A World of Change

“When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3

In case you haven’t noticed, our world has dramatically changed. It wasn’t long ago that it would have been unthinkable that nearly 40 million unborn children would be murdered in America. There was a time when kids could pray in public schools. Nativity scenes dotted the lawns of county courthouses and municipal parks—without protest. Marriage was strictly a guy-girl arrangement. And you could even pray in Jesus’ name at graduation ceremonies.

I’m not interested in being like the grump who said, “In my life I’ve seen a lot things change and quite frankly I’ve been against them all!” But if you are talking about changing the face of America to the point where God is out and everything else is in, then I have a problem with that kind of change. My problem is wondering how to handle my heart and attitudes. Wondering how to live and respond in a world where the foundations of righteousness are being eroded on nearly every front.

How do we, as followers of Jesus, process right and wrong in a world that tells us there are no absolutes? How do we proclaim that Jesus alone is what people really need—that He is the “way and the truth” (John 14:6)—when most people no longer believe that there is such a thing as true truth?

You don’t have to be an industrial-strength theologian to realize that the current thought patterns of most Americans fly in the face of what we hold to be true. If there are no absolutes, you can forget about the Ten Commandments. If nothing is ever right or wrong, there is no sin and no need for a Savior. It’s easy to see that believing in what God tells us about righteousness, truth, and godly living leaves us marginalized and outdated. So our hearts cry out with David: “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

Let’s start with knowing what not to do. Notice that David didn’t wring his hands in despair. He didn’t “flee like a bird to [the] mountain” (Psalm 11:1). Instead, he decided to take refuge in the Unchanging One. His confidence was bolstered by the fact that God was on His holy throne and that His eyes were well aware of what was going on. Reminded of the ultimate judgment that God would pour out on wickedness, David knew that, in the face of unsettling change, staying on course with God is indeed the best and safest alternative. Looking at all the change from God’s point of view, he realized that though the change seemed overwhelming, God is still very much in charge and ultimately victorious.

Why would any of us want to go soft on God and His truth in order to feel more “with it,” when we know that the “with it” party train is headed for a disastrous train wreck? So, let’s quit all the hand wringing and feeling sorry for ourselves. Let’s cheer up, knowing that the things that can’t change—such as God’s righteous eternal reign—are still in place!

You can go with the change if you choose. I’m going with my changeless God!

YOUR JOURNEY…

• Has the changing philosophies of our world changed your approach to life, sin, and righteousness in any way? Be specific.
• What are some things that God loves and some things He hates? Do you love what He loves and hate what He hates?
• Are you willing to take a few hits for God because you stand with Him and His truth? To what extent? In what ways was Jesus unwavering in His willingness to take a hit for you in this ungodly world?
• Have you expected this changing, increasingly godless world to be a friend of Jesus? Read what Jesus had to say to us in John 16:33, and rejoice!

http://getmorestrength.org/daily/a-world-of-change/

If God Doesn’t Judge Us, He’ll Have to Apologize to Sodom

I have to admit that when Obama “won” re-election I became more depressed than Madonna’s audience was when they were forced to watch her strip the other night. For God’s sake, Madonna, put some material on that mess, material girl. I guess she’s going to follow Cher’s path and torture us with her exhibitionism ‘til she takes the big dirt nap. Like a virgin? Yeah … right. More like a sturgeon. Hang it up, Madge … you’re scaring the children. Anyway, back to my post-election depression.

As I was saying, giddy I was not that Obama secured a second term via Fieldworks, entitlement mooks and the sponge-brained propaganda swillers of the ludicrous Left … but he did. And for that I must concede that if there is a God and this God is defined by the contents of the sacred Scripture, then this God must be really ticked off at the U.S. because He allowed, in His sovereignty, for us to be saddled with four more years of an administration that blows worse than Hurricane Sandy.

Yep, for those who take their cue from the Bible, you must have noticed that anytime God wanted to wake His wayward nation the heck up because they were belligerently ignoring His statutes, He usually appointed a crappy leader who brought their nation down to Chinatown through bad dictates.

Sure, God sometimes plagued His contumacious people with frogs or hemorrhoids or let enemy nations batter them unmercifully, but on many occasions He simply let them be governed by a daft king, some Moronosaurus Rex who ignored God’s ways and led Israel into a moral and economic ditch. That’s right. You heard me. God allowed it to happen. Not El Diablo, but God.

Personally, I don’t know why God hasn’t whooshed us completely off the map by now. I do know that if He doesn’t kick our backside for us showing Him our backside that—forgive me Lord—He owes Sodom and Gomorrah a big apology.

So, what can we do? Here are five musts that’ll get us on a decent footing with our compass pointing true north again.

1. As people of faith, we can quit sucking our thumb in the fetal position and wetting our big Christian diaper. God never promised us a rose garden—especially when our nation snubs its nose at His commands. It’s going to get rough, so I suggest putting on a cup and quit crying like a wuss.

2. Before we go on whining and moaning about the Left’s wantonness, we’d better make dang certain that our house is in order, eh Church Lady?

3. We might want to recommit our lives to God and our God-honoring founding docs and not give any wannabe leader who does not hold our Constitution in the highest esteem, on the left or right, our hearts and votes. Duh.

4. All the Pollyanna Christians out there who voted for this anti-biblical mess, you should be ashamed and hit yourself in the head with a sledgehammer. Repeatedly.

5. Lather, rinse and repeat steps one through four.

Look, the only hope I hold out for America is that God, at the end of the day, is extremely merciful. And therein lies my solitary confidence because we deserve to get our clock cleaned for how we’ve behaved and not receive a second chance.

In my obnoxious opinion I believe He’s going to allow us to sweat it for a few more years just to be certain that our repentance isn’t specious and our commitment to His governance is steadfast. I think that He thinks we’re full of it and truly don’t want to go His way, and the only way to ferret us out is to see if we’ll stick with His program over time or if we will simply cave in and bow and kiss the ring of stale statism.

And that, my friend, is a story that’s yet to be told.

Check out my latest video on how Allen West got scammed by Obama’s Fieldworks.

Doug Giles

Doug Giles is the Big Dawg at ClashDaily.com. Watch him on ClashTV. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. And check out his NEW BOOK, Raising Boys Feminists Will Hate.

http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/11/18/if_god_doesnt_judge_us_hell_have_to_apologize_to_sodom/page/full/

Sexting with the Stars

Washington, DC – For two months, the so-called mainstream media all but ignored the Sept. 11 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in four dead Americans. What actions the Obama administration took before, during and after the bloody assaults on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost should have been a legitimate election issue. But the Romney campaign only raised the disaster once — and then avoided it like an outbreak of the Ebola virus.

 

Now that the election is decided, the Fourth Estate is on the story. Though the president never mentioned the Benghazi debacle in his prepared remarks at this week’s press conference — his first since last March — fallout from the fiasco in Libya was finally topic number one for the potentates of the press. Of course the question wasn’t, “What did you know and when did you know it?” Instead, the lead off question, posed by Ben Feller of the Associated Press, was: “Can you assure the American people that there have been no breaches of national security or classified information in the scandal involving Generals Petraeus and Allen?” The follow up was about whether the “commander in chief and the American people should have been told that the CIA chief was under investigation before the election.”

So rather than focus on incompetence, misfeasance and/or malfeasance leading up to, in the midst of, and following a deadly terror attack – President Obama gets a pass by claiming that “There’s an ongoing investigation” and that he didn’t “want to comment on the specifics of the investigation.”

It was a brilliant, audacious diversion. The “reporters” present didn’t even question the veracity of Obama’s claim that “we’re not supposed to meddle in, you know, criminal investigations and that’s been our practice.” Perhaps they have simply forgotten how he used executive privilege to cover up the details of Operation Fast and Furious and the murder of another American — Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

The president did pontificate about “FBI protocols” and “certain procedures that both the FBI follow or DOJ follow (sic) when they’re involved in these investigations.” All this served to cleverly shift the focus from O-Team culpability for death and destruction in Benghazi to what really captures the attention of the media: a salacious sex scandal involving the CIA Director, our senior NATO commander in Afghanistan, at least two attractive women, an FBI agent who sends shirtless images of himself over the Internet and lots of torrid emails. If I wrote plot lines like this for video games and novels, my editors and producers would tell me to come up with more realistic scenarios.

Tawdry aspects of the Petraeus affair fascinate our media elites and distract from far more important work. Some of it even landed in my lap. On Tuesday, Activision-Treyarch released their new, astoundingly successful video game, “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.” Within hours of the launch, I was receiving calls, text messages, tweets and emails asking if I’m offended by my likeness appearing in the same video game with that of David Petraeus.

The short answer is, no. “Call of Duty: Black Ops II” is fictional, as are most of the characters — even the villains. I was able to work with the producers on developing the game scenario, participate in the story and make commercial endorsements. I last interviewed General Petraeus when he was ISAF commander and I was on assignment in Afghanistan for Fox News. We talked on and off camera about real special operations and did not discuss the video game. In retrospect, I don’t know him as well as I thought. But I am certain the prurient fascination with “sex and the stars” is a distraction from the vital need to get the truth about what really happened at our diplomatic mission in Libya — and taking steps to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

That’s crucial because Obama’s Arab Spring is rapidly degenerating into an explosive Islamist winter. Radical websites and propaganda organs are trumpeting U.S. weakness and disarray. Calls for martyrs to attack American military and diplomatic posts overseas have increased five-fold since Benghazi. That may not be as sexy as military-mistress dalliances, but it’s a lot more important.

Not surprisingly, this line of thought does not appeal to all callers. Instead, some want to concentrate on similarities between between “Call of Duty: Black Ops II” and my new novel, “Heroes Proved.” There are some. Both the novel and the game are set in the future. Both deal with the threat of global terror and realistic unforeseen threats, unexpected challenges, unwanted dangers and unpredictable outcomes. But the main characters and story line in the game and the book are unique to each. General David Petraeus is in “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.” He’s not in “Heroes Proved.” I’m in both. Those who want to see how they differ will have to play the game and read the book.

Oliver North

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist, the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel, the author of the new novel Heroes Proved and the co-founder of Freedom Alliance, an organization that provides college scholarships to the children of U.S. military personnel killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Join Oliver North in Israel by going to www.olivernorthisrael.com.

http://townhall.com/columnists/olivernorth/2012/11/17/sexting_with_the_stars/page/full/

Are We Puritans?

With Thanksgiving fast approaching, it is time to talk about Puritans — but not the crew who fled England for the New World and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony back in the 17th century. No, let’s talk about the modern Puritans: we the American people.

The United States is considered a puritanical society by many Western nations. For example, they can’t believe we hassle public servants like Gen. David Petraeus because he had a mistress. In France, if a powerful man doesn’t have a mistress, he’s considered a wimp. In Italy, they elected Silvio Berlusconi, who allegedly puts together old-fashioned Roman-type orgies and brags about it.

You may remember the outcry in Western Europe over the impeachment of President Clinton. They couldn’t believe it over there. Lying about sex? In some countries, that’s the national pastime.

So the question is this: Are we Americans basically puritanical? Throwbacks to the days when Cotton Mather was hunting witches in Salem?

The answer, surprisingly, is yes to some degree. While it’s true that secular forces are whittling away traditional standards of behavior, we Americans still expect some decorum from our elected officials.

If you’re a rock or film star or play professional sports, we expect you to cat around and do self-destructive things. But if we count on you to protect us, like Petraeus did, we want your full attention. Part of the outcry over Clinton’s behavior was that it took place in the Oval Office, right beneath portraits of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Turning the most powerful room in the world into a Motel 6 is not acceptable to most Americans.

The truth is that many powerful guys have fooled around while working for the people: Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Warren Harding to name just a few. Grover Cleveland even fathered a child outside of marriage. We all know these things happen. But we don’t want them to happen, or at least most of us don’t. I can’t speak for San Francisco.

That may be because American tradition is based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, and that tradition has served us well. Honesty and loyalty are still esteemed values in most parts of this country. When the defenders of Bill Clinton wailed that it was “just about sex,” they were wrong. In cases where powerful people get caught in compromising situations, there is always more to it than a physical act.

I am deeply saddened that Petraeus is no longer protecting this nation. He is a patriot and a brilliant warrior in the cause of freedom. Frankly, I don’t care what the general does on his personal time. It is a damn shame he had to resign.

We are all sinners, but here’s what comes along with that: You always pay for the sin. Unfortunately, all of us would suffer along with the general, and that is why he had to go. If the folks trust you, don’t burn them.

Bill O’Reilly

Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of “Who’s Looking Out For You?” and Pinheads and Patriots.

http://townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/2012/11/17/are_we_puritans/page/full/

Are you really pro-life? By Chris Johnson

One of the things that’s the hardest to understand about atrocities like the Holocaust or the Rwanda genocide or other ethnic “cleansing” atrocities is the question of how the ordinary, uninvolved citizen allowed it to happen. When your neighbors are being pulled into the streets and butchered or hauled off by police and never returning, how do you just go on with your life? It’s difficult to comprehend how those people just sat back and allowed it to happen when we are now part of one of the most civil societies known to man.

But maybe it’s not so hard to understand after all. According to a new Rasmussen poll, 54% of voters now call themselves pro-choice, while only 38% identify as pro-life.

So, that’s pretty depressing, huh? Sounds like those of us who see unborn babies as people are now in the minority.

Except we’re not. Rasmussen polled voters, but are you ready to be sick to your stomach? Gallup released a poll of the general public in May of this year stating that the pro-life position is actually more popular than the pro-choice position. By nine points, 50% to 41%.

That should even make pro-choicers sick. That means that millions of people who recognize  a yet- to-be-born baby as a person couldn’t be bothered to go draw a line on a piece of paper to possibly save those little people’s lives.

Once every four years we get an opportunity to elect leadership that finds dismembering babies to be heinous and put an end to the practice, but many of the people who recognize that that is occurring in America can’t be bothered even to vote.

Let’s look at those numbers for a second. The population of the USA today is 311 million, so if 50% of Americans are pro-life, that comes to about 155 million. And, according to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, about 126 million out the 311 million Americans voted. 38% of the 126 million voters would equal roughly 48 million pro-life voters.

Now, Rasmussen‘s poll was of likely voters, not of actual voters and, of course, the 155 million pro-lifers in America are not all eligible voters. So there’s quite a bit of wiggle room to my math, but no matter how much it wiggles there’s no getting past the fact that tens of millions of pro-life Americans couldn’t turn out to vote to put an end to what they believe (and I agree) is killing babies. And many may have voted for the guy who whole-heartedly supports it.
Is it so easy to condemn the Germans who watched the Holocaust happen and did nothing when many Americans are doing the exact same thing now?

http://www.americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1606

A Nation’s Songs: Why the USA Went Gay

When asked whether favorable portrayals of gay characters on shows like “Glee,” “Modern Family” and “The New Normal”  had changed their views on gay “marriage,” twenty-seven percent of respondents—or over eighty percent of those whose views had changed—said that they were more in favor of gay “marriage.”

Says pollster John Penn, that’s due especially to the influx of young voters who grew up watching these shows.

“Views on gay marriage are totally defined by age,” says Penn. “Almost twice as many voters under 35 say these shows made them more in favor of gay marriage. . .”

Translation: The hearts and minds of Americans—especially our young people—are being changed when it comes to same-sex “marriage” and homosexual practice because of entertainment, not arguments.

Read More: http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20790

http://americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1602

This will definitely be interesting to watch, just to see if Obama will omit “so help me God” from the oath. (trinityspeaks)

President Barack Obama will be taking the oath of office  for the second time on Jan. 21, 2013. And atheists want him to do so without  mentioning “God” and without a Bible.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent Obama a letter following his  re-election, asking him to reject the way “this country politicizes  religion.”

“When you stand to reaffirm your oath, do so using the language of the  Founders. Eliminate the religious verbiage. While you’re at it, why not place  your hand on the Constitution instead of a bible?” FFRF attorney Andrew L.  Seidel wrote in the letter.

The words “so help me God” are not included in the oath as prescribed by the  Constitution, the organization  argues. The Constitution also does not require the president to place his hand  on a Bible when taking oath, FFRF adds.

When Obama took office in 2009, he repeated after Justice John Roberts: “I,  Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear that I will execute the Office of  President of the United States faithfully and will to the best of my ability  preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me  God.”

FFRF argues that “so help me God” violates the Constitution as it alienates  the nonreligious, which the organization believes is the future of America.

Since this is Obama’s second term, FFRF says he is not “beholden to any  future constituency.”

“This term is a chance to do something that no president in recent memory has  done: reach out to secular Americans. In the past, that might have been  politically costly. But this recent election shows  that it will be politically costly not to reach out to secular America,” FFRF  wrote. “We are the future. Use this second term to build a legacy by rejecting  the way this country politicizes religion.”

Atheist Michael Newdow tried to take the issue (“so help me God”) to court  but was refused a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

The FFRF doesn’t plan to file any lawsuit but is imploring the president to  honor the “secular intent of the oath.”

Atheist Hemant Mehta doesn’t believe it’s a big deal or that any real harm  would be done if Obama does recite “so help me God.”

But, he argues, “every time we let something like this slip, the Religious  Right adds it to their giant list of Ways to Trick People Into Thinking We’re a  Christian Nation. Let’s not let the occasion pass without at least posing a  challenge.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-ask-obama-to-ditch-so-help-me-god-bible-in-presidential-oath-84954/#IrfvWuUCl0uQXtfP.99

Gay Marriage at the Ballot Box

SUPPORTERS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE have reason to cheer after last week’s election. Supporters of democratic self-government, even those of us who oppose gay marriage, do too.

On Nov. 6, for the first time ever, voters in three states – Maine, Maryland, and Washington – redefined marriage by popular vote. In Minnesota, residents said no to a constitutional amendment enshrining the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. There is no denying the significance of these results: Previously the issue had gone to the ballot in 32 states, and in all 32 same-sex marriage was defeated. Gay-marriage advocates have insisted for years that it is outrageous to put what they consider a question of civil rights to a vote, but going 4-and-0 on Election Day presumably made the outrage a lot easier to swallow.

In nearly all of America, of course, marriage still means what it has always meant. Obviously a once-settled consensus has been changing, and last Tuesday may eventually prove to have been a tipping point. At the moment, however, there is no new consensus and it’s anything but clear that the battle to redefine the core institution of human society is a done deal. The votes in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota – Democratic strongholds all – were close, and in each one Barack Obama got a lot more votes than gay marriage did. Even in four deep-blue states, in other words, many voters who wanted to see the president re-elected drew the line at same-sex marriage.

Plainly the political and philosophical struggle over the definition of marriage isn’t going away any time soon, no matter how much gay-marriage backers wish to declare the issue over. But now that gay activists have turned to the ballot and won, perhaps we can finally dispense with the claim that there is something unjust or illegitimate about deciding a question as momentous as marriage by referring it to the people (or to their elected lawmakers.)

In our democratic republic, we vote on rights all the time. On Nov. 6, citizens in 38 states voted on ballot questions inviting them to legalize marijuana, end the death penalty, ban affirmative action, permit assisted suicide, bar public funding of abortion, reject an individual health-insurance mandate, and eliminate teacher tenure, to mention just a few. The rights of immigrants, of gun owners, of gamblers, of criminals, of union members, of homeowners, of taxpayers – all of them and more have been the subject of ballot initiatives and referendums in recent election cycles. And they in turn are only a drop in the bucket next to the flood of votes routinely taken by legislators – federal, state, and local – that have a direct impact on the rights of individuals and groups.

Resolving thorny legal controversies through the political process can be frustrating and upsetting, all the more so when people feel that their fundamental rights are at stake. But the only alternative is to resolve them through fiat, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in 2003 when it conjured a right to same-sex marriage out of the state constitution. Or as the US Supreme Court did 30 years earlier, when Roe v. Wadepurported to settle the question of abortion by taking it away from voters and legislators. Abortion, you may have noticed, is more unsettled than ever. Stifling the political process rarely leads to democratic harmony.

“Rights should not be put to a vote,” same-sex marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom to Marry, was still insisting the day after the election. But I suspect we’ll be hearing that argument less and less, as activists embark on fresh ballot campaigns to amend the many state constitutions that now block same-sex marriage. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court intervenes, and tries once again to impose a resolution by short-circuiting the workings of democracy.

I don’t claim that voters are always right, or that the people can’t make mistakes. By my lights, voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota made a grave one last week. I believe same-sex marriage is a bad idea. But I also believe that political legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed. “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves,” wrote Thomas Jefferson after a lifetime in public affairs. “If we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.”

Gay marriage shouldn’t be treated as sacrosanct, too lofty for mere politics. Let the debates, the struggles, the compromises, and, yes, the votes continue. Until the people work it out politically, this issue will never be settled.

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.href=”http://www.townhall.com/Secure/Signup.aspx”>Sign up today

http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2012/11/14/gay_marriage_at_the_ballot_box/page/full/

Tozer Devotional-Those Unusual Bereans

Those Unusual Bereans

Legend tells of Procrustes, the Greek bandit, who forced his victims to lie on a certain bed. If they were shorter than the bed they were stretched to bed length; if too long they were lopped off to fit. Old Procrustes would have uniformity, regardless.

. . .

Equality of opportunity should be granted to all; after that everyone is on his own. No institution can add to or take from the original human stuff the student brings to class with him. After years of observation I am forced to conclude that some persons simply cannot profit from their educational opportunities. Beyond providing them with a few items of information they might not otherwise acquire, a college course does them little good. Their years of enforced study leave them without improved tastes, without perspective and without wisdom. Some persons can gain a good education from life; others cannot manage to become educated by life plus long years in the best institutions of higher learning. Yet our educators continue to apply their Procrustean rules to each new generation, stretching and cutting till they achieve a uniformity Mother Nature obviously never intended.

In the field of religion things are no better. Within the holy precincts of the church Procrustes works on, cutting and tugging till everyone looks, thinks and acts like everyone else. To achieve this he must destroy our originality, make us afraid to be different and persuade us that conformity is synonymous with godliness and nonconformity a sin. And this he does with astonishing success.

Experience proves that uniformity almost always degenerates into mediocrity. It is easier to go down to the contented many than to rise above them; it is easier to memorize than to think through; it is easier to imitate than to initiate. . . .

http://www.cmalliance.org/devotions/tozer?id=733

What Went Wrong Last Tuesday

Disbelief is the word that defines the Republican state of mind in the wake of the 2012 re-election of President Barack Obama.

The obvious questions are: “How can Americans have re-elected a president who has presided over an economy where unemployment still hovers at 8 percent ?”

And, “How can Americans have re-elected a president who still doesn’t grasp that his big government policies are what have blocked our economic recovery?”

The Republican Party needs to take responsibility for this disaster.

Nothing in the outcome of this election is a surprise. The realities which produced these election results have been looming before us not for months, but for years.

Yet Republicans have made a point of ignoring it all. Now, “the chickens have come home to roost.”

What are these realities?

The profound changing demographics of the nation. And, the challenge of getting a nation that is already addicted to government off it.

I wrote last April regarding an analysis done by Ron Brownstein in National Journal: “Brownstein estimates that Barack Obama could be re-elected with as little as 39 percent of the white vote. He notes that in 2008, when Obama was elected with just 43 percent of the white vote, it was the first time ever that a presidential candidate was victorious with double digit losses of white voters.”

In a column I wrote a month ago, I noted: “What was once the exception to the rule in America – not being white, not being married, not have traditional views on family, sex, and abortion – is becoming the rule. And these constituencies are becoming sufficiently large to elect a president.”

A nation doesn’t change overnight. Yet, Republicans have been in chronic denial about what has been happening.

Ironically, the Republican political establishment, and particularly this year’s candidate Mitt Romney, presented themselves as the party of businessmen who know how economies work.

Well, businessmen pay attention to their markets. They make sure they understand their product and present it clearly and that they stay attuned to their customer base.

Republican Party operatives ignored both -clear definition of their product and savvy marketing to a diverse base of customers.

Instead, they chose wishful thinking. Simply hope that more and more white voters will turn out and vote Republican to make up for their shrinking part of the electorate.

When polls showed what was really happening, these same Republican operatives chose to deny them too, charging they were biased.

We can win our country back.

Low and middle-income blacks and Latinos are hurt disproportionately by a sluggish economy that can only be revived by less government spending and regulation, and low taxes. They just need someone to care to focus on their communities and explain these dynamics to them.

They need to get their kids out of public schools, a cause which only conservatives champion.

And they need to understand that they have everything to gain by getting out of the entitlement programs that the left tells them they need.

The last thing low-income earners need is to pay payroll taxes when they could save this money and build wealth. And the last thing they need is government bureaucrats running their health care.

When the only message blacks and Latinos get is from left wing politicians and media telling them they need government to take care of them, what can we expect but what we just saw in this election?

Business is also about knowing that there is no short cut around hard work.

Republicans must do more than showcase a few black and brown faces at their convention every four years and call this outreach.

Conservatives must get into black and Latino communities, talk to their clergy and community leaders, and explain how conservative policies of limited government and traditional values will save their communities and our nation.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam‘s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can do About It.

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2012/11/12/conservatives_can_win_over_blacks_and_latinos/page/full/