The first primaries in the United States mid-term elections take place today in many states. They will be an indicator of what might happen in the fall to reverse the course of the current administration and its “plans” for the American nation.

I agree with many that the 2010 elections are the most important mid-term contest of our lifetime. Why? Because our nation has never been closer to a difficult-to-reverse economic meltdown and the tyranny of a what Newt Gingrich calls a “secular-socialist state.”

We need a great reversal. Today we will either move back toward liberty or sink further into tyranny. I hope we choose wisely all across the nation.

Even the Washington Post sees the hand-writing on the wall–though they spin it as “anti-incumbent sentiment.” No, it’s anti-Obama/Reid/Pelosi/radical Democratic Party sentiment. Here’s their take:

“Tuesday’s voters will drop clues on a variety of questions, about anti-incumbent sentiment, “tea party” power and presidential popularity. Most attention remained focused on Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who made a final appeal to voters in his new party Monday, asking them to extend his 30-year career in Washington. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), Specter’s challenger in the Senate primary, claimed momentum in the closing days of the campaign, and polls showed the race was too close to call.

Specter, who switched parties last year, has the backing of President Obama, Vice President Biden, Gov. Edward G. Rendell and much of the Democratic establishment. But Sestak has run an effective insurgent’s campaign highlighted by a devastating ad that portrayed Specter as a political turncoat motivated to change parties only to save his job.

A Specter loss would be the third defeat for a congressional incumbent in less than two weeks and highlight anti-incumbent sentiment in the country confronting Democrats and Republicans — although switchers often have trouble winning the allegiance of their new party’s rank-and-file. Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) have already been defeated.

But the Specter-Sestak race is only one part of the political mosaic that will be examined after Tuesday’s vote.

In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Nb.), who angered her party’s base by flip-flopping on the “public option” during the health-care debate, was seeking to avoid a runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Halter scheduled 20 stops in 25 hours in the hope of forcing that runoff that his supporters believe would give him a better opportunity to defeat the incumbent.

In Kentucky, Republicans waited to see whether Rand Paul — an ophthalmologist, son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and favorite of the tea party movement — could carry his outsider’s campaign against Trey Grayson, the secretary of state.

Paul had a strong lead in polls. On Monday, Grayson showed the frustration of a candidate who might have thought he would have a relatively easy path to victory, with the endorsements of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) and much of his state’s GOP leaders. He said that Fox News Channel continually promoted his opponent and indirectly suggested that the network had more power within the party than the establishment itself.

The race that might hold the most clues to November, however, played out in rural southwestern Pennsylvania, where voters will fill the vacancy created by the death of Rep. John P. Murtha (D). Polls showed the race between Democrat Mark Critz, a former aide to Murtha, and Republican businessman Tim Burns to be a tossup.

The culturally conservative district is the only one in the nation that flipped from Democrat to Republican in the 2008 presidential race. And it is exactly the kind of area Republicans must win in November to take control of the House. Each of the national parties has poured more than $1 million into the district.”

As you can tell, the liberal press is a bit nervous.

I’m not. I’m hopeful that a great reversal begins tonight and hits the electoral shores like a giant tsunami on November 2. A significant majority of the American people now understand that the “change” they voted for in 2008 was a terrible mistake. They see clearly that the Obama administration is consistently anti-God, anti-business, anti-freedom, and don’t care what the people think. Newt Gingrich labels this type of governance as “government of the bureaucrats, by the special interests, for the politicians.”

I think he’s right and America is rising up to challenge them. Here’s how we need to proceed with wisdom:

P – We need to pray and fast for God’s mercy and deliverance in our land. We are not ultimately facing a human enemy in this fight, but supernatural powers with powerful strongholds and a desire to enslave and destroy the peoples of the earth. I have set aside every Tuesday this year to intercede for the 2010 elections. We need to bind and confuse the demonic forces, to repent of our sins and apathy, and pray for righteous men and women to arise to positions of leadership. I ask you to join with millions of others that are praying for God’s mercy and favor in the 2010 United States mid-term elections.

R – We must read extensively and keep up on the issues and people involved in them. Knowledge is power, and we live in a time period in which we should be the most educated and enlightened people of all time. Besides a vast array of visual media sources, we have numerous books that can educate us on the changes we must make for our future. It’s interesting to me that many godly and conservative leaders are producing great books to guide us at this moment in history. They include:

• Liberty and Tyrannyby Mark Levin. This is one of the most important reads of the past five years. Mark’s fiery passion and constitutional understanding is unparalleled in current academic circles. The great struggle of the 21st century boils down a fight to the death between the forces of liberty (God and his people) and the forces of tyranny (Satan and his man-centered lies).
• Going Rogue by Sarah Palin. The former governor of Alaska and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate’s personal biography was the number one best-seller in America for 2009. That’s for a good reason: it was well-crafted story of a common American who’s now a well-known political celebrity who champions common sense values of faith, family and freedom. Her soon-to-be-released new book, America at Heart,will also top the charts and place her high on the list of presidential candidates for 2012. Don’t believe the nonsense about her lack of experience and intellect. Look at the current White House and longfor the values and wisdom of Gov. Sarah Palin.
• Conservative Victory by Sean Hannity, host of America’s 2nd most-listened-to radio show. Sean gives a balanced read on how the Republicans failed the nation during their years in power and what is the way home to limited government, energy independence, strong defense, free market solutions, and faith and freedom in American life.
• To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine by Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives. Newt is as sound as they come on what ails America and the common sense solutions that can lead us back into greatness as a nation. He understands the spiritual side (notice the word “secular” in the book title), and the economic pitfalls of socialism. He’s our idea guy–and his web-site of American Solutions is worth a look.
• No Apology: The Case for American Greatness by Mitt Romney is also a valuable contribution to the debate about America’s future. The former governor of Massachusetts would make a worthy presidential contender in 2010 because of his strong background in free-market economics and job creation.

A – Actively get involved in your local Tea Party events, issues, and races for public office. I’m attending the launch of a state representative friend tonight in Port Orchard and serving a number of other candidates. Some people have asked me why I’m not running for office this year as it appears that I could win a seat in the WA state legislature. After much prayer I felt that instead of “fishing for myself” I could better use my time to “teach many others how to fish” all over the state of Washington. I’m leading a thrust to raise up godly leadership in all forty-nine legislative districts of our very needy state between now and 2012. What are you doing in this year’s elections? There are myriads of ways to serve,  and every God-loving person needs to report for duty.

Y – You hold the keys to America’s future or that of your own nation. Are you living a passionate and godly life? Do you care about the great issues of our day, or have you given up and decided to lead a life of entertainment and denial?

Now is the time to P.R.A.Y. for a great reversal of spiritual, moral, and economic direction in these United States of America. In another generation, famed evangelist and revivalist Charles Grandison Finney admonished his countrymen with these probing words:

“The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them…Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when we must act differently…God will bless or curse this nation, according to the course Christians take.”

Between now and November 2, 2010 let’s P.R.A.Y. for a great reversal and revival in our land. God wants each one of us to be an answer to our own prayers.

I was surprised and even stunned that a significant number of people of faith–including some close friends–voted for Barack Obama in 2008 for president of the United States.

It’s understandable that many agnostics and atheists voted for the former Illinois Senator. In the past five or six presidential contests people with a secular worldview, by margins of 70-80%, have voted for the Democratic or more liberal nominee. By the same percentages, people with traditional values or faith in God voted Republican or for the nominee who was more conservative in his positions.

But in 2008, many believers crossed the divide and voted for Barack Obama–despite the clear evidence that he opposed everything they hold dear.  In October of that year, I’d written a pre-election piece entitled, “One Hundred Reasons Why I Will Not Vote for Barack Obama.” It seemed pretty straightforward. Obama was anti-Christian on moral issues, anti-freedom on economic issues, pro-Big Government, and weak on national defense.

Another election article analyzed the other side of the ticket–Senator John McCain. Though he was not my first choice for president, he was a war hero, pro-free enterprise, and generally conservative on important issues. However, in that piece I said there was one pre-eminent reason why we should vote for John McCain: He would appoint strict constructionist judges to the US Supreme Court.

Monday was the day that’s Obama’s election came back to haunt those who voted for him–and all of the United States of America. He made his second Supreme Court pick.

Meet Solicitor General Elena Kagan–a liberal attorney with no judicial experience who will likely become the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States. Elena Kagan is fifty. She may serve in that position for the next thirty-to-forty years. If confirmed she would be the youngest judge on the court and cast her influence for decades. She is certainly not constructionist. She’s a legal activist who is anti-military and pro “disadvantaged groups.” That means she believes in the rule of “men” not the rule of “law.”

Elections do have consequences.

Former Attorney General Ed Meese, a former Attorney General under Ronald Reagan released the following statement regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan:

“First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

The American people agree. According to a national post-election 2008 survey of 800 actual voters, the polling company, inc. found that 70% of respondents preferred that judges not base their decisions on personal views and feelings. And according to the latest Quinnipiac University Poll by a 16 point margin more Americans believe the Supreme Court should only consider the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution instead of considering changing times and current realities. And finally, the latest Gallup poll shows that more Americans “would prefer a new Supreme Court justice who makes the court more conservative (42%) over one who would make the Court more liberal (27%).” Let’s hope the Senate gives the American people what they want.”

During the past week in which I was in meetings in the capital regarding the National Day of Prayer, I spent some time with Tony Perkins, the principled and articulate spokesman of the Family Research Council. He’s another voice of sanity that I trust. Here’s his view of Elena Kagan:

“She has the least amount of experience of any nominee in the last three decades. Her judicial experience is zero, as is her real-world experience, having spent most of her career in academia or working as a Democratic Party insider. She did serve on an advisory committee for Goldman Sachs during the financial meltdown of 2007!

Her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School is marked by kicking the military off campus during the height of the Iraq War, a move that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled was wrong-headed. Ms. Kagan’s incredibly hostile view of the military suggests she is out of touch with mainstream sensibilities and obedience to the rule of law.

Recently, in her brief tenure as Solicitor General, she argued that the federal government has the power, under campaign finance laws, to ban certain books and pamphlets. Responding to this argument of Ms. Kagan, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that (proposition) is startling and dangerous.'”

Now she’s about to be elevated to the highest court on the land–all because some of us voted for the wrong president.

Even if you’re not a John McCain fan, let’s back up for a moment and imagine an America where John McCain was president.  If that had happened, here are a few differences we might expect to have seen:

• There would not have been a trillion dollar stimulus package. President McCain wouldn’t have thrown many federal dollars at America’s financial woes. There would have been no earmarks. John McCain has never voted for an earmark is his lengthy Senate career.
• Taxes would be lowered to deal with the recession and the Bush tax cuts would remain in place. This certainly would have positively affected the job market and unemployment. It wouldn’t be stuck at 10-17%.
• The Federal Government would not own General Motors and would not be expanding at breakneck speed. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” would not be in jeopardy and the siege on the family and traditional marriage would be held at bay.

But most importantly, if John McCain had been elected president in 2008 we would already have one new constructionist judge on the US Supreme Court instead of liberal activist Sonia Sodomayor.  And Monday, President McCain would have nominated another.

When confirmed, that nominee would have effectively blocked any semblance of judicial tyranny and even provided the deciding vote that could overturn the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. In the coming years, millions of innocent children would be saved from the cruelty and injustice of abortion. 

That is, if people of faith had voted for John McCain. Instead we have Barack Obama and now Elena Kagan.

Elections have consequences. In this case, very tragic ones indeed.

I’m in Washington, D.C. this week for the National Day of Prayer and other events. This morning I took our sixteen year son, Jason, on a stroll through the US Capitol Building explaining some of the political issues that our nation faces.

It takes a great deal of discernment to navigate today’s political landscape. The mainstream media is not doing its job of asking hard questions and playing devil’s advocate as was once its calling. Many media elites are in bed with the liberal-progressive agenda and simply print the party line.

One of the most consequential and confusing subjects of our time is the relationship of Wall Street–big banks and financial institutions–to Washington D.C.  For years we have been led to believe that it is Republicans who support Big Finance and Democrats champion unions and the people.

That’s not been true for years. Conservative Republicans are pro-small-and-big business because they believe in liberty in economics–which also includes the freedom to fail. They were opposed to bailing out the big financial institutions. It is only a handful of Republicans and most of the Democratic Party that have formed an “economic axis of evil” with the Government and Wall Street. The Democrats want control. The Wall Street bankers want security.

This unholy tryst between Wall Street and the Democrats is the real force behind the current discussions on regulatory reform. The liberal media want you to believe that the Obama administration wants to “protect us all” from the greedy predators on Wall Street who are in collusion with the Republicans. We are told that Republicans are “bad” because they’re against reform.

Don’t believe it for a minute. The opposite is true. Barack Obama and the Democrats want increasing control over their Wall Street clientele. Their Wall Street mistresses agree to the arrangement for security purposes–just like any good prostitute to her pimp.

Read the facts below from the Heritage Foundation. Don’t be naive. Be discerning. Jason and I are learning too–and praying for wisdom for our leaders and our people. These are days in which the “mystery of iniquity” is greatly at work.–RB

The Heritage Foundation Morning Bell – 4-23-10

Speaking to an audience of big business and big labor executives (including Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein, Bank of America’s Bruce Thompson and SEIU’s Andy Stern) at New York’s Cooper Union, President Barack Obama noted “the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape” the financial regulation bill “to their special interests.” Obama then admitted, “I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort.” Obama should have saved his breath. Wall Street and big labor lobbyists have already joined forces to make sure the current Senate legislation has become a Wall Street Bailout Bill.

Big labor’s ties to this White House are already well documented. Less known is just how close Obama administration interests align with the big firms that benefit most from the TARP bailout. The Washington Examiner reports that at Goldman Sachs, the nation’s largest investment bank, four of the five in-house lobbyists were Democratic Capitol Hill staffers — the remaining one gave $1,000 to Hillary Clinton last election. And USA Today notes that Goldman Sachs alone has given nearly $900,000 since January 2009 to congressional candidates, with 69% of that cash lining Democrat pockets. Finally, then-candidate Obama collected almost $1 million from Goldman executives and employees in 2008, more than the combined Goldman haul of every Republican running for president, Senate and the House.

So what have Wall Street lobbyists bought with their campaign cash and high priced lobbyists? A bill that gives permanent TARP-like authority to Washington regulators, thus enshrining Washington as a permanent bailout machine. Specifically, the bill:

Creates a protected class of too big to fail firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a “Financial Stability Oversight Council,” charged with identifying firms that would “pose a threat to the financial security of the United States” if they encounter “material financial distress.” While these firms would be subject to enhanced regulation, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk.

Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to “make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.” Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm’s shareholders, the firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the bailout AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs.

Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is “in danger of default” and whose failure would have “serious adverse effects on financial stability.” This determination would be virtually irreversible in court.

Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion “Orderly Resolution Fund” created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees and investors of each firm.

Opens a “line of credit” to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support.

Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of “solvent depository institutions” if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis (“event”) exists.

Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. Derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed. But the Senate bill would require virtually all derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 64% of Americans are not confident that policymakers in Washington know what they’re doing with regards to Wall Street. They have every reason to be concerned. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) tells National Review: “From the beginning, I’ve thought that the deal Goldman Sachs got via Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on their bad bets through AIG kind of stunk. They got $13 billion from AIG last year.” DeFazio doesn’t seem to realize that the bill Obama is pushing would empower Secretary Geithner to repeat the AIG bailout ad infinitum. No need to ever go back to Congress for a new TARP. The Senate bill is a permanent TARP. Which is exactly what Goldman Sachs and the rest of their Wall Street lobbyists wanted all along.