First, President Obama attacked religious liberty by mandating that the insurance plans of religious organizations provide free contraceptives, despite the fact that that would require Catholic organizations to violate their religious beliefs. That didn’t work out so well, as many believers across the spectrum of faith stood up to say, “We are all Catholics now.”

It is hard to imagine how this strategy made it out of the White House. A decision of this nature does not get made without calculating all the possible consequences, intended and otherwise. So apparently the White House figured the Catholic Church would bluster a bit, that the public would pay no mind, and they would get their way in the end.

They may very well get their way in the end, but it is going to cost them more than the initial estimate of political capital. Perhaps even the coming election, now that Americans have been abruptly reminded of the impending loss of their liberties through Obamacare. This mandate is just the tip of the iceberg.

That depends a lot, however, on how Catholics and everyone else respond to the ongoing intrigue. The initial strategy miscalculated public outcry, but the game is far from over.

President Obama’s second attempt at mandating free contraceptives relies on a violation of free enterprise and economic liberty. To wit, the White House now says that religious organizations will not be required to pay for the contraceptives, bur rather the insurance companies will be required to provide them for free!

Where to begin? First, this tramples on liberty by violating a basic tenet of  economics, known as “TANSTAAFL” (There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).  In this case, There Ain’t No Such Thing As Free Contraceptives.

Somebody has to pay for it, and I suggest there are only a few options, if in fact neither the employee nor the religious organization is going to be required to pay. One option would be for the insurance company to increase the premiums on the plans of non-religious organizations, in order to subsidize “free contraceptives” to religious organizations.

Insurance companies might go along with this, and if they do, non-religious organizations will be hard pressed to prove that their increased premiums are paying for contraceptives for the employees of religious organizations. If this is a little hard to follow, I assure you that the official explanation will be even more vague and obtuse, that being the point.

That approach doesn’t seem too fair, however, and this administration is all about fairness. A second option would be to pay for it out of the slush fund known as the Federal Budget. The Democrats in the Senate haven’t passed a budget in over 3 years, so this might be a workable option. No budget means no line item to get worked up over, hence the insurance companies can be reimbursed with the magic money that flows from D.C., and no one will be the wiser. Any time an employee of a religious organization requests the “contraceptive rider”, the insurance company will be reimbursed by you, the taxpayer, via the government.

It is going to be very tempting for the religious organizations to sign on with one of these shell games offered by the Administration. They would do much better to simply say “No, we will not offer an insurance plan that includes contraceptives.” Then let the Federal government set up their own free contraceptives program, and keep the whole thing out in the open, without becoming entangled in this snare.

For it is a snare, and here is the end game. Whatever method the White House eventually settles on to force religious organizations to provide contraceptives in their health care plan, they can later use to force the inclusion of abortions in the same manner. Don’t forget, women in Massachusetts can now get abortions for $50 through their health care plan.

You see, if the government can mandate the inclusion of contraceptives in health care plans, well don’t you know that Planned Parenthood and their allies considers abortion to be health care also?

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

In case you don’t know, Newt has been unfaithful to two wives, and divorced both of them during their times of illness. Newt left the House with an enormous ethics fine. Newt is running as a “citizen”, but he is the consummate Washington insider, as attested to by his million dollar plus fees from Freddie Mac.

A few years ago, our state suffered through the horrible episode brought on by then Gov. Sanford’s infidelity. Many considered it not only a revelation of a deep character problem, but also a disqualifier for leadership at such a high position. Personally, I did not call for the Governor to step down, as I believed that he was sincerely trying to repair his marriage. But neither did I fault those who called for him to step down in the belief that he had forfeited his position of leadership.

Why all the fuss over Gov. Sanford? Well, because character counts and we must question the character and leadership qualifications of a man who cannot keep the most sacred covenant that he makes.

I have been a Christian a long time, I have a seminary degree, and I understand and believe in forgiveness.  Of course Newt can be forgiven on the same basis of grace and faith that all Christians seek. But this is not a question of whether Newt is forgiven, it is a question of whether he has the character to lead a nation that is not just an economic enterprise, but also a moral enterprise.  And we are not talking about a single lapse of judgment; we are talking about a life long pattern.

I enjoy listening to Newt and I agree that he is a smart man, a great talker, and has leadership ability. Bill Clinton was all that as well, but conservatives scorned him because of his deep and persistent character flaws. So how then are so many conservatives embracing a Republican version of Bill Clinton?

Do they not know that Newt was carrying on an affair with a young intern named Callista while the House was trying to impeach Bill Clinton over lies that he told about an affair with a young intern named Monica?

What gives? Does the Republican party really care about “family values” and character? If so, there are three other candidates in this race that have all exhibited a truck load more character in their family life than Newt. If the GOP claims that character counts and that leaders should be held to a higher standard, then Newt Gingrich has disqualified himself from carrying the GOP standard.

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

A year ago, the Lord led me to begin this blog on God and Country. An important part of this effort was to encourage people to fast and pray for our nation once a month, on the third Wednesday of each month. I want to thank those who have participated over the course of the past year and alert everyone’s attention to growing efforts around the nation to fast and pray for the USA.

Last summer, a prayer gathering for the nation was held in Texas that drew 40,000 participants. That event has spurred an ongoing effort to encourage “Solemn Assembly’s” of prayer and fasting, and has now taken its message on the road. You can learn more by visiting the website www.theresponseusa.com.

There you will see that an event was held in Iowa on December 6 and the next prayer gathering will be held in Greenville this Tuesday, Jan. 17^th. It will run from 7-9 pm and is being held at the TD Convention Center (room 202) in Greenville. The response USA is not promoting any candidate, but instead they have scheduled prayer gatherings to coincide with early primary states. After SC, the next event is in Florida.

One of the key elements of this movement is corporate fasting and prayer; not going it alone, but joining with others in unity of heart and purpose. I encourage you to consider fasting and attending this prayer gathering if you are able.

If you have signed up to fast and pray with me this month, I am moving my date forward to join this effort on this Tuesday. Although I will not be able to attend the prayer gathering in Greenville on Tuesday evening, I will be fasting and praying that day in concert with them.

My friends, it is great to be concerned about America and to be involved in the political process. Currently, I am up to my eyeballs in such involvement. We cannot, however, effect the needed changes in our nation’s course apart from a powerful work of God in our midst. It is not a matter of just working hard or just praying, it is both together and at the same time, as illustrated in the book of Nehemiah that is needful.

If you are concerned about the future of America, if you are already involved in the hard work at hand, I encourage you make those efforts all the more effective through fasting and prayer. This coming Tuesday presents a tremendous opportunity for believers in South Carolina, and particularly the upstate, to join together in crying out to the Lord on behalf of our nation. I hope you will take advantage of it.

Please pass this information on to your pastor and friends who may be willing to spread the word and participate. Thank you.

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

Now that Iowa has voted, conservatives in SC have approximately 2 weeks to rally behind a candidate that can beat both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. With Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann out of the race, the choices for conservatives have been narrowed considerably. If conservatives cannot get behind one of the remaining candidates, we risk Romney winning SC and then the nomination, much as McCain did 4 years ago.

It is now time to choose and commit, and I believe the best conservative in this field is Rick Santorum, for the following reasons.

First, Sen. Santorum is an experienced leader. Some candidates have strong ideas, but might have trouble getting their policies implemented. Others candidates have leadership ability, but they are erratic conservatives, and might end up getting the wrong things done. We need an experienced, steady, and consistent conservative who can implement an agenda like Ronald Reagan did. Rick Santorum served 4 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. He understands how Washington works and has a record of substantial accomplishments, but he has not been co-opted by Washington. I believe in Rick Santorum’s leadership ability to get things done, and also in his judgment to get the right things done.

Second, Santorum is a full spectrum conservative.  He is a proven social conservative, who authored and championed the legislation to ban partial birth abortions. Last year in Iowa, Santorum was active in the campaign to defeat 3 activist judges who had ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Santorum is a proven fiscal conservative. He opposed the TARP bailout, was a key leader in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and fought for a balanced budget amendment. And he is a proven national security conservative. He served 8 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and authored both the Iran Freedom and Support Act and the Syrian Accountability Act. Rick Santorum has been at the forefront of warning about the threat of radical Islam.

Third, Santorum has outstanding character. Rick Santorum is a devoted family man and a devout Christian. Throughout this campaign and indeed his entire career, he has consistently championed traditional family values. Even more importantly, he has lived them.

Finally, he is highly electable. Rick Santorum is from the swing state of Pennsylvania, and he has proven that he can win swing states in a general election. Santorum is not prone to gaffes, and he has the ability and passion to articulate a compelling conservative vision and program in contrast with President Obama’s failed policies.

The candidates in this race all have admirable qualities and any one of them would be preferable to Barack Obama, but Rick Santorum is the most complete conservative in the field. Let’s rally behind him and make sure that SC Republicans send a clear signal to the rest of the nation that Rick Santorum should be the standard bearer for the GOP in 2012.

To be a part of this campaign effort, email me at richardcashsc@gmail.com.

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

And so, like many of you, I have been asking myself, “Which candidate should I support?” I find admirable qualities in all the candidates, so how do I decide among them? Well, there is an old adage that goes something like this; “In order to get the right answer, you must ask the right question.” I would like to share with you a few questions and answers that have greatly influenced my decision to support Rick Santorum.

About a month ago, I came out of a political meeting involving a different candidate, and as we were heading to our cars I remarked to a friend, “It’s too bad Jim DeMint is not in this race; I could easily support him and I believe he could win the nomination.” If you are a conservative in SC, you know what I’m talking about. It’s not that other candidates are bad, it’s just that we know and trust Sen. DeMint, and supporting him would be easy.

By the next day, I had begun thinking, “Since Sen. DeMint is not in the race, which candidate is the closest to him by comparison?” The answer seemed immediate and unequivocal, Sen. Santorum. Here is a person who has been a consistent conservative leader for many years, including 12 in the US Senate. Here is a person who understands how Washington works and how to get things done, but he has not been co-opted by Washington. Here is a person who is trustworthy, both in his personal and public life.

A second question also came to me along these lines; “If I had been elected and was serving in the US Congress, which candidate would I most like to have as my President, who could I see myself working well with?” Again, the answer was obvious, Rick Santorum. He is a clear thinker, he is articulate, he has good judgment, and he understands that the foundation of faith and family is essential to maintaining freedom. If I was serving in Congress, Rick Santorum is the candidate that I would have the highest level of comfort and confidence in.

Asking and answering those two questions influenced my decision a lot, but there was one other question to deal with, which you might be considering as well; “Can he win?” After a little research, I discovered that Rick Santorum has held events in all 99 counties in Iowa and is building a strong grass roots organization there. With six weeks to go until the Iowa vote, Santorum is ready for the stretch run, and if he does well in Iowa, the campaign dynamic will change overnight.

Many people will say, “All well and good, but Rick Santorum is very low in the national polls.” In reply I say that first, polls are a snap shot, not a predictor. Four years ago at this time, the polls had Romney leading Iowa, but Huckabee ended up winning it. Secondly, polls can change quickly. This year, several candidates have risen and fallen in the polls already, proving that most people have not yet locked in their commitment.

With six weeks to go until the Iowa vote, a lot can happen with the current poll leaders, meaning the race is still very much up in air. For those who are looking for a trustworthy consistent conservative, Rick Santorum is looking better all the time. I invite you to join us in the laying the groundwork for a successful SC campaign.

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

I think you know we had an accident not too long ago that totaled our car. The insurance company gave us a rental car to use, and on the last day of the rental contract, the settlement check came through, so we went to buy a car.

The reason that I’m writing is that I had the strangest experience of my life trying to buy a car. You probably won’t believe what I’m about to tell you, but I figured I would write anyway. It’s very interesting, and who knows, you might even get a laugh out of it.

The wife and I went to a place called “Barry’s Used Cars.” There was a nice car out front, and I admit, it was kind of love at first sight. We knew we had to have this car, so we pulled in, and that’s where it all began.

It was about 2 pm when we got there, so we knew we had plenty of time to make a deal. After a few minutes we kind of looked around, expecting someone to greet us and start the process. It took a lot longer than it should have, but eventually a weathered old salesman named Harry came over.

We explained that we needed to make a deal that day and Harry said, “Great. I’m all about deal making.” When we asked the price, he hemmed and hawed a bit. Instead of giving us an answer, we all went for a test drive.

When we got back, we asked the price again. This time Harry didn’t flinch, but the number he gave was sky high. I told him I liked the car and gave him my own number, but we were far apart.

After a while, it became clear that we weren’t getting anywhere, so Harry said he would have to let Joe take over the negotiations. Joe was the VP of the operation, and a very friendly, back slapping kind of guy. By now it was 3 pm, and we figured the preliminaries were over, and Joe would close the deal.

But we didn’t get any further with him than we did with Harry. Whenever we tried to nail him down, he just smiled and told us how much the big boss wanted to make a deal. We talked and talked, and after a while it occurred to me that Joe wasn’t going to cut the deal either, he was just trying to wear us down.

However, Joe was real insistent that Barry wanted a deal that day, same as us. He kept going back and forth between Barry and us, but nothing was really getting done. Eventually, Joe said Barry was going to take over the negotiations and deal with us personally.

So Joe showed us to Barry’s office, and that’s where the fun really began. On first impression, Barry seemed like a real nice guy. He had a nice smile and a very earnest, sincere demeanor. He welcomed us into what he called his “private deal room” and said, “Let’s talk. I just love talking and negotiating.”

It was 4 pm by this time, and the place closed at 5, so I knew we had to make a deal pretty quick in order to get all the paperwork done. Silly me, I asked him, “What’s the bottom dollar on your car?” He smiled and said, “Boy, that is a great question. How much do you want to pay?”

By now I was getting frustrated, so I said kind of bluntly, “Well, you’re the President of this place, so you tell me, what’s the sale price, how much down, and how much a month?”  He talked for a few minutes about how nice the car was and how much he wanted to make a deal with me, and then he asked again, “How much are you willing to give for it?”

I couldn’t believe we were doing this backwards, but we really needed the car that day, so I wrote down my terms on a piece of paper and passed it to him. He glanced at it, set it to the side, and said with a smile, “You know, if we’re going to make a deal, you’re gonna have to eat your peas.”

I know, I know, you’re thinking, “What the heck?” Well, I didn’t know what he was talking about either, but before I could ask him, he says, “I’m going to have to kind of veto this offer, can you make another one?”

I kind of shook my head and said, “Well Barry, first of all, we’re doing this backwards. You should be the one laying out the specific terms here, and then I give you a counter offer if I don’t like it. But anyway, since you don’t like my offer, why don’t you write down your terms, and we’ll go from there.”

Barry crossed his hands in front of him, leaned forward, and got that earnest look again. He says, “Let me be perfectly clear. I must sell this car by 5 pm. Now what is your next offer?”

This was beginning to get a bit surreal. “No, what’s your offer?” I said.

This time Barry leaned back, looked at the ceiling, and said, “I don’t like millionaires, billionaires, and corporate jet owners. If you fall into any of those categories, you’re going to have to pay more.”

Well, it’s now 4:45 pm. I looked at Barry and said, “You beat all, you know that. We’re trying to make a deal and you’re talking in circles.”

The smile disappeared and Barry said, “Ok, here’s the deal. It’s almost 5 pm, you don’t have time to go anywhere else. You need to sweeten your offer right now so that you have time to call your bank and arrange financing. I know all about the rental car, and if you don’t make a deal today, you will owe fees and fines on it, and it might even affect your credit rating. So what’s it going to be?”

I thought for a moment, then said, “Barry, you are either a thug or you don’t know anything about making a deal. In either case, you are not going to strong arm me over a 5 pm crisis deadline that you have created, nor over my credit rating. I have given you a reasonable, written offer, something that you have refused to do. It’s no wonder this car has been sitting on your lot all year. Nobody can deal with you. Call me when you come to your senses.”

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

Making a difficult deal generally involves finding the bottom line position of both parties. In the debt ceiling crisis there appears to be two main positions. President Obama wants an increase in the debt ceiling of about 2.4 trillion dollars and Republicans want to cut spending without increasing taxes. Factions within both parties, however, have taken harder positions. In the end, the looming debt ceiling may give TEA Party Republicans the deciding vote.

President Obama wants enough of an increase in the debt ceiling to get through the 2012 election. For this reason, he would likely veto the Boehner plan, even if it could be passed, because it raises the debt ceiling by only about 1 trillion dollars. Republicans want to cut spending without increasing taxes, and they appear to have made progress. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, has indicated that he will go along with no tax increases. For their part, Republicans are open to tax reform and closing loopholes, especially if it can be combined with lower tax rates that they believe will drive economic growth.

Beyond these main positions, however, things get much more difficult to reconcile between the party factions. Far left Democrats want higher taxes on the wealthy and resist entitlement reform. TEA Party Republicans insist on structural reforms that will result in a balanced budget approach to spending.

Because we have run up against the debt ceiling, TEA Party Republicans are in a strong position. House Republicans have already passed a Cut, Cap, and Balance Bill, which included a 2.4 trillion dollar increase in the debt ceiling, although the Senate voted it down. Another plan that is based on structural reforms and is gaining momentum is the Mack Penny Plan, proposed by Congressman Connie Mack. In this plan, the Federal Government would have to cut expenses by one penny out of each dollar, using 2011 expenses as a baseline. Each year for six years, an additional penny per dollar would have to be cut. In 2018, a cap on spending of 18% of GDP would be instituted. Both of these plans offer structural reform and would move the nation in the direction of balancing the budget over time without causing chaos.

If these plans, or one similar, cannot be passed, however, TEA Party Republicans should vote no to raising the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling will then act as an instant balanced budget amendment.  It is not the preferable way, but it is preferable to the same old smoke and mirrors approach from Washington that has put us in this mess to begin with. For President Obama to get the 2.4 trillion dollar debt limit increase he needs to get through the 2012 election, TEA Party Republicans must stand firm on what the nation needs: no tax increases, structural reform (real cuts and caps), and a balanced budget amendment.

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

In the same editorial, Rep. Duncan also emphasized the importance of reforms,saying, “Reforms like a Balanced Budget Amendment coupled with spending caps and significant spending cuts are the type of revolutionary reforms that can prevent our children and grandchildren from inheriting mountains of debt.” This quote is a summary of the Cut, Cap, and Balance approach being championed by Sen. DeMint and others. Along with immediate cuts and an eventual Constitutional amendment, a spending cap would limit the government to spending no more than say, 20%, of annual Gross Domestic Product. For example, if GDP was 15 trillion dollars, 20% of that would limit the budget to 3 trillion dollars.

The difference between Rep. Duncan and Sen. DeMint, however, is that Sen. DeMint has indicated that he will vote to raise the debt ceiling as long as it is tied to Cut, Cap, and Balance, whereas Rep. Duncan has made a flat out declaration that he will vote against raising the debt ceiling. Both men share the goal of reining in spending and paying down the deficit. The question, of course, is which approach is better.

It is worth noting that we did not get into this situation overnight, and it is truly a bipartisan problem. We have run up the deficit under both a Republican and Democratic Administration, and under both a Republican and Democratic Congress. The deficit can be attributed in part to two recessions, which have reduced revenues, one in the early 2000s and the Great Recession of the past few years. Other reasons for the deficit include increased defense spending during two wars, rising costs in Medicare and Medicaid, interest on the ever-growing deficit, the 2009 Stimulus package, and the passage of Medicare Part D.

Rep. Duncan’s position has the advantage of being simple, bold, and immediate. Starting in August, the Federal government would have to cut over 40% of its expenditures in order to pare anticipated obligations of about $300 billion down to anticipated revenues of about $170 billion. The appeal of this approach is that it would stop the deficit from getting any worse, and force the political leaders to make draconian cuts immediately. However, many people, myself included, believe that immediate and drastic cuts of this type would destabilize the country economically and in other ways.

While Rep. Duncan’s approach has a certain allure to it, I prefer the approach of Sen.DeMint, who holds out the threat of refusing to vote to raise the debt ceiling unless structural reforms are made simultaneously. The Cut, Cap, and Balance approach will involve immediate cuts in the short term, but it will also cap spending at a certain percentage of GDP until the Balanced Budget amendment can be ratified by three-fourths of the states, which might take a few years. My preference for this approach lies in the adage that we did not get into this mess overnight, and we cannot get out of it overnight. We have been building a structural deficit for years and it is going to take structural reforms to correct it. The current debt-ceiling crisis, stressful as it is, actually provides Congress with a great opportunity to make the structural changes that will set us on the road to fiscal responsibility.

The most important of these reforms is a Balanced Budget amendment, similar to what South Carolina and other states operate under. A Balanced Budget amendment would force not only cuts, but additional structural changes. During the process of ratification, the nation and its leaders would have time to come to terms with both the painful cuts as well as the entitlement reforms that are going to have to take place.

Rep. Duncan does not want to kick the can down the road, and that is laudable. But I hope he will reconsider his position and vote to raise the debt ceiling if it is tied to Cut, Cap, and Balance. His vote to raise the debt ceiling is the best leverage he has to pass the structural reforms that are the long-term solution to what is a thorny political problem.

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

Many people will discount this column immediately, either because they reject the idea of judgment or else they do not wish to think about it. But I raise the issue for consideration anyway for those who believe in a righteous God and would take some time to consider what God’s righteousness might mean for America. Does God indeed ever judge nations in this life? Would God judge America or is it possible even that God is judging America?

We don’t have to read too far in the Bible before we encounter the concept of judgment as displayed through Noah and the flood. Not long after that we come across the account of God raining down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. The pages of the Bible describe many instances of God’s judgment on nations, even on God’s own people when they turn from God. Although the scriptures reveal God as compassionate, gracious, and slow to anger, they also demonstrate that judgment is real.

It is only natural that we concentrate on the attributes of God that relate to mercy, forgiveness, and salvation. That is the heart of the good news embodied by Jesus Christ, and in fact, the story of redemption is woven throughout the Bible from beginning to end. But when we focus on grace and mercy to the exclusion of sin and judgment, we are in danger of creating a false reality. There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that God no longer brings judgment on individuals and nations in this life, and in fact the words of both Jesus and Paul indicate otherwise.

For those who accept the possibility of God’s judgment in the here and now, the difficulty lies in understanding what brings about God’s judgment, and in distinguishing His acts of judgment from the manifold effects of sin in a fallen world. These are very difficult matters, about which people are certain to disagree. And yet, the great questions of this life cannot be overlooked simply because they are difficult.

In the course of American history, slavery stands out to many as the preeminent example of national sin and God’s judgment. In one of his many writings on slavery, Thomas Jefferson said, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever . . .” A few generations later, the Civil War erupted. Abraham Lincoln, after four years of civil war, said this in his second inaugural address, “If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, . . . and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

Whether Lincoln actually believed the Civil War was God’s judgment on the nation, or was simply posing the question, he deliberately made it a part of the public discourse. Furthermore, he chose to do so at the height of national pain and suffering, when hundreds of thousands of casualties had already taken place. Personally, I do not believe that Lincoln was engaging in idle speculation; it was a serious reflection set within the most somber time imaginable. In modern day America, I believe we are faced with similar questions and considerations. And so I ask, if we suppose that destroying human life in the womb through abortion is an offense against God, and that the destruction of over 55 million human lives over the past 38 years has created an outcry that has reached heaven, shall we be surprised if God should choose to bring judgment upon our nation? Is it possible that some of the calamities we have endured recently are the beginning of that judgment?

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray

Before considering the Gaddafi bombings, let’s commend several aspects of the operation in Pakistan that killed bin Laden. First, the soldiers who carried out the mission did a great job. Although they apparently met very little resistance, that could not be known in advance. They were certainly risking their lives and their bravery makes us proud. The overwhelming success of a mission that was undoubtedly far more complex than most of us can understand is a testament to both their training and professionalism, as well as that of all the support personnel in the background.

Second, President Obama chose to kill bin Laden in a way that allowed for removal and verification of his body. That was an important decision, since our intelligence experts were not absolutely sure that it was bin Laden in the compound. Going in on the ground was much riskier than simply bombing the compound and hoping that bin Laden was there and that he was killed. The President made a call that was both correct and courageous, and deserves commendation.

Third, the intelligence community also deserves our thanks. Many are quick to criticize intelligence failures and eager to condemn tactics they disagree with, but seem ever so slow to recognize and appreciate hard work and success. The CIA and others put together the necessary information that the Pakistani intelligence service claims to be oblivious to in their own backyard. Although the hunt to find bin Laden took almost ten years, in the end the determined course that President Bush put us on to hunt down and find those responsible for 9-11 was successful.

There are aspects to the mission that many have questioned, but most are secondary in nature. These decisions are judgment calls, with pros and cons on both sides, and the criticisms are somewhat akin to Monday-morning quarterbacking. For myself, I find no fault with the decision to kill bin Laden as opposed to capturing him for interrogation, nor with the decision to bury him at sea following positive identification in order to adhere to Islamic customs. In my mind, these decisions had the effect of erasing bin Laden from the scene in a swift and deserving manner, without affording him additional time on the world stage. In addition, by not releasing the photos, bin Laden becomes smaller in death rather than larger; he simply disappears into the deep of the sea, without being heard from or seen again, and that is a good thing.

What is going on in Libya, however, is not such a good thing. NATO forces have bombed Gaddafi compounds in Tripoli three times in three weeks, while at the same time asserting that they are not trying to kill Gaddafi. This is confusing at best, duplicitous at worst, but outside the bounds of the stated mission in either case. The military operation started with the aim of preventing Gaddafi’s forces from undertaking a slaughter, and at the outset President Obama made clear, “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter.”

The goal of preventing a slaughter was quickly achieved, but after that it soon became apparent that the rebel forces were not organized and powerful enough to defeat Gaddafi’s military and take control of the country. In ensuing days, NATO began using air power in an offensive, not defensive, capacity to try and tilt the civil war in favor of the rebel forces. Even that has not been enough, however, and so now NATO is target bombing Gaddafi’s compounds, in hopes that his government will collapse if he is killed.

Back in March, President Obama said Gaddafi must go, and it is obvious that NATO forces intend to make that sentiment a fact. The stated goal of the military mission has changed, if not in word, in fact. So here we are, despite protestations to the contrary, clearly involved in regime change, trying to overthrow Gaddafi by force. After that happens, are we then responsible to repair Libya and engage in another nation-building exercise? And if not, what then is the plan to insure that something or someone worse than Gaddafi does not arise? If we are not there for the long haul, then what exactly are we doing in the midst of a civil war in Libya?

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray