If Santorum’s desperation wasn’t already evident, he demonstrated it last night during the CNN debate in Charleston by taking a swipe at Paul on, of all issues, abortion.

Paul has plenty of controversial positions for mainstream Republicans like Santorum to hammer during debates and on the campaign trail, like his support for ending the federal drug war and halting military interventions overseas. But abortion? Paul is a devout Christian who personally delivered more than 4,000 babies during his career as an obstetrician, introduced the life-defining Sanctity of Life Act, and advocates “effectively repealing” Roe v. Wade by taking abortion out of the federal courts.

It’s difficult to imagine a stronger pro-life position than Paul’s, so Santorum’s attack struck observers as bizarre and risky, considering the ease with which it can be refuted.

“Congressman Paul has a National Right to Life voting record of fifty percent,” Santorum claimed, earning an incredulous look from Paul. “So to go out and say you’re someone who stands up for the right to life — you repeatedly vote against bills on a federal level to promote the right to life…”

Paul wasn’t having it. “I follow what my understanding is of the Constitution,” he patiently explained, noting that violent acts like murder and burglary are handled by the states. “So don’t try to say that I’m less pro-life because I want to be particular about the way we do it…If we would allow the states to write their laws, take away the [federal] jurisdiction by a majority vote in the Congress, you repeal Roe v. Wade overnight instead of waiting year after year to change the court system.”

With that, the crowd cheered wildly, the network cut to a break, and — presumably — Santorum’s face colored in embarrassment.

It’s unclear whether Santorum was confused about Paul’s current National Right to Life (NRLC) rating, or was alluding to an old figure. According to a scorecard on the organization’s website, Paul has a current rating of 100%, and was rated 100% and 80% in the two previous sessions of Congress. Only in 2005-2006 was he rated 55%, and only then for voting against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (probably because of its questionable constitutionality based on a loose interpretation of the commerce clause). In earlier sessions, his ratings ranged from 72% to 95% — hardly an indicator of a weak position on abortion. By contrast, Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) actual rating, contrary to Santorum’s claim, is 0%.

Assuming that the former senator meant to cite the six-year-old 55% figure from the combined sessions of the 109th Congress, his attack was based on a disagreement about one federal law. That’s it.

Of course, an NRLC rating isn’t the fairest way to judge any candidate’s position on abortion, as it simply indicates how often the candidate voted for NRLC-backed legislation during a particular session. The organization favors an all-or-nothing, top-down, federal-level approach to abortion, which is one of the reasons that pro-life conservatives have been losing ground on the issue for decades.

Paul’s constitutional approach, on the other hand, would sidestep the federal courts and enable conservative states to restrict or ban abortion. Under his federal Sanctity of Life Act, which would define life as beginning at conception, the rights of unborn children would be recognized and defended in all fifty states. Admittedly, abortion would probably remain legal in a handful of extremely liberal states, but how many hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved elsewhere? And, for pro-life conservatives, wouldn’t it be preferable for abortion to be legal in only, say, one-fifth of the states, as opposed to being legal in all of them for the foreseeable future?

Perhaps Santorum felt he was being clever by mischaracterizing Paul’s brilliant pro-life solution to abortion on a national stage two days before a primary in a socially conservative state. Or perhaps he just had a brain fart. Either way, he learned a valuable political lesson: Never attack an opponent on one of his strongest issues.

Please leave your questions, comments, and criticisms on DelawarePolitics.net.

When I created ‘Slavens Says’ in the fall of 2009, it wasn’t intended to be a political blog. I had completed a two-year “term” on the News Journal‘s Community Advisory Board several months earlier, which simply meant I wrote occasional opinion pieces for the newspaper (an opportunity that was somewhat wasted, as I was undecided on many issues at that time and wrote a couple of pieces that I’m not proud of), and was interested in writing an opinion column for one of the several weekly newspapers published on Delmarva.

Let me digress for a moment. I would still be interested in writing a regular, conservative opinion column about local news and politics for one of the local newspapers. In the past couple of years, I’ve contributed pieces about national-level politics to small weeklies and dailies in several states, but would much rather write about local issues. I’d suggest a column of 500 – 600 words, with a focus on Delaware, and, more specifically, Sussex County.

Back to 2009. In addition to writing about politics, I wanted to write about Delmarva history and culture, and did, for a while. But the exciting campaign season and election of 2010 managed to take over ‘Slavens Says,’ and almost without realizing it I joined the dreadful tribe of political junkies. For several months I contributed to Liberty Features Syndicate, then started submitting directly to about a dozen editors, until things slowed down in 2011.

As of today, I only write for DelawarePolitics.net, a center-right opinion blog that features posts by several First State conservatives and libertarians. That’s not to say that I won’t dust off the old submit-to list and forward some of my better pieces to newspaper and website editors throughout the 2012 campaign season, but I simply don’t have the time or interest (right now) to self-syndicate a weekly column about national-level politics while also keeping up with the local stories.

So, please, if you enjoyed reading Slavens Says, bookmark Delaware Politics and check the site often. There’s usually a new post every day, and I plan to post at least once a week during this campaign season. I also encourage you to check out RadioFreedom.us, which features local writer and talker Angel Clark’s writings and online show. My favorite nonpartisan political site, by far, is Real Clear Politics. And, of course, there are my Facebook and Twitter pages.

Although slavenssays.com and slavenssays.net will no longer work, this blog will still be here, as slavenssays.wordpress.com, and all of my posts for other sites will be duplicated here. Subscribers will continue to receive email notifications. However, I encourage you to leave your comments on Delaware Politics, the home of lively debates.

Mitt Romney (R-MA), the liberal flip-flopper whose one-word campaign slogan could be “same” — same expanding government, same deficit spending, same eroding constitutional liberties, same foreign policy, same socialized healthcare, different party affiliation and skin color and little else — won the Iowa caucuses last night with 24.6% of the vote, a mere eight votes ahead of last-minute surger Rick Santorum (R-PA). That’s a margin of less than one-tenth of a percent.

With no recount, it’s fair, if technically inaccurate, to say that the two men tied.

Far more important is Ron Paul’s (R-TX) impressive third-place finish. With 21%, he came incredibly close to winning the first contest of the 2012 presidential race; much closer than anyone would have expected a month ago. Unlike Romney, who has been regarded as a flawed frontrunner throughout most of the race, Paul is — was — a long-shot underdog who was never supposed to break 10% in any caucus or primary election, much less outperform so-called “top tier” rivals Newt Gingrich (R-VA) and Rick Perry (R-TX).

Ironically, the Romney supporters within the Republican establishment had been downplaying the relevance of Iowa for weeks in anticipation of a Paul victory; by their own logic, Romney just won — barely won — a meaningless event that says nothing about the winner’s electability. Of course, political observers know that to be nonsense. If the Iowa caucuses were irrelevant, candidates wouldn’t pour their time and resources into the rural state (before abruptly packing up on January 4 and descending upon New Hampshire like a flock of ravenous vultures).

Romney’s victory — which, really, considering that he did better in 2008, should more properly be termed a near-loss — certainly didn’t hurt him, though it’s unlikely that hordes of conservative voters in early primary states like South Carolina and Florida will suddenly set aside their misgivings about his liberal record and jump on the center-left bandwagon. But Paul’s third-place finish could have a significant impact on the race.

Frontrunner or not, Romney is really, really disliked by conservatives. They’ve had three years to discover what they dislike about Obama, and for all of his private sector experience and smooth campaigning, the former Massachusetts governor offers few meaningful changes. That’s why this primary race was always going to be between two people: Romney, and someone else.

Could Ron Paul be that “someone else,” the alternative to Romney around whom the GOP’s dissatisfied conservative voters rally?

Conventional wisdom says no. Then again, conventional wisdom has been turned on its head so many times in the last two election cycles that it’s a wonder anyone mentions it anymore.

Despite Santorum’s near-win, which can be attributed to momentum generated by an unexpected surge in the polls, he cannot be the anti-Romney. Like an inexperienced runner who sprints the first mile of a long race and runs out of steam before reaching the finish line, the former senator has spent nearly all of his time and a great deal of his funds in Iowa. He doesn’t have the time, or funds, to duplicate that feat in other states. He, along with Huntsman and Perry — the “bottom tier” — will henceforth be running for vice president, or a cabinet position, or maybe just for the fun of it.

Then there’s Gingrich, who only a few weeks ago seemed poised to teach Romney a lesson about counting chickens before they hatch. He finished in fourth with a pitiful 13%, and is plummeting in the New Hampshire polls, but could still salvage his campaign with wins in South Carolina and Florida. Especially if thousands of conservatives develop amnesia all at once, or his record magically erases itself. His connection to taxpayer-funded bailout recipient Freddie Mac, flip-flops on so-called global warming, support for infringements of civil liberties under the Patriot Act and similar laws, and apparent desire to initiate yet another war in an already unstable Middle East should be more than enough to alarm informed voters, not to mention that his two known extramarital affairs are an embarrassment to a party that prides itself on promoting and defending family values.

Who, then, has the credentials, name recognition, national organization, and funds to run a conservative campaign against Romney?

We’re back to Ron Paul, the 76-year-old congressman who wasn’t supposed to compete with the mainstream favorites, but did anyway. The family man who has been married to his wife, Carol, for nearly fifty-five years, and has five children and a host of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The devout Christian who weaves Bible stories and proverbs into his speeches about government, economics, and foreign policy. The Air Force veteran who served his country in Vietnam, and now receives more campaign contributions from active military personnel than all of his Republican opponents combined. The pro-life obstetrician who personally delivered more than 4,000 babies during his career. The advocate of free markets, sound money, low taxes, and a balanced budget. The fiscal conservative who pledges to cut $1 trillion — with a T — from the federal budget immediately.

If Paul is not the conservative alternative to Romney, who is? And if there’s to be no alternative to Romney, why have primaries?

For conservatives who want to elect a conservative Republican in November, now is the time to take a second — or third, or fourth — look at Congressman Ron Paul. There’s still time to avoid a repeat of 2008, and the disastrous term that followed.

“Neoconservative” is a label that is often misused by liberals to refer to conservatives whom they consider to be right-wing or extreme, but more accurately describes those who, unlike our noninterventionist Founding Fathers, believe American-style democracy should be spread across the world (especially in Middle Eastern states with sizable oil reserves). Recent Republican and Democratic presidents have disagreed over the best way to intervene in foreign countries — Democrats prefer aid and sanctions, while Republicans prefer military interventions — but have been equally enthusiastic about involving themselves in other nations’ affairs.

George W. Bush, of course, used the September 11th attacks as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq (without a congressional declaration of war, as required by the Constitution), and Barack Obama perpetuated his predecessor’s wars while starting one of his own in Libya (also without a declaration of war). Gingrich was largely supportive of those interventions, though he occasionally criticized the way various aspects were handled, and seems to want to add a new name to the growing list of U.S.- occupied countries: Iran.

“Unless they unilaterally disarm their entire system, we are going to replace their regime,” Gingrich said during a recent debate. “We’re ideally going to do it non-militarily, but we are not going to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon.”

The implication is clear: Gingrich is willing to wage a war against Iran based on unproven claims that its government is building a nuclear weapon. Iran is not like Iraq, or Afghanistan; such a war could become World War III. Anyone who would scoff at that possibility is either uninformed or reckless, and, in either case, a dangerous choice for president.

Based on his strong support for past, present, and future military interventions, one might assume that Gingrich is a veteran; someone who has witnessed the horrors of war firsthand and, as commander-in-chief, could be trusted to spend the lifeblood of young Americans only when absolutely necessary. That’s not the case. In fact, when he had a chance to serve in the Vietnam War, he received draft deferments.

Ron Paul, an Air Force veteran who takes third in most national polls and is expected to take second, if not first, in the upcoming Iowa caucuses, brought up the issue during an interview with Fox’s Megyn Kelly on Thursday.

“In the 1960s, when I was drafted — you know, in the military — he got several deferments,” Paul said of Gingrich. “He chose not to go. Now he’ll send our kids to war, but at that time he said that one person wouldn’t make a difference, he didn’t know how he could make a difference.”

Ouch.

To be clear, the issue is not that Gingrich sought and received deferments. Many others did the same, for valid reasons. But now, decades after skipping military service, he supports an aggressive foreign policy. Clearly, it’s easier to send others into harm’s way than it is to go yourself.

The story begins in 605 BC, when “King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it with his armies” (1:1, New Living Translation). Following his victory, Nebuchadnezzar took many captives back to Babylon, including Daniel, a young noble of the tribe of Judah. He and other young men “were to be trained for a three-year period, and then some of them would be made [Nebuchadnezzar’s] advisers in the royal court” (1:5). Following the three-year training period, Daniel and three kinsmen so impressed Nebuchadnezzar that “they were appointed to his regular staff of advisers” (1:19). Daniel’s God-given ability to reveal and interpret dreams led to his appointment as “ruler over the whole province of Babylon, as well as chief over all [Nebuchadnezzar’s] wise men” (2:48).

He later advised one of Nebuchadnezzar’s successors, Belshazzar, who proclaimed him to be “the third highest ruler in the kingdom” (5:29). Following the Medo-Persian conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, “Darius the Mede” made Daniel one of three administrators over the kingdom’s 120 provinces (6:1-2). Chapter 6 concludes, “So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” (Alternate translation: “So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”) The final chronological reference in Daniel is found in 10:1: “In the third year of the reign of King Cyrus of Persia, Daniel (also known as Belteshazzar) had another vision…” The vision is described in detail in chapters 10-12.

Daniel is a book of history and prophecy, or past history and future history. Chapters 2 and 7 describe the rise and fall of four kingdoms, usually (but not unanimously) identified as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Chapter 8, and the first four verses of Chapter 11, describe the rise and fall of Greece (also called Javan), and its division into “four sections with four kings, none of them as great as the first” (8:22). The prophecies concerning Greece are believed to have been fulfilled between 323 BC and 301 BC, when, following the death of Alexander the Great, the Greek Empire was divided into four states, ruled by Seleucus, Lysimachus, Cassander, and Ptolemy. One notable Seleucid monarch, Antiochus IV, adopted the title “Epiphanes,” or “God Manifest.” 8:23-25 is believed by some to refer to Antiochus, though others believe it refers to a future Antichrist (and still others believe it refers to both).

While there is some debate about the identity of the fourth kingdom, following Greece, it is usually identified as Rome. Conservative Christian commentators believe that Western government and culture are extensions of the Roman Empire, and that we are still living in the fourth kingdom.

The Book of Daniel is very important for Christians. If we accept that Daniel experienced and recorded his visions during the time period specified in the book — during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus (or Darius/Cyrus, if these are two names for one individual), or between 603 BC and 536 BC — then we must also accept that Daniel described major events centuries before they took place. The description of the fourth kingdom is a bit vague, but there can be no doubt that the third kingdom was Greece. Therefore, the legitimacy of the most specific predictive prophecies in the entire Bible depends on when Daniel was written.

The setting of the book, Babylon between 605 BC and 536 BC, is evidence enough for Christians who believe in the Bible’s inerrancy (that is, its divine inspiration and complete accuracy), of the prophetic nature of Daniel’s visions. However, mainstream scholars date the book to the middle of the 2nd century BC, around 165 BC — about 140 years after Alexander’s empire was divided into four parts, and during the reign of Antiochus IV. A Maccabean Jew recorded past events in the form of prophetic visions, they argue, which explains the book’s accurate description of the rise and fall of Greece.

The mainstream view — known as the Maccabean theory or thesis — is based on an assumption about what is and isn’t possible, rather than the textual, linguistic, historical, and archaeological evidence that is usually used to date the content of ancient manuscripts. Aside from the presence of three Greek words for instruments in Chapter 3 — which neither proves a 2nd-century date nor disproves a 6th-century date, as we’ll see — the overwhelming majority of scholars who subscribe to the Maccabean theory offer virtually no evidence for their assumption. Yet this assumption is established historical truth, as far as universities and textbooks are concerned.

Entire books can be (and have been) written about the historical, theological, and prophetic content of Daniel, but for the skeptic, or the Christian in search of evidence which reinforces his or her faith, there are two important questions about this ancient book:

• Who wrote it?
• When did he (or they) write it?

Who wrote the Book of Daniel?

Most conservative Christians believe that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel, and might be offended by the suggestion that one or more anonymous writers contributed to it. Their belief is based on three facts: 1) The title of the book, 2) most of Chapters 7-12 are written from a first-person point of view (“I, Daniel…”), and 3) Jesus Christ alludes to “Daniel the prophet” in Matthew 24:15.

It is impossible to respond to these three points without first considering the unique structure of Daniel. The book includes third-person narratives and first-person visions (as well as a first-person passage attributed to Nebuchadnezzar in Chapter 4), and was written in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. 1-2:4a was written in Hebrew, and is considered to be the book’s introduction. 2:4b-7 was written in Aramaic, and 8-12 was written in Hebrew.

The first and second sections refer to Daniel in the third person (he, him, his), and relate stories set during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius in what seems to be chronological order. (The exception is Chapter 7.) The third section, Chapters 8-12, is written in Hebrew, and consists of first-person (I, me, my) accounts of three visions. (Only in 10:1 is Daniel referred to in the third-person; in 10:2 the viewpoint switches back to “I, Daniel.”)

Let’s return to the three arguments for the traditional view of Daniel’s authorship, that the entire book was written by its main character.

1. Does the title of the book, the Book of Daniel, indicate that Daniel wrote it?

The title of the book indicates that Daniel wrote at least part of it, but we cannot dismiss the possibility that one or more anonymous writers contributed to it. The Book of Deuteronomy has traditionally been ascribed to Moses, but obviously he did not write the account of his own death (Deut. 4). Likewise, the final chapter of the Book of Joshua includes an account of Joshua’s death. Even if Moses wrote the five Books of Moses and Joshua wrote the Book of Joshua (which is a controversial topic in and of itself), we accept that anonymous writers, perhaps each man’s successor, contributed at least the death accounts to these books.

We must also consider the numerous apocryphal and pseudepigraphic works which are ascribed to everyone from Enoch* and Abraham to Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ himself. These works were authored anonymously and ascribed to well-known men so that they would be taken seriously, much like an American in the 21st century might attribute a clever quote to Thomas Jefferson or Albert Einstein. Such works were rightly excluded from the Bible when its canon was established in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. So the title of the Book of Daniel does not prove (or even suggest) that it was written by Daniel alone.

2. Most of Chapters 7-12 are written from a first-person point of view. Does this indicate that Daniel wrote the book?

The use of the first-person point of view in Chapters 7-12 tells us that Daniel wrote part of the book; namely, this part. Yet it remains possible that someone else wrote Chapters 1-6, and edited Chapters 7-12. Let’s consider 7:1 and 10:1. Each refers to Daniel in the third person, and seems to set the stage for the rest of the chapters, which were apparently written by Daniel himself.

Consider 7:1-2:

1) Earlier, during the first year of King Belshazzar’s reign in Babylon, Daniel had a dream and saw visions as he lay in his bed. He wrote the dream down, and this is what he saw.
2) In my vision that night, I, Daniel, saw a great storm churning the surface of a great sea, with strong winds blowing from every direction.

And 10:1-2:

1) In the third year of the reign of King Cyrus of Persia, Daniel (also known as Belteshazzar) had another vision. It concerned events certain to happen in the future — times of war and great hardship — and Daniel understood what the vision meant.
2) When this vision came to me, I, Daniel, had been in mourning for three weeks.

In each chapter, Daniel goes on to describe a vision and its interpretation. Which is more likely: That Daniel wrote 7:1 and 10:1, and then abruptly switched to the first-person point of view, or that an anonymous writer/editor added 7:1 and 10:1 to the beginning of Daniel’s own accounts of his visions, perhaps to establish context?

The same logic can be applied to Chapters 1-6, in which Daniel is always referred to in the third person. Perhaps the story of Daniel’s life was written by someone who wanted to establish the context for the visions in Chapters 7-12, which are virtually meaningless without Chapters 1-6. Based on the details in 1-6, it is reasonable to assume that this anonymous writer — if he existed — lived during Daniel’s lifetime and knew him personally, or had access to a written or oral source of information about Babylon’s history and Daniel’s life.

The use of two languages in the Book of Daniel also points to more than one author. Some commentators have suggested that 2:4b-7 was written in Aramaic because the prophecies in this section concern the Gentiles, while the prophecies in 8-12 concern the Jews and were recorded in Hebrew for that reason. This is possible, but there is a simpler explanation: Daniel recorded his visions in Hebrew, and one or more anonymous writers wrote the background information — the rest of the book — in Aramaic, with an introduction in Hebrew.

3. Jesus Christ alluded to “Daniel the prophet” in Matthew 24:15 before speaking of the “sacrilegious object which causes desecration” (or the abomination of desolation) mentioned in Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. Does this prove that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel?

For the Bible-believing Christian, Matthew 24:15 (and its counterpart, Mark 13:14) proves that Daniel’s prophetic visions were divinely inspired. Jesus called Daniel a prophet, not a writer or historian, and confirmed the future placement of the abomination of desolation in the Temple. For the skeptic, this passage indicates, at least, that Jesus and his disciples were familiar with and had high regard for Daniel and his prophecies.

However, Matthew 24:15 does not indicate — or even suggest — that the entire Book of Daniel was written by Daniel. It only confirms that the prophecies concerning the abomination of desolation were written by Daniel; whether Jesus was alluding to 9:27, 11:31, or 12:11, each reference is found in the third and final section of Daniel, which contains Daniel’s first-person accounts of his visions.

Once we open our minds the possibility that Daniel was written by two or more people, it becomes easier to consider the second question: When was the book written? Or, if it is not a single work by a single man, when were the prophetic portions written?

(to be continued)

Notes:

• Books of the Bible aren’t usually italicized, but I’ve broken this rule to distinguish between Daniel, the book, and Daniel, the man.
• Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright 1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights reserved.
• * There are three unrelated works attributed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah. The Book of Enoch, or I Enoch, dates to the 2nd century BC or earlier, and is quoted in the Book of Jude. The Second Book of Enoch, also called The Secrets of Enoch or 2 Enoch, is dated to the 1st century AD. The Third Book of Enoch, or 3 Enoch, has been traced to the 5th century AD.

The public’s reaction is understandable. We’re surprised, disappointed, angry — and for different reasons. Christopher’s friends and family are understandably angry at Phillips, while Phillips’ friends and family are understandably defensive. The purpose of this opinion piece is not to excuse wrongdoing, but rather to inject some fairness into a politically charged discussion.

Christopher and Phillips are elected officials, which means that both have supporters and opponents. It is plain to see that people who dislike Phillips for political reasons — including Christopher — are striving to use the incident as a political weapon against Phillips. Again, I don’t believe we should excuse wrongdoing, but neither is it right to exaggerate the severity of an incident and call for extreme punishments. Many who are demanding that Phillips be arrested, imprisoned, charged with a felony, hanged at dawn, etc., are people who disliked the councilman for political or personal reasons long before they learned of the altercation. Their opinions must be taken with a grain of salt.

I include Christopher in this group. He was wronged — or so he claims — but he is also trying to get maximum mileage out of what he terms a “criminal assault” for the simple reason that Phillips has been a vocal opponent of his agenda. Once again, we should not excuse wrongdoing, but it’s important to remember that Christopher stands to benefit politically from Phillips’ demise, and he knows it. I believe his primary concern is politics, not justice.

We should also remember that only one side of the story has been reported. Phillips, as the accused, has to be very careful about what he says publicly, and his silence should not be misinterpreted as admission of guilt. Innocent until proven guilty, right? While Christopher claims to be the victim of an “unprovoked criminal assault,” the simple fact is that no one — much less a popular, respected councilman — lashes out at a colleague without provocation. Until all of the facts are released, I must assume that Christopher is not entirely innocent.

In fact, Christopher’s response to the incident raises questions that have yet to be answered. The News Journal reports that he “described his injuries in a statement issued late Thursday, though police said he had not gone to the station in person to be interviewed or to have his injuries examined by detectives.” This is extremely puzzling. Phillips’ critics argue that the average man accused of assault would be arrested immediately, and accuse the Georgetown Police of giving Phillips preferential treatment, but they conveniently neglect to point out that most victims cooperate with the police. Christopher hasn’t.

Furthermore, while I don’t deny that Christopher had the right to file a complaint, I don’t believe it was the best way to handle the situation. People get into similar situations all the time and settle them without involving the authorities, particularly when they know each other. This is not a case of a man strolling into a gas station and assaulting a stranger; these men are colleagues, coworkers, players on the same team. Obviously Phillips didn’t intend to injure Christopher’s eye, and I’m certain he would have made restitution had Christopher chosen to settle the matter privately. But, as I’ve already pointed out, Christopher is going to push the issue as far as he can for political gain.

That’s his right, and he’s exercising it. The consequences are obvious: Further division in the Sussex GOP, public resentment of the county government, and his eye won’t heal a moment sooner.

I expect to be criticized for defending Councilman Phillips and questioning Sheriff Christopher’s motives. That’s okay. Even if we learn that Christopher’s story is entirely accurate, I’ll sleep soundly knowing that I erred on the side of caution. If, on the other hand, we learn that Christopher hasn’t been entirely truthful, I hope that Phillips’ critics have the guts to apologize publicly, just as they’ve called for his head publicly. But I won’t hold my breath.

The painful retreat of the starving Confederate army; the noble surrender of General Robert E. Lee; the riotous victory celebrations in Washington, D.C.; the careful planning of famed actor John Wilkes Booth and his vengeful co-conspirators; the shocking assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in an upscale theater; the frantic manhunt that followed — these events and many more are described in such great detail that imaginative readers might find themselves hoping that, by some miracle, the inevitable tragedy might be avoided.

O’Reilly and Dugard have managed a rare feat by producing a historical narrative that is neither dry nor shallow. The barrage of facts, presented naturally through fast-paced action and dialogue scenes, will satisfy Civil War historians and curious students alike. Killing Lincoln is a must-read for anyone with an interest in American history, and a splendid addition to libraries big and small.

The book is scheduled to be released on September 27.

Fast forward to last week. It was reported that several DMHOA board members, including officers and lobbyists, abruptly resigned after the organization’s president, Edwin “Ed” Speraw, refused to publish the results of an audit which — supposedly — revealed that he had been using DMHOA funds to pay personal bills. The story made the front page of the latest edition of the Cape Gazette. I expect we’ll learn more in the next few weeks.

Why does this matter? DMHOA is a private organization, right?

Yes, but it receives grant-in-aid — tax dollars — every year. Since fiscal year 2007, DMHOA has received nearly $10,000 from the State of Delaware for its Manufactured Housing Homeowners Community Education and Outreach Project, in which volunteers develop and distribute an agency brochure, informational pamphlets, and a quarterly newsletter. To receive grant-in-aid, DMHOA must agree “to provide an annual certified audit and other financial statements, service figures, and reports or audits as required by the State of Delaware,” and “to provide the Office of the Controller General with financial or programmatic information upon request.” (Source: State of Delaware Grant-In-Aid Application Form)

It would seem to me that the general public deserves to know what is going on with DMHOA’s finances, being as our hard-earned tax dollars are partially funding the organization’s activities. I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing at this time, but certainly it is fair to ask several questions:

1. Should an organization receive tax dollars on a yearly basis if one or more of its officers is secretly using funds for personal expenses?
2. Can and should the State of Delaware investigate a grant-in-aid recipient suspected of misusing funds?
3. Should we reexamine the grant-in-aid process, and screen applicants more carefully? (This year the grant-in-aid bill passed with unanimous support in the House.)
4. Have any past or present DMHOA officers or lobbyists used the organization’s funds for political activities?
5. Have any elected officials encouraged or ignored wrongdoing on the part of one or more DMHOA officers or lobbyists?

Yet Carper is a liberal. Not a classical liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, who viewed government as a necessary evil to be restrained, but a modern liberal who believes that the federal government can and should be involved in most aspects of the citizen’s life, particularly those involving money. He probably doesn’t think of himself as a socialist, but seems perfectly willing to go along with President Obama’s socialist-ish agenda, regardless of the consequences for Delaware.

It won’t be an easy (or cheap) race, but the Republican Party of Delaware must field a challenger. Democratic incumbents cannot be given a free pass.

That challenger cannot be Christine O’Donnell. If she could not defeat Chris Coons, a county official who once described himself as a Marxist, in 2010 — the year of the Tea Party — then she most certainly cannot defeat Carper next year, when liberal Delawareans will be turning out in droves to reelect one of their own, Vice President Joseph Biden.

That challenger could, however, be Kevin Wade. Some might remember Wade, who lives in New Castle, from the last election cycle. He campaigned for the party’s endorsement for U.S. Congress, but dropped out of the race when it was given to Michele Rollins. (Whether he did this to appease the party leadership, or to give Glen Urquhart a better chance of toppling Rollins, is up for debate.) Currently, Wade is making the rounds as an advocate of the Fair Tax, which would be a strong platform for a campaign for federal office.

The Delaware Grapevine recently quoted Wade as saying that he is “leaning very heavily” towards a senatorial campaign in 2012, and his Twitter handle — the same account used during last year’s campaign — has been changed to @KevinWade2012. When asked by WGMD’s Angel Clark if he was planning to run for federal office, he hinted that he might make an announcement in a couple of months.

Should the U.S. government, which has amassed a staggering debt of $14.5 trillion (about $4 trillion of that since President Obama took office), increase its debt limit? The question ought to be rhetorical; $47,000 per citizen is quite enough, thank you. Polls indicate that many voters don’t fully understand the ongoing debt ceiling debate, but even the least sophisticated laborer knows that spending more than he makes will eventually get him into trouble. Big trouble.

The Democratic Party, which still controls the federal government despite Republican gains last fall, seems to have missed the memo. This is hardly the first time they’ve been at odds with reason, but one would think they’d have learned by now. After failing miserably to stifle the Tea Party movement, which sprang up in opposition to excessive taxation, irresponsible spending, and the unconstitutional expansion of government, frantic Democrats have developed an astonishingly unlikely comeback strategy: Raise the debt limit, raise taxes, and spend more.

During last year’s campaign season, Obama compared the U.S. to an automobile. Put it in “D” to move forward, or “R” to move backwards, he joked. The car is moving forward, all right — towards the edge of a cliff. Instead of changing course, or slowing down to get a good look at the road ahead, Democrats are mashing the accelerator. Those who want to increase the debt limit are comparable to irresponsible consumers who max out their credit cards, and, instead of cutting back, apply for more. The word “unsustainable” is overused in politics, but it is the correct adjective for describing liberal policies.

Sadly, this intentional ineptitude affects all Americans. With a mere 153 million of us working (that’s six in ten, roughly), increasing the federal government’s debt ceiling and spending the country into a depression is beyond careless or reckless. It’s criminal.

If the U.S. passes the point of no return (if it hasn’t already), Democrats’ handling of the nation’s finances will have brought it to its knees as surely as a nuclear attack. Whether a nation is destroyed by a foreign military or its own leaders makes little difference to the millions of innocent people who live there, whose only mistake was to trust the men and women they elected. What the current administration is doing to the U.S. economy is akin to fiscal terrorism.

What is the appropriate response to terrorism?

Elected Republicans are talking a tough game, demanding substantial cuts to federal spending, but they are not sincere. Their talking points are crafted to appeal to the Tea Party movement, which can make or break the GOP’s future. If Republicans were serious about defending American prosperity, they would stop at nothing to neutralize the internal threat, which is overwhelmingly greater than the threat posed by any foreign enemy. Compromise is not, or should not be, an option.

Fourteen Republicans have formally declared their candidacy for president, nine of whom are taken seriously. One of them should raise the question: At what point does a government that deliberately mismanages the people’s money cease to be legitimate?

Chris Slavens is a conservative columnist. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.