Erick Erickson's Blog, page 132

God and Oslo

Yesterday, I filled in for Neal Boortz on his syndicated show and was live on air as the news was breaking from the horror in Oslo, Norway.

With Al Jazeera, international news networks, and domestic networks all raising the link to an Islamic radical Norway was deporting, I put on twitter that the odds were it wasn't an angry Lutheran doing the bombing and shooting and noted on the radio the possible links to Islamic radicals.

Turns out, the now captured shooter, who I think we can probably say is connected to the bombing, lists himself as a conservative Christian on a Facebook page.

I was wrong. But the reaction to me and others being wrong and to how the news is handling this event is quite instructive.

In the Arkansas army shootings and the Ft. Hood shooting and a host of others, the media and the left have sought to downplay any possible connection to Islam the attackers or would be attackers have had. And when those of us on the right have pointed it out, we've been accused of racism and those on the left have demanded to know why it even mattered.

Contrast that with the coverage of the Oslo shooter and already the New York Times is making sure in its first few paragraphs everyone knows the guy described himself on Facebook as a "conservative Christian."

It reminds me of the left-wingers who always point out that Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were Christians. They ignore the fact that McVeigh himself described himself as at best an agnostic, though more clearly an atheist, and Rudolph's FBI file showed he belonged to an extremist cult more Aryan than Christian.

But why all the angst from the left on this.

There are a few instructive points.

First, those of us on the right who point out the now fairly common ties between terrorists and Islam do so largely because the secular left has become willfully naive. The fact of the matter is violence and Islam may not be very common among American muslims, but internationally it is extremely common and can fairly well be considered mainstream within much of Islam. Read Andy McCarthy if you suffer on the delusion that it is not mainstream.

With Christians, it is rather rare to see a self-described Christian engage in heinous terrorist acts. In fact, in as much as there is an Arab Street filled with muslims more often than not cheering on the latest terrorist act of radical Islamists, you will be very hard pressed to find a Christian who does not condemn the act regardless of the faith of the person doing the killing.

But then why is the left so gleeful that the Norwegian is a "conservative Christian" and why do they feel it so necessary to rub it in when they're downright apathetic and hostile to the notion of radical Islam being rather mainstream within Islam when terrorist Christianity is largely nonexistent except among a few crazies?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Bible is quite on point about this.

Secular leftists and Islamists are both of this world. Christians may be traveling through, but we are most definitely not of the world. In fact, Christ commands us to throw off our ties to this world. But the things of this world love this world and hate the things of God. That's why secular leftism can embrace both activist homosexuals and activist muslims when the latter would, when true to their faith, be happy to kill the former.

All of them can pile on and condemn the Christian because the Christian is just passing through, a stranger in a strange land.

Over the next week, assuming the budget fight in Washington doesn't over shadow it, you can expect lots more gloating that the guy in Norway described himself as a conservative Christian. Never mind that a conservative Christian would not do what the guy did. The left, however, will not be persuaded otherwise. They are of this world and this world is all that matters until the last day.

House GOP Leadership Admits It Will Not Hold The Line

Greta Van Sustren has a quote up from Eric Cantor. Cantor and the House Republicans are blaming Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, Tom Coburn, and the other members of the Gang of Six for blowing things for them.

It might actually be a blessing in disguise. Why? Because the overlooked portion of the Cantor statement makes clear to House Republicans that Leadership is abandoning Cut, Cap, and Balance for a deal.

"….Contrary to news reports, a deal was never reached with the White House and a deal was never close with the White House – especially after the President insisted on more tax revenue after the Gang of Six plan was released. America will pay its bills and meet its obligations, and in coming days we will offer a path forward that meets the President's request for a debt limit increase, manages down the debt, and achieves serious spending cuts…."

One can readily presume that if Leadership were sticking with Cut, Cap, and Balance they'd have said they already offered up their plan and they are sticking to it.

We can conclude they are not going to hold the line.

I should note that President Obama's behavior at his press conference today suggests he is a man who knows he does not hold the upper hand. You'd think the House GOP would, therefore, keep pushing the only plan that can pass by August 2nd — cut, cap, and balance.

We're Back

Thanks to Neil working his magic, we are back. Some tinkering under the hood went awry. Thanks to all who emailed, tweeted, texted, Facebooked, Google+'d, etc.

Putting Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, and Tom Coburn in Perspective

This is really sad and pathetic. I can only guess they have struck such a bad deal because they negotiated from a position of fear. You never get a good deal when you are negotiating because you are scared.

The Senate Budget Committee is sending around an email pointing out some of the horrors of the Gang of Six's gangrene plan.

Consider this: Saxby Chambliss, Mike Crapo, and Tom Coburn agreed to raise capital gains taxes from 15% to 28%.

Likewise, employers would no longer get a wage credit for keeping activated military reservists on the job.

House Republicans Should Not Rely on Democrats For Votes on the Debt Ceiling

I think conservatives need to draw one more line in the sand on the debt ceiling.

There is a growing worry that John Boehner and Eric Cantor will come up with a deal with the White House that will require Democrat votes to get through the House of Representatives. This would be a replay of the continuing resolution fiasco that cut little and cost much.

If Republican leaders come up with a debt ceiling deal that requires Democrats to vote for it in order to get to 218, the Republicans who put those leaders in power should boot them out of power. It's that simple.

The Republican leaders have twice now seen their members stand for something. First they stood for Paul Ryan's plan and got roundly attacked. Then they stood for Cut, Cap, and Balance despite withering attacks.

Leadership now needs to stand up with their conservative majority and not fall back on Democrats to pass a bad deal.

A Quick Note to House Republicans

Cut, Cap, and Balance failed in the United States Senate with four votes shy of 50. The vote was 51-46 to table.

Hold the freaking line.

You only need four votes in the Senate to have a majority.

You do not need Plan B. You do not need to negotiate. You do not need to play Washington politics as usual. That got us to this point.

You have a plan that 2/3 of the American public supports. You have a plan that lets the President raise the debt ceiling.

That sounds like a compromise to me.

Hold the line. Don't give up. Don't give in. Don't deal.

Fight on.

The only other thing the House should do is a prioritization bill in anticipation of August 3rd.

The List of Senators to Call

Jim DeMint just sent out this email. Please note the list of Senators to call ASAP:

The Senate will vote TODAY at 10:00 AM Eastern on the "Cut-Cap-Balance" legislation that we have been working so hard to advance.

Republicans in the House passed it earlier this week with bipartisan support. Now it's the Senate's turn.

Please call the Democrat senators listed below right now to urge them to vote for this important legislation. This is extremely important and I hope you will make at least one phone call right now.

You don't need to be from the senator's state. Their vote affects you just the same. We need to generate as many calls as we can from people all over the country. These senators need to know that you're going to work to defeat them in their next election if they vote against this bill.

The Cut-Cap-Balance legislation will CUT spending immediately, CAP spending in future years, and require passage of a constitutional amendment forcing Congress to BALANCE the budget each year without raising taxes.

It will prevent us from defaulting on our debt obligations, protect our AAA credit rating, and ensure that we don't ever have to raise the debt limit again.

A vote against this plan is a vote to bankrupt America.

Here are the Democrats who need to hear from you as soon as possible. Each of these senators voted in favor of a non-binding resolution earlier this year supporting the Balanced Budget Amendment. We will find out today if they were serious.

Mark Begich (D-AK) — (202) 224-3004

Michael Bennet (D-CO) — (202) 224-5852

Sherrod Brown (D-OH) — (202) 224-2315

Tom Carper (D-DE) — (202) 224-2441

Joe Manchin (D-WV) — (202) 224-3954

Claire McCaskill (D-MO) — (202) 224-6154

Bill Nelson (D-FL) — (202) 224-5274

Ben Nelson (D-NE) — (202) 224-6551

Mark Udall (D-CO) — (202) 224-5941

Filling In for Neal Boortz

I'm filling in for Neal Boortz today. If you want to listen, you can click right here and listen live. The call in number is 1-877-310-2100.

The show runs from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. ET live.

Consider this an open thread.

The Easiest Test to Find Out if Your House Member is a Real Conservative

There are many House Republicans. And most of them call themselves conservatives. In fact, what we see over time is that most of the House Republicans ultimately wind up being what I call pro-life statists.

They claim they are conservative because they vote right on life issues and against Obama, but they are perfectly happy driving up the cost of government for their own purposes.

I have developed an easy test to see who is and is not a real conservative, or at least over time will prove to be a real conservative as opposed to a pro-life statist.

The test is this: is the member on the leadership's whip team.

Seriously.

Yet another conservative has been kicked off the whip team for voting conservative on an issue when the leadership wanted the member to take the statist position. This time it is Dave Schweikert from Arizona.

Now, leadership is spinning it as Schweikert lying. From the former Debbie Wasserman Schultz staffer, Jonathan Allen, at the Politico:

Rep. David Schweikert, a freshman from Arizona, was removed from the Republican whip team — the group of lawmakers who help round up votes for the leadership — for what sources say is a violation of the first rule of the whip club. The rule: Don't promise to vote one way and then vote the other way. Sources declined to specify which vote cost Schweikert his seat at the table, but he did vote 'no' on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill last Friday. Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam pointed Huddle to Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy's office when asked about the episode. 'This is a whip team family issue," McCarthy spokeswoman Erica Elliott said.

Sources may tell Jonathan Allen that, but sources tell me it is more complicated than that and Schweikert had never been as committed as leadership would have us all believe.

Leadership last kicked Georgia Republican Tom Graves off the whip team for voting conservative instead of statist. It's becoming a badge of honor for real conservatives.

And it is a fantastic indicator of whether your "conservative" congressman will "grow" in office. If they're on the Whip Team, they'll probably become a House version of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The Politics of Dopes

Here is the way things work in Washington.

One group in Congress comes up with a bold plan to save the country. Let's call it Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Everyone else sets out to undermine their plan. Heck, most of the rest of Congress doesn't have a plan at all — they just want to dump on the group that comes up with the plan.

Then, when the group with the plan gets close to a vote and it looks like it is going to pass, the naysayers come out with their own plan. Everyone, leadership included, says nice things about it and they all hope the group with the plan to save the country sees its momentum sucked away.

But on occasion the group with the plan succeeds in getting not just a vote, but passage.

So the plan goes to the Senate, it doesn't make it past a filibuster, and all the people who'd been piling on and trying to undermine the group says, "Well, see, you failed. Let's do our idea now."

Friends, that is how Washington works. That is how Washington has gotten us $14 trillion in debt.

See, the fault ultimately lies with the first group. "What?" you say. "But they came up with the plan. How can it be their fault?"

It is their fault because when the cards are on the table and bluffs are being called, they gave up. They decided to play politics the way Washington always plays politics. They didn't hold the line. They caved.

And that is what I expect will happen. We're hearing rumblings of it now. Even Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) on CNN last night suggested if Cut, Cap, and Balanced failed, they'll probably have a deal of some sort. (Editor's Note: the Congressman's office called and said they didn't feel like he said that, or at least did not mean to suggest he's for a deal. His Chief of Staff tells the Congressman is for Cut, Cap, and Balance and that remains the only deal he supports.)

The House Republicans should not deal. They should demand their plan. They are the only ones with a plan. Everyone else has dumped on their plan. Now they should force their plan. It is the only plan that can turn the tide. I know "that's not how Washington works," but doggone, the way Washington works got us into this mess. Hold the freaking line!

But even House leaders are undermining them. Don't believe me?Republicans were sent to Washington to do two things: (1) end Obamacare and (2) reduce spending. Not only have they failed at the first, the Speaker just might be rendering a Supreme Court decision moot on the constitutionality of Obamacare.

On the second, John Boeher and Eric Cantor to send the Gowdy-Southerland prioritization bill to the floor for a vote. That legislation would specify how the Treasury Secretary must prioritize payments if we reach August 2nd with no deal. It would prevent Timmy Geithner from holding grandma hostage without a social security check. It would force him to pay our national debt payments and not default.

But Boehner and Cantor won't send Gowdy-Southerland to the floor. Why? Well it seems obvious to me. It gives them added leverage against their own House Republicans. When Cut, Cap, and Balance fails in the Senate, they can say, "Well boys, we tried. Let's make a deal now."

And the politics of dopes perpetuating out of control Washington spending keeps going on. The only way this will stop is if House Republicans hold the line and fight for Cut, Cap, and Balance. Unless they are willing to embrace brinksmanship and maybe even go over the brink, don't fool yourself — spending will not go down.