A NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION?

The end of one year and the dawn of the next is a time to inventory what we have accomplished and what remains to be done. It is a time of resolutions and a time for fresh new beginnings. It gives us a new slate and an opportunity for a fresh start.

At this time next year our forty-fourth President will be preparing to appoint a new cabinet, writing an inaugural address, and overseeing the transition to new leadership for the executive branch of the federal government. One third of the United States Senate will have just been elected, as will the entire House of Representatives.

Here in South Carolina we will also be electing the entire General Assembly -- all the Members of the House and Senate. For these reasons, among many others, the new year is a critical crossroads in our lives as Americans. Candidates are particularly sensitive to the will of the voters, and the year ahead offers “we the people” the opportunity to powerfully influence the direction of our state and nation and to shape the policies that will determine the kinds of lives our children and grandchildren will have.

As I think back on the great policy issues of 2007, one thing stands out. The issue of border security and illegal immigration became a national firestorm. Americans rose up as they have on very few issues to demand that our borders be secured and our laws be enforced. Having been badly burned on their amnesty bill and its “paths to citizenship” for law breakers, one would think that lawmakers would have learned a lesson. Unfortunately, some of them came back again and again trying to achieve the same end.

In the days before Christmas, as Congress was finalizing a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, lawmakers passed a bill laden with more than eleven thousand pork barrel projects (they call them “earmarks”) worth approximately $20 billion. These projects receive almost no public scrutiny and debate.

Earlier this year Congress and the President had pledged to cut the number of pork barrel projects in half, from the 2005 peak of 13,492 to 6,746. But old habits die hard. Congress was, however, astonishingly successful at cutting one major project and its $3 billion price tag -- the border fence that Congress had previously approved and that the American people have been demanding!

Of course, efforts are underway to restore funding for the border fence. The organization that has probably done more than any other in mobilizing public opinion in support of border security and enforcing our immigration laws, NumbersUSA, has already collected volumes of signatures asking President Bush, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid to restore funds for the border fence.

When one sees the U. S. Congress boldly defying the will of the American people, it strongly suggests that there is very strong counter-pressure from highly organized special interest groups. Legislators have determined that small, well-funded, special interests, perhaps with a financial interest in lots of cheap labor flooding into the country, can be of more help to them politically than can the vast, disorganized citizens they are supposed to represent.

There is a lesson here for us all. We need to take our responsibilities as citizens and voters very seriously. We need to challenge our representatives when they ask for our votes, and we need to hold them accountable if they betray us. A good New Years resolution would be to register on the NumbersUSA website, take advantage of the free faxes they provide for contacting the Congress, and make sure your representatives truly do represent you, and not some special interest that wants to pick your pockets for spending you oppose.

The year ahead is an exciting opportunity for all of us, working together, to ensure that our state and nation have leadership worthy of our families, our history, and our ideals.

My family and I wish you a New Year full of joy, peace, and hope. May God richly bless you in 2008 and beyond.

A JOYOUS AND BLESSED CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

There was a recent news story that British primary schools have been voluntarily giving up what had been a staple of their Christmas season for generations, the school nativity play. It was reported that only one in five schools are planning to perform the traditional nativity play this year. To American readers, the idea of schools making any mention of Christmas, faith, or allowing prayer and Scripture reading has become strange and foreign. And it is particularly sad to see such things voluntarily abandoned elsewhere when they have been forcibly forbidden by court order in our own country.

The news story explained that while most British parents want the tradition of nativity plays to continue in British schools, many school officials have decided to abandon the plays out of concern over “not offending anyone.” Sound familiar?

Because expressions of faith have been stripped from America’s public schools, it does not seem as shocking when Christmas displays are stripped from our courthouse squares, the word “Christmas” is eliminated from retail advertising, sales people are forbidden to wish customers a “merry Christmas,” and public officials celebrate “winter holidays.” In recent weeks there has even been controversy over whether it is appropriate for political leaders to wish their constituents and voters a “merry Christmas.”

Were it not so commercially lucrative, all celebration of Christmas would probably be eliminated everywhere but inside our churches. We are doing what the British schools are doing, surrendering the public square to a small number of secularists aided by the ACLU, and convincing ourselves that even though the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christian, it would be impolite to let it show.

The judges and educators that have banned even the reading of a psalm at a school assembly program or a prayer at graduation will tell us that one of the reasons for the chronic failure and increasing violence in our schools today is that too many students lack “self esteem.” Could there possibly be a connection between that lack of self-esteem and the fact that schools prevent a student from talking about where he or she came from, what the purpose of one’s life is, and where we are headed?

The acknowledgment that one can be the adopted child of not merely a king, but the King of Kings, who loved us before the world began and who “so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have life eternal” can do wonders for a child’s “self-esteem.”

Let us remember during this holy and happy season that “Nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.” Let us joyfully reclaim our culture, return to the roots of our nation’s founding, proclaim the good news, and celebrate the life-changing, world-changing event when “God became man and dwelt among us” as the Light of the World.

My family and I wish you and all your loved ones a happy, joyous and blessed Christmas. May God richly bless you and yours this Christmas and throughout the New Year!

THE PRIMARY PROBLEM WITH PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES

The presidential election that has been underway for over a year, and will continue for nearly another year, has raised many important issues and generated needed discussion about problems confronting our country. However, it has also made clear to many Americans that our system of choosing party nominees and electing Presidents is itself a problem that needs fixing.

Our presidential elections have become far too long, too expensive, too divisive, and they divert attention, time and money from problems on which our political leaders, and all Americans, should focus and work together. They have also become the near-exclusive domain for the wealthiest or most prominent Americans with ambitions to hold the highest office in the land.

Within the lifetime of many adults today, candidates for President did not even announce their candidacies until the spring of the presidential election year. We used to have a primary system that started out slowly, with primaries in small states like New Hampshire, West Virginia and South Carolina, where good, unknown political leaders without enormous amounts of cash, could hire a bus, travel from town to town, and become known.

This sorting-out process in the smaller states allowed merit to be recognized and little-known candidates of merit to become known, thus broadening the field beyond the very wealthy and the more prominent leaders from the largest states. The primary season, having begun in March in small states, culminated in June in large states like New York and California.

Unfortunately, this sensible system has now been destroyed by large states competing against smaller ones to be among the first to hold primaries. Instead of a slow, testing process that moved from state to state, “super primaries” requiring hundreds of millions of dollars are now held in January and February of the presidential election year.

But today many recognize that the party nominees will be determined within the one month gap between “Iowa caucus day” on January 3rd and “super primary day” on February 5th when voters in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah will go to the polls to choose their party’s nominee.

With one-half of every four year election cycle being consumed as it is with highly partisan, national political activity there is an enormous spill-over effect on the Congress, with the parties and their leaders framing issues for the sake of partisan advantage instead of focusing on the best interests of the nation as a whole. This situation has produced a demise of statesmanship.

While most Americans probably would not want to see national elections carried out with strict spending limits within a six week period, as they are in Great Britain, our current system needs to be fixed, and most of our political leaders know it. Even while the current system is enriching political consultants, advertising firms, and the broadcast media, it is creating revulsion, cynicism, or apathy among the general public. I am reminded of a television personality who said, “I never vote; it only encourages them!”

Once our 2008 presidential election is finally over, our next President, senior leaders in Congress, and party leaders should promptly convene a bipartisan commission to advise political parties and office holders on how to restore a sane political process that ensures a level playing field, giving preference to character over cash and policies over partisan gamesmanship.

In these perilous times, there are too many threats facing our nation for us to spend half our time fighting partisan battles that only divide and weaken our nation in the eyes of the world. There may be at least two sides to every issue, but in confronting Islamic jihad and the terrorism that seeks to destroy us, Americans cannot afford to be less than one nation, under God.

ANOTHER DAY OF INFAMY?

Many of our political leaders who supported amnesty for illegal aliens and a “path to citizenship” for law breakers were shocked by the enormous, collective, “no” they received from the American people this year. Concerned that they have been on the wrong side of what most Americans regard as the nation’s greatest threat, many have attempted to make amends by suddenly talking tough about securing the border and enforcing our laws.

New legislation in the Congress now gives us the opportunity to address the immigration crisis with tough new tools. It also gives the tough talkers the opportunity to show the voters that they “got the message.”

Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC) has introduced the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088. The House bill already has 122 cosponsors, including South Carolina Representatives Gresham Barrett and Bob Inglis. The Senate version, S. 2368, is identical and was introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), but thus far has only one cosponsor, Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

The legislation, which already has bipartisan support but little apparent support from South Carolina’s delegation, does those things that our Congressional leaders say they support. Specifically, it:

• Increases the number of Border Patrol agents by 8,000 over five years.
  
  
• Employs the newest technology available, including satellite communication and aerial surveillance.
  
  
• Expands and mandates the use of E-verify, a free program administered by the Department of Homeland Security that enables employers to confirm the legal status of their workers and job applicants. The bill will phase in all employers over four years.
  
  
• Allows for information-sharing between the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to close all loopholes and ensure that no illegal aliens are eligible for Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.
  
  
• Expands the detention capacity and resources for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  
  
• Increases the number of Federal District Court Judges so as to expedite deportation hearings for lawbreakers.
  

We have all heard the tough, new rhetoric about border security and about enforcing immigration laws, but only two members of South Carolina’s Congressional delegation have yet signed on to this legislation that has the bipartisan support of 124 of their colleagues.

The problems and expenses created by our undefended southern border, and the opportunity it offers terrorists, cannot go unaddressed any longer. Sixty-six years ago today on December 7, 1941, our nation suffered the first attack on its own territory. Our President directed that all measures be taken for our defense and assured the republic that “we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.”

It is time that our leaders remember those words and recognize the damage being done to us through a passive attack by tens of millions of scofflaws. The American people are just as willing to address today’s prolonged national attack as they were following that sudden “Day of Infamy” in 1941.