Get thee behind me, John Birch!

43876-jesus-peterI love the new COS video parody of the old Apple vs. Microsoft ads!

But I must say, I like the Mac versus PC ads better. In those ads, the “cool” guy, who personified the Mac, was a nice guy. He actually liked the PC. He was funny, endearing and kind, and never called the PC names. He wasn’t mean.

My experience has been that our friends who are opposed to a convention for fear of it becoming a runaway are strong patriots, love their country, revere the Constitution, are generally “good guys”, and should be on “our side” in this battle. Many have worked tirelessly for years to increase our constitutional literacy. For this, I, for one, am grateful.

After carefully listening to and considering Michael Farris’s arguments, and considering what others had to say, including what the founders had written regarding Article V, I believe that a convention of states is called for and necessary. It is the only political solution I am aware of to our country’s significant, systemic problems.

So yes, I believe our JBS, Constitution Party and assorted Tea Party friends who have not yet come to see the wisdom and prudence in a COS are in the wrong here.

But calling these friends hypocrites and fear-mongers doesn’t get us anywhere.

Yes, for those fellow citizens who do not hold strong constitutional opinions, who aren’t sure who to believe, this name calling might have some effect. Maybe. But in the long run, I’d say it’s counter-productive.

We need to do a better job answering their objections. In fact, we already have, but I think we can do a better job of presenting and packaging.

We don’t speak German today, in part, because Hitler chose to fight a two-front war. A house divided against itself will not stand. It’s going to be an uphill battle fighting our ideological adversaries as we move forward. We don’t need to be fighting our friends as well. The “hypocrites” are our friends. I believe their misinformed, but they are on our side. We want the same thing. We want to restore the federal government to the size and scope envisioned by our founders.

I’d say we’re more at the “A gentle answer turns away wrath” and less at the “Get thee behind me Satan!” stage.

Get thee behind me, John Birch!

Is Blaine Richardson really pro-life?

20130802-163238.jpgI remember one time my wife and I were going for a walk on our road. A car slows down and stops. The driver rolls down her window and introduces herself as a candidate for the state House of Representatives.

I thanked her for running and then asked, “Where do you stand on abortion?”.

The candidate’s response: “Personally, or politically?”.

As you might imagine, I was not impressed.

For me, abortion is the defining issue. I don’t care whether you’re running for dogcatcher or President. If you can’t see that abortion is murder, in my mind, you’re not qualified to hold elected office. It speaks to character.

The aforementioned candidate’s response was a wimpy copout. Sure. No one likes abortion. But the idea that you can be personally opposed to it but politically in favor of it is ridiculous. To quote the late, and great, Howard Phillips, “The first duty of civil government is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood.”. If you believe abortion is wrong, and that it is a taking of an innocent life, then, as an elected official you should do everything in your power, and expend whatever political capital is necessary, to right that wrong. That is what the civil government is supposed to do.

Fast forward to today. Curious about where the various congressional candidates stand on the abortion issue, I sent the Blaine Richardson campaign an email asking them where they stand on the issue. Now, bear in mind, that I did word the question in such a way as to make it sound like I was pro-choice. See the email exchange I’ve pasted in below:

——– Forwarded message ———-
From: <>
Date: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Subject: RE: Choice
To: Bill Clarke <>

Thanks for the question.
Blaine’s stance on the abortion issue is two fold: One, he believes life begins at conception. Two, Roe vs Wade is the law of the land and as the law of the land it gives women the right to choose. He doesn’t feel he has the right to “judge” what a woman may or may not do with her body.
I hope this answers your question,
Matt McDonald
Blaine for US Congress
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Choice
From: Bill Clarke <>
Date: Fri, August 02, 2013 2:00 am

Hello Blaine,

Thanks for running!
Do you support a woman’s right to choose? This issue is very important to me.

Bill Clarke


After reading this, the first thing that came to mind was that exchange I had on my road with that State Rep. candidate.

So Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? And Blaine Richardson has no right to “judge” what a woman may or may not do with her body? This answer doesn’t give me any warm and fuzzies.