of the president’s claims to the contrary, there are earmarks in this bill. Following the presidents press conference, a fact check conducted by the associated press revealed several items “tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.” It remains unclear how telling bold faced lies to the public distinguishes one as changing the tone in Washington. But I digress.

For their part Republicans spent 8 years undermining any credibility they had in discussions of fiscal restraint. It is a point Obama and Democratic leaders have pointed out at every opportunity.

Under the leadership of former president, Bush non-defense government expenditures increased by 23%. There were big increases in everything from Social Security and unemployment to healthcare and education and beyond; welfare state spending increased by 32%; Medical care, (which includes Medicare, Medicaid, hospital and medical care for veterans, substance abuse and mental health services) rose 54%; nutritional assistance 43%; education 40% and student loans 129%. 

But Republicans didn’t spend all that money by themselves. All of this spending was undertaken with not only the now vaunted bi-partisan support but with democrats grumbling loudly that it was not nearly enough money being spent. It therefore seems a bit disingenuous to claim that the failed policies of Republicans are to blame for the current fiscal mess.

It also raises a question: if, as is claimed Republican spending sent the economy into a nosedive, how then is even more spending by a Democratic administration going to solve the problem? It is rather telling that in spite of the claim of economic consensus the governments own economists in the congressional budget office have said the stimulus package will have short term benefits, but bring us long term pain.

In a nutshell, the cause of the mess is the collapse of the housing bubble that was brought on by too much easy credit, which allowed for the expansion of debt for consumers not able to carry the load. These loans were snatched up by government sponsored enterprises who used them to fuel their growth, assured that the housing market was only going up. Efforts to increase oversight and transparency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were resisted by congressional Democrats who ignored warnings that the size of the GSE portfolio’s “posed a risk to the global financial market.” As the housing bubble burst the vulnerability of Fannie and Freddie was exposed and…well, the rest is history.

Apparently the correct response to the failed policies of the past is a bill crafted by the very people that caused the crisis in the first place. The correct response to the bad policies of too much government spending is to, well, increase government expenditures, increase the deficit, grow the national debt, expand government powers over health, energy and the financial markets, repeal welfare reform and increase welfare spending, expand Medicaid, redistribute tax dollars to people that do not pay taxes and oh yes– there is about $40 per month in tax savings for the average American. 

This change we can believe in is beginning to look awfully familiar.

by J.C. Phillips

I was warned and I didn’t listen. I am a Facebook junkie. All I do is think about writing on walls, updating my status and commenting on other people’s status. I have sacrificed family and friends – I haven’t talked to my wife in more than a week! I am ashamed to admit that yesterday I went on a five hour bender. Before joining I was warned that it was highly addictive. I should have listened. I didn’t and now I am hooked.

For the uninitiated, Facebook (or FB) is a free-access social networking site that allows members to keep in touch with their friends and associates. Members construct a profile page that shares information about their relationship status, political ideology, religious beliefs, favorite movies and the like. Members can also upload family photo albums, modeling photos, snapshots from the college crew, digital shots of friends eating chicken at the fourth of July picnic or sharing wine at the museum opening. 

Of course, not everyone can peek at the goodies; you have to be invited. Once you join, you seek out people you know and become their friends. You then find out who you may know in common and invite them to be friends. Other people will send invitations to you to be their friends and so on and so forth. You are then free to view their profile and leave messages on their profile page or their “wall.” You can also instant message friends that are online or send private messages via email. The truly great feature is that you can let all your friends know what you are doing at that exact moment. This is known as updating your status. For instance, someone might share the fascinating news that they are on the way to the movies or waiting for the plumber to arrive. I might write, “Joseph is supposed to be writing his column but is on Facebook instead.” Your friends can then comment on your status. 

Members are thus free to share the intimacies of their entire lives and their friends get a front row seat. I guess maybe it satisfies something of the voyeur to say nothing of the exhibitionist in us all. 

It’s not all bad news. FB has allowed me to reconnect with relatives I have not seen in years and old friends from high school. I have also been able to stay better connected to a few business associates as well as being introduced to a few nice people. At least they seem nice online. They may be complete whack jobs in their real lives, but on FB they are my friends. And due to the fact that it is a supersized photo album, I have also been able to take a gander at a couple of women I used to fawn over in my youth to see how they have held up under the bludgeoning of time. This, I think, is getting the greatest bang for your FB buck. (I can’t be sure, but my man instinct tells me that the primary motivation behind the creation of Facebook was guys being able to ogle pretty girls on the Harvard campus. 

It all sounds so silly, but it is 100% pure, addictive, mind altering substance. No doubt this is why so many businesses have restricted its use by employees in the work place; when FB is around, the only work being done is FB work. 

I don’t know how I am going to get this monkey off my back. The truth is I don’t want to. I am having too much fun. FB makes me laugh and feel warm inside. When I am away from my computer, I am thinking about Facebook. I would rather be on FB than watch television. I want to know who has commented on my status or accepted me as a friend. If I am away too long, I begin to get the shakes so I added the Facebook application to my Blackberry. Now I can not only text while I am driving down the highway, I can read what someone wrote on my wall and update my Facebook status as well.

by J.C. Phillips

I was impressed when my two oldest sons began discussing college. Thankfully, their mother and I have a few more years before this becomes an issue for either of them, but they were thinking ahead – planning for a successful future. I couldn’t help but stick my chest out a bit. The conversation was a sign that perhaps their mother and I were doing something right. 

My rapture was short lived, however. My eldest began to talk about taking advanced placement courses in high school so that he might test out of college freshman courses. It was then that my middle son announced he wasn’t interested in taking any “nerd” classes. Somewhere, my wife went wrong with this boy.

My middle son fancies himself something of a jock. Like many little boys his age, he is planning for a career in big time professional sports. I suspect that he worries that doing too well in school will corrupt his swagger. He reasons therefore that it would be better to do just well enough.

This only proves that try as parents might to emphasize education in the home — in spite of every ounce of diligence expended to instill proper values — there are still forces beyond the control of parents that influence the attitudes and expectations of our children. You can (as we have in our home) make sure that every page of homework is completed and encourage at least 30 minutes of reading per day – weekends included — and your child will still tell you that academics is for nerds.

Thank God for the internet!

I recalled that during the college football season I heard a brief story about a player from Florida State that was late for a game against Maryland because he was interviewing for the prestigious Rhodes scholarship, an honor bestowed on only 32 American students a year.

The player profiled was Myron Rolle, a 6-foot-2, 220 pound defensive back for the Florida State Seminoles. He arrived in Tallahassee as one of the top high school football prospects in the country. He also had a 4.0 GPA and 22 advanced placement credits. While in school, Rolle maintained a 3.75 GPA while taking courses like human bio-chemistry and completed his under graduate studies in 2 ½ years, earning a degree in exercise science. He was also a National Leadership Honor Society inductee and the recipient of a $4,000 research grant for his work studying human mesenchymal stem cells. I can’t even pronounce “mesenchymal.”

Oh, and did I mention that he is a heck of a football player? Following the 2008 season he was named a third team All-American by the Associated Press. The Football Writers Association named him second team All-ACC and he was (big surprise) an Academic All- American. He is projected as a late first round or early second round NFL draft pick, however, he is putting his professional career on hold while he pursues his master’s degree in medical anthropology at Oxford and – get this- another master’s in public policy at FSU. Rolle would almost certainly become a millionaire overnight yet he is postponing entry into the NFL draft in favor of academic pursuits. It’s not the choice everyone would make; it’s not the choice everyone should make, but it is a choice I respect and one that impressed my son.

The bigger lesson of course is that during our lives each and every one of us will be a role model for someone. We may not choose to be role models and we may not like being role models, but the choices we make with our lives ripple outward touching the lives of we know not who. You never know who is watching.

Myron Rolle didn’t plan on being a role model. He simply set out to be the best young man he could be and as a result he made an impression on a third grade boy in southern California. As I finished Myron’s story, my son’s eyes were huge. Suddenly being an AP student was not only acceptable, it was downright cool!

I do not know Myron Rolle, but if I ever meet him I am going to shake his hand.

by J.C. Phillips

Speaking of noble lies told by philosopher kings-or at any rate by career politicians…

Congressman for life Henry Waxman (D-CA) chairman of the house committee on Energy and Commerce has promised that he will move quickly and decisively to move climate legislation out of his committee before memorial day. 

The Associated Press quotes Waxman as saying, “Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence.” Waxman continued, “U.S. industries want to invest in a clean energy future, but uncertainties about whether, when and how greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced is deterring these vital investments.”

Waxman envisions that industries are looking to Washington for leadership. Nothing could be further from the truth. If left to their own devices, industries will do what they ought to do and what share holders need them to do – expand, become more efficient and make profits. Nor do investors need Waxman to guide them. To paraphrase a line from scripture, where profit is so will their money be also. Once “clean energy” offers a better return on investment, they will have more money than they know what to do with. 

Waxman, of course, like most new liberals, does not trust markets; he trusts government, which is why he is chomping at the bit to use the power of government to force the energy sector to do what the market has heretofore done much more slowly. 

Enter global warming. 

Global warming has become the boogie man hiding under every bed and thus the perfect excuse for new liberals like Waxman to raise taxes, regulate business and nationalize industry — all for our own good of course. The fact that much of what we are being told are nothing but theories, half truths or outright lies is why we are told the debate is over and that government fixes must be rushed through the legislative process. Climate change is the means to a political end that could care less about the science.

Consider the alarmists’ warnings that changes in the concentration of C02 levels are having a devastating effect on temperatures. These claims have softened largely because as Christopher Mockton writing for Science and Public Policy.org points out, “The peer-reviewed literature is full of papers questioning the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 concentration… Indeed, low, harmless, beneficial climate sensitivity is almost becoming a consensus in the scientific literature.” 

Or the admonition that our production of C02 would cause the seas to rise. Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute observes that more recent science has “demonstrated that the outflow of Greenland ice sheets is unlikely to dramatically speed up as a result of surface warming, thus countering the claims of rapid sea level rise this century.” 

Green house gas emissions were also supposed to influence tropical storm activity. Michaels further observes that subsequent to those warnings studies have presented a “picture of future Atlantic tropical cyclones that is not unlike that of today—with natural cycles dominating the patterns of variability.”

And what of all the sea life that was supposed to die off? Dr. Craig Idso writing for the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” and the “Science and Public Policy Institute” writes that “climate-alarmist claims of impending marine species extinctions due to increases in both temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration are not only not supported by real-world evidence, they are actually refuted by it.” 

Waxman might find all of this interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. The crisis has been identified and the trumpet sounded. Our economy, our environment – our very civilization depends on our stopping the production of carbon dioxide. Here come Henry Waxman and the rest of the new left to the rescue. God help us!

by J.C. Phillips

Asserting that almost one quarter of New Yorkers under age 18 are obese, New York Governor David Patterson has proposed an 18 percent tax increase on non diet drinks. The governor’s rationale is that “Significant price increases should discourage individuals, especially children and teenagers, from consumption and help fight obesity which results in higher risk for diabetes and heart disease.” Unfortunately, science is not on the governor’s side. There is no scientific research linking non diet drinks with obesity. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, “There is no clear and consistent association between increased intake of added sugars and [body weight].” Conversely, there is quite a bit of non-scientific, anecdotal evidence suggesting the opposite is true. All of us have been witness to the incongruity of overweight customers concluding his/her fast food order with a diet drink.

The truth, of course, is that the purpose of the new tax is to help reduce the largest budget deficit in the state’s history driven in part by a scheduled 12 percent increase in Medicaid and healthcare costs. The current deficit is projected at $13.7 billion for 2009-10. This is no doubt why the governor projects the tax to raise $404 million during 2009-2010 and — get this — $539 million during fiscal 2010-2011. Apparently, the governor doesn’t trust the deterrent effect of his sugar tax. In fact, it seems that if the governor is going to pay the state’s bills, he needs people to drink non-diet soda and lots of it.

Putting our cynicism aside, let us suppose for a moment that the governor is sincere. Where is it written in the governor’s job description that he must enforce good dietary habits among the state’s citizens? You will receive no argument from me that too much soda is bad for one’s health. But so is too much chicken, too much chocolate, too much coffee or too much pasta. Are taxes to be increased on these food stuffs as well? The same observational evidence linking the obese with diet sodas links them with fried chicken.

What the governor doesn’t tell us(probably because he doesn’t care to know it) is that there are mountains of scientific studies demonstrating that artificial sweeteners – the same ones found in diet beverages — can have terrible side effects including, but not limited to, anxiety, depression, migraines, dizziness and slurred speech.

Yes, Splenda is made from sugar, but it is actually a chlorinated hydrocarbon in the same class of chemicals used in industrial compounds like pesticides and industrial cleaners. A sugar molecule is taken and chlorine – the same stuff that you put in your pools – is added to it creating sucrolose or Splenda. This is the stuff that is poured into over 4500 “diet” products.

The irony is that that while there is no science connecting obesity with sugar sweetened drinks there is science that tells us that the human body has no way of digesting chlorinated hydrocarbons. They stay in the system permanently. What is more ironic is that researchers working with mice and sucrolose over a 12-week period found, among other things, that sucrolose actually made the mice fat.

So here is the governor of a state cynically using concerns over the public health to pass a tax to move people to a product that may actually be worse for them than the product taxed. Patterson may be the latest but he is certainly not the only executive willing to tell a white lie here or there supposedly for the people’s own good. Unfortunately for the people, the use of emotionalism and faulty, incomplete or junk science to justify noble lies told by philosopher kings is politics as usual.

Why the next thing you know, we’ll have some governor telling the people of his state that the earth is growing hotter and in order to reverse the effects of this warming and prevent world-wide catastrophe he needs to tax incandescent light bulbs. Oh wait…

by J.C. Phillips

My resolution for this New Year is to make more soup. I’m not talking about opening a can of the store-bought stuff, but preparing a pot of deliciousness that simmers on the back burner filling the house with delightful aromas. When it comes to satisfying hunger, lifting the spirit and filling the heart, there are few things better than a bowl of warm soup. 

Each New Year begins with a burst of optimism and hope. The ball drops and we resolve to make changes in our lives –to do things differently “this” year by altering some behavior. Such ambitions are made with the best of intentions and occasionally result in some success. More often than not a few months into the year our optimism begins to peter out. We will have broken every promise, resumed most-if not all-of our bad habits. We get tired. Folks have gotten on our last good nerve and we need a break. 

It may be that we reach too far with our resolutions; having never run before we determine to run a marathon rather than a few miles. Moreover we tend to frame our resolutions in the negative. Rather than promising to do more of what we like – what makes us feel good — we undertake to do more of what we clearly don’t like – exercise for instance. Of course taking smaller bites does not automatically lead to bigger success. 

Last year for instance I began the year by putting together a 3-month plan in hopes that biting off smaller chunks would lead to more satisfying results. Of course I completed everything on my list in about 6 weeks and used the balance of the time to contemplate the next 3 month plan. I am still contemplating. It isn’t that I accomplished nothing last year. I was focused and motivated those first few weeks and no doubt some of that attitude carried over into the later months. But as far as big resolutions go last year was very much like every other year – big plans, small outcome.

Never one to be daunted by failure, this year I have determined to make soup. I am not going to diet, I like food too much. I will not stop watching television. TV is my drug of choice and I am hooked. I have 3 active and very energetic boys so invariably I will end up raising my voice. I may very well complete my next book this year, but as they say at the ball park, “it doesn’t look good for the home team.” No, this year I am going to focus on doing one thing and that thing reasonable. Soup is the ticket.

I enjoy cooking and I enjoy making soups and stews. I prepare most of the family meals already this is just a matter of menu selection. Besides, making soup is easy; vegetables, bones and herbs simmered into a tasty broth, to which is added meat, vegetables, beans or pasta in any number of interesting and delicious combinations. Soup – even fancy soup—is rustic, simple and a staple of good home cooking, which is another way of saying, “filled with love, just like Mama used to make.”

Soup is making ends meet. Soup is wrapping up in a warm blanket when your nose is stuffed up. Soup is Mama wrapping you in her arms and wiping away a tear when your heart is broken. Soup is a friendly voice over the phone on a lonely Saturday night. Soup is a letter from home. 

It has been my unfortunate habit that the resolutions I make at the start of each New Year consistently reassemble the vows I have made the year before – grand, well-intentioned and ultimately unsustainable. This year will be different because I am promising only to do more of what I already do and what already makes me happy. The best part is that if I do it well I will fill my family’s bellies and their hearts.