Liars Figure

Caution: this post may be a bit wonky for some, but the truth sometimes needs a wonky defense.

Mark Twain is credited with saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” It is generally a simple matter to find a statistic that will support one’s cause. Able statisticians can manufacture stats that appear to favor a preferred position. Politicians are notorious for making the numbers bolster their policies. One statistic that has been bandied about during recent years is that of unemployment. Naturally the administration in power wants it to appear that their policies are putting people to work, so lowering the unemployment percentage is a major goal.

The following excerpt from the web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) explains the weakness of using unemployment figures to determine actual unemployment:

“While the UI [unemployment insurance] claims data provide useful information, they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups. To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

“In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:

o   Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits.

o   Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force).

o   Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker fired for misconduct on the job.

o   Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits.

“Because of these and other limitations, statistics on insured unemployment cannot be used as a measure of total unemployment in the United States. Indeed, over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits.” [Italics mine]

The last sentence of the excerpt says it all: in the past decade there have been approximately three times as many unemployed people as the UI figures report. Given the inaccuracies built into the BLS report on unemployment, one must pay careful attention to the kinds of factors mentioned in the excerpt above to properly compare figures from year to year. It can be seen that Barak Obama inherited a 5% unemployment rate in 2008. During his first term, the rate rose to nearly 10%, then began to fall back gradually. By the end of Obama’s second term, the rate had returned to about 5%. (Figures provided by Politifact.)

The Obama administration wanted everyone to think that by 2016 their policies had brought the economy back to the more prosperous state it was in when they took over in 2008. However, if the mitigating factors mentioned by the BLS are considered, far more truly unemployed will be found to have fallen through the cracks in 2016 than in 2008. It is difficult to determine the exact number, but some experts estimate real unemployment is between 15 and 20%.

There is another way to measure the health of the American workforce: it is called the Labor Force Participation Rate. According to the BLS, “The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either employed or unemployed.” This number still has some of the inequities built into the BLS system, but it is worth noting that it held nearly steady during the Bush years despite a mini recession caused by the bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting bank failures (something Bush inherited from Clinton) and the attacks of 9/11/2001 followed by another recession in 2008. In 2009 when Obama took over, the rate fell precipitously. It will be interesting to watch what happens to this number during the Trump administration.

There are other trends that can be used to determine the overall health of the economy. During Obama’s tenure personal bankruptcies increased; the number of people in poverty increased; the number of people on food stamps increased dramatically. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of the country’s overall wealth, did rise under Obama, but the rate of increase was the slowest in recent memory.

Perhaps the most troubling economic factor that might be used to evaluate Obama’s legacy is the national debt. There are different ways to measure this; again, statistics can be manipulated to tell almost any story. The simplest measure is to note the $10.6 trillion debt when Obama took over, and the $19.7 trillion debt he leaves. That looks like over $9 trillion in increased debt. Some argue that only the budget deficits year by year should be considered, making Obama’s budget deficit total $6.6 trillion. (Figures from The Balance) By any measure, the national debt increased. This is important because it means the government is spending more than it collects in tax revenue. Even a child can see that this condition cannot be sustained for long. Sooner or later, the system will collapse.

Since this is supposed to be a blog for Christian thinkers, one might wonder why this arcane patter matters. Just this: we live in a country with a participatory type government. Our new President says he wants to return power to the people by reducing government intrusion into private lives. If we are to evaluate this or any administration of government wisely, we need to know how. Statistics are one way to measure success. The goal of a Christian should be to have sufficient wisdom to judge whether a purveyor of statistics is being truthful or not.

Jesus chided his disciples at one point saying, “the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.” Another time when He was sending the disciples into the world, Jesus counselled them to be, “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” As believers we cannot cloister ourselves in holy huddles and watch our economy collapse due to self-destructive policies. We need to make wise choices in the voting booth and then hold our elected officials responsible for their actions in office. This is not our primary responsibility as believers; that would be bringing glory to God. But then maybe using our God-given freedom to wisely choose our leaders would do just that.

Pilgrims' Progression

The President of the Divided States of America (as he sees it) has made another gaff (as I see it). In Obama’s Thanksgiving address he compared the Syrian refugees to the Pilgrims: just a bunch of troubled people yearning to be free, so he says. My immediate reaction was to disagree: the Pilgrims were a peace-loving group; they were not driven from their homes by violent military force. Although they did experience a level of persecution, they were not being murdered daily for their beliefs. They  made intentional plans for their future relocation and paid for transportation to a place where they intended to start a new life supported by their own labor.

My first thought was discount the comparison of Pilgrims with Syrian refugees altogether. The Pilgrim’s plan was to start anew with a set of rules they believed were necessary to the proper arrangement of society. They wanted it based on the principles of their religion. They wanted civil government that mirrored their religious beliefs. If you reread those last three sentences and replace “Pilgrim” with “Muslim” there is a frightening likeness.

When I saw the similarity, I began to see things differently. Perhaps Obama was right. Perhaps the Syrian refugee situation is more like the Pilgrims’ than I realized at first. The Pilgrims landed in territory occupied by an established society which had divided opinions about whether to accept the “refugees” or drive them away. The Pilgrims forced their way onto a beachhead and defended their stand with the language of divine right. Eventually the European settlers who followed the original Pilgrims drove the indigenous people from their ancestral lands and claimed them for their own.

How like the current situation in Paris, France or Dearborn, Michigan or Minneapolis, Minnesota this is. Muslim pilgrims have taken over large segments of real estate in Western cities and planted civil/religious communities which have become colonies of sovereign Muslim settlement. Sharia law dominates in these areas almost completely. The police in these cities have for all practical purposes abandoned these zones to the Muslim pilgrims. While this may not be what Obama was trying to say, it sounds like a reasonable comparison to me.

There is one contrast that is quite stark: the Native Americans who faced the Pilgrims were technically backward compared to the invading Europeans. Quite the opposite, we have the technological superiority over the “invading” Muslims, but their crude ways can be strikingly effective. Simply hijack a plane, for example, and fly it into a building. Or build a simple bomb and leave it on a train. It is proving difficult to thwart this intrusion with technology; we must fight it with policy.

If the American natives had favored a policy less like Massasoit in his original acceptance of the invaders from Europe and more like his son, Metacom, who tried to resist with force, perhaps the Pilgrim landing would have been a disaster instead of a miracle of survival. If the tribes of the Eastern coastal regions of America had stood together against the Europeans, perhaps the wave of immigration from Europe could have been thwarted or at least substantially delayed. 

I am not suggesting that as Christians we should take up arms against any refugees, Syrian, Mexican, Cuban, who legitimately seek refuge here. As individual Christians, as the Church of Christ, we have the example of the Good Samaritan; we have Jesus Himself. But as a nation, we have a culture to protect and preserve by whatever means, practical and moral, we can devise. (For more see Man the Lifeboats) What I would propose sounds horribly un-politically-correct: accept a predetermined number of immigrants year by year who pledge to assimilate. By this I mean learn English, obey the laws, and respect the beliefs of others. The great American melting pot experiment has only worked because assimilation was the goal. We cannot be African-American, Mexican-American or Muslim-American; we must all be -Americans.

We will never know what might have resulted had the Americans who greeted the Pilgrims adopted a different policy position. However, from Metacom to Tecumseh to Sitting Bull there were “Americans” who doubtless regretted their ancestors’ actions. Their society was overrun and ultimately destroyed. I hope our great grandchildren don’t have similar regrets.

A Willing Suspension of Memory

I have tried to understand the liberal/progressive mindset. I know the people who promote the cause are not uneducated, ignorant or naïve (OK, maybe naïve in Obama’s case). But do they really expect us to forget everything they have done or said in the past, or perhaps they know that most people just aren’t pay close enough attention to catch their “inconsistencies.” Time and time again they make statements that contradict their own words or revise history to support their narrative.

The latest round of apparent amnesia involves Hillary Clinton. During the flap surrounding her use of private email while Secretary of State she asserted that she had only one device. She must have forgotten that during an earlier interview she admitted carrying both an i-Phone and a Blackberry. There may be some way to use new math or parse the language so that there is no contradiction, but it sounds to me like a debate over the meaning of “is.”

The fact that she had those two devices tied not just to a private email address, but her own private server begins to sound like an earlier situation she doubtless wants us to forget. Anyone who has been paying attention to the Clintons since Bill’s two exciting terms as President would remember the Whitewater scandal. Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records that were subpoenaed and thought lost mysteriously turned up at the White House. We are supposed to believe they were taken there from Arkansas innocently and unknown to the Clintons. This time we are being asked to believe that Hillary can be trusted with her email records – that she has not deleted any government emails while refusing to allow outside inspection of her server.

Then there is Benghazi. The assassination of the Ambassador to Libya and his brave defenders happened on Hillary’s watch. The precise flow of information to Madame Secretary may never be known, thanks to the private server issue (again), but it is public knowledge that she promoted the false narrative concerning the motivation of the rioters who precipitated the murders. There are also other information sources that reveal her complicity in delaying the revelation of the true nature of the attacks. The fact that the whole affair transpired during a critical political season only makes it worse.

How ironic it is that Hillary is the one remembered for the phrase, “willing suspension of disbelief.” Senator Clinton soundly criticized General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker for the bad situation in Iraq in 2007. She told Crocker, "It's not only the Iraqi government that has failed to pursue a coherent strategy. I think our own has as well." One wonders what that woman would think of the current strategy in the Mideast.  One must admit that there is a kind of coherence in the Obama/Clinton efforts: one mistake led to another and another and another.

Then there is the health care mess. Everyone associates the line, “if you like your doctor, you can keep him” with President Obama. It’s interesting to note that in the same context Hillary said, “If you have health insurance and you are happy with it, nothing changes… because we want to maximize choice for people.” Perhaps we are supposed to forget that the first time national health care was seriously proposed, it was called Hillarycare. Four years into the lurching launch of Obamacare, the truth is somewhat less optimistic. The promise of a $2,500 decrease in annual health insurance premiums has not materialized. The $2,500 figure is prominent however; rates have risen that much on average. And health plans are being cancelled right and left, so keeping yours may not be one of your maximized choices.

If you are still reading you may be wondering how this relates to heaven. Thusly: as believers we have a responsibility to elect people who will represent our interests in an honest way. I know “honest politician” sounds like an oxymoron to some people, but there are a few. Even if your sentiments lean toward a progressive agenda, you must have an honest presentation of the policies and honest reflection on their historical results. Without this, it is impossible to make sound judgments.

The other day I listened to a couple Democrat talking heads extolling the great accomplishments of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They were enthusiastic cheerleaders, but the word disingenuous doesn’t begin to describe their argument. The world is a complex place; no one has all the answers. But at the very least, we should insist that those looking for answers are not going to dissemble, obfuscate and obstruct honest investigation once they find them.

Who's on a High Horse?

President Obama has said something remarkably stunning for its arrogance or ignorance, I know not which. At the National Prayer Breakfast in February, speaking of the violence perpetrated by radical Islamists, the President chided Christians for historical indiscretions saying, "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. " (full text)

As a linguist I am fascinated by the President’s obviously condescending use of the first person pronoun “we.” No one thinks he imagined himself on any horse. This is an example of using inclusive language to surreptitiously exclude oneself from the intended class. The President then slips in a second person reference, more aligned with his true intention, calling his audience to “remember.” This implied “you” points the royal finger squarely where “we” think it belongs. Then, to complete the thought, our erudite leader finishes the sentence with a third person reference to the actual perpetrators of the actions he wishes to condemn.

Peter Wehner wrote an excellent review of Obama’s speech in Commentary. Wehner’s article makes one wonder if the President can truly be as clueless as this makes him sound. If there is a parallel between the Crusades and today’s war on terror, it is the fact that Western civilization is fighting an all-out war against Islamic extremists who want to conquer the world in the name of Allah. Invoking the Crusades serves to reinforce the historical context regarding the battle with Arabs.

The next thing I expect to hear is that Jews killed thousands upon thousands of “Arabs” according to God’s directive in the conquest of the Holy Land. Obama doubtless would suggest we redress those centuries-old grievous misdeeds by compelling modern Israel to return what they stole. For years the left has been has been claiming that what happened in 1948 and again in 1967 was internationally sanctioned terrorism – a land grab by the undeserving of the territory of those unprepared to defend their rights.

The historical sequence goes something like this: God gave Israel the land in perpetuity in the twelfth century BC. After centuries of gaining and losing the Promised Land, they were finally driven out by the Romans in the first century AD. They reclaimed their land in the twentieth century after a curious coalition of religious and secular groups lobbied internationally for over one hundred years. It is probably coincidence that Philistine sounds so much like Palestine, but it is not inaccurate to say that the two people have much in common, not the least of which is a long-standing dispute over a strip of land on the Mediterranean coast.

President Obama and those who support him are not ignorant; they know this history. However, they seem to ignore (the root word of “ignorance”) its implications. This is a holy war if for no other reason than the Islamists say it is. To equate defenders of religious freedom with Islamic terrorists is ludicrous.

The only high horse here is Obama’s, and it appears to be a childish rocking type rather than any sort of mature war horse. That Obama used the National Prayer Breakfast as his platform serves to underline the urgency with which Christians need to start mounting a defense against this kind of nonsense. If we don’t stand up soon, we may not have a leg to stand on, equine or otherwise.

2 Samuel 21

Once upon a time there was a king named Barak of Bamah. It came to pass after some years of king’s reign that famine struck the districts of Walstret so that they did not produce their annual yield and the commerce of the land began to wither and men could not find gainful employment. The king consulted his wise counselors, Valrie of Jaret, William of Ayres and Axel of Rod seeking to know what should be done to bring prosperity to his kingdom. They advised a sacrifice of three men to their god, Almighty Marx.

So the king went to de Troit and chose three men of renown and slew them and took their lands and properties and gave them to the Almighty Marx. Unfortunately, the gods still did not smile on the king. Commerce continued to wither and more and more men were without jobs to feed their families. The king and his paeans cried out to the one man in one hundred who had more than enough and demanded that he give all he had to feed the poor, but still there was not enough.

In desperation the king went to his enemies and borrowed huge sums from them after promising to beat all the swords in his realm into salad forks. However, the borrowed money was not enough to feed the hungry, and the tribute demanded by the enemies further weakened the commerce of the land. Disappointed that the counsel of his wise men did not bring prosperity, the king traveled often to the islands of the fiery mountain and cast the dimpled ball to know what to do. Even though the dimpled ball was struck with the king’s scepter many times, the king was none the wiser.

Meanwhile a plain woman who cared had taken the bodies of the men of de Troit whom the king had slain and threw her red cloak over them to shield the bodies. Eventually more and more people of the realm came to appreciate what the woman was doing and they began wearing red cloaks to show solidarity with her. The king tried to woo the people with offers of free health care and free schooling and free ice cream, but the doctors all refused to give free care and the teachers demanded pay for their schooling and the ice cream melted before it could be delivered.

After six years of his ruinous reign, the people finally stood up to King Barak and said they wanted to hear no more of his disastrous proclamations. The king responded by making even more outlandish proclamations, opening the jails, opening the borders and opening his own cloak factory to make blue cloaks for his people. Unfortunately, since all the textile works in the realm had closed due to the king’s policies, he was forced to have the cloaks woven by his enemies. They tricked him into using a special material they said was invisible to all but the smartest people. Soon all the smart people in the land were wearing the invisible blue cloaks.

The king was so confident that the smart people outnumbered the people in red cloaks, he ordered a census, declaring that the land would be ruled by the group which turned in the largest number of cloaks. A dispute arose concerning which color made the highest pile, the smart people insisting their blue cloaks far outreached the red cloaks. A child who was tired of hearing all the adults arguing suggested they weigh the two piles of cloaks to see which was heavier. This suggestion pleased all the people.

The red cloaks were placed on the right side of the balance and it settled to the ground under the ponderous weight. The smart people began to pile their cloaks on the left side of the balance, but regardless of how many they threw on the scale, the right side never moved. The king and all the smart people were so distraught they turned pale as the dead, so they all put on rouge to look more alive. Soon the king was forced to relinquish his crown, and he and all the smart people moved to France because everyone knows that the colors of France are bleu, blanc et rouge.

Calling a Sin a Sin

The widespread reaction to the Grand Jury verdict declining to indict Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri was sad, if predictable. Just as predicable was the President’s sympathetic reaction, but in a speech in Chicago he revealed something of his personal character and beliefs that is shocking in its import. Referring to the distrust between law enforcement and minority communities, the President said, "The problem is not just a Ferguson problem. It's an American problem," USA Today reports. Obama added, "If any part of the American community doesn't feel welcomed or treated fairly, that's something that puts all of us at risk, and we all have to be concerned about it."

Given the context, the President seems to be saying that we should expect violent reactions from people who feel that they are being treated unfairly. The context also includes the indisputable fact that the justice system worked as intended, but there are people who don’t consider it fair. The subject of the speech where he delivered his bombshell was his new immigration policies. I wonder if the President meant to imply that violence is the normal reaction to treatment that fails to meet someone’s standard of “welcomed.” I wonder if the President was hinting that we should expect violence from immigrants who don’t feel “welcomed.”

To his credit, the President did condemn the violent reactions, but he came very close to saying he not only understands, but sympathizes with the protesters. He wants us to be concerned about the “risk” of treating someone in a manner they don’t like. He seems to be sympathetic toward the perpetrators instead of the victims of violence. I wonder if President Obama feels sympathy toward Cain, the slayer of his brother Abel; Cain felt as though he was treated unfairly. Perhaps we have been misinterpreting the first murder; perhaps it was Cain who was wronged, and Abel just got what he deserved for being so unfair to his brother.

We saw this same kind of misguided sympathy soon after we were attacked in 2001. People asked why the Islamic terrorists hated us so; they wondered what we had done to “deserve” the attack. Perhaps if we had treated them more fairly they wouldn’t have attacked. To ask such a question betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of history, of radical Islamic culture, and of human nature itself. (The Christian Post has an excellent article on the Islamic hatred of the West.) One of Cain descendants, Lamech, expresses the fallen human tendency well, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold.” Islamic terror is simply revenge for a perceived wrong.

It is a human tendency to get even, sometimes even when the slight is trivial or innocent in itself. Abel didn’t deserve to die; America didn’t deserve 9/11; Ferguson’s merchants didn’t deserve the violence perpetrated against them. These were all acts of vengeful individuals who felt as though they had been treated unfairly. Obama is correct that humans can be expected to do such things. What worries me is that he seems to be on their side. He seems to be saying that we are responsible for their actions, as if it were our fault for being unfair.

It is wrong to imply that we bear some sort of national blame for the sense of injustice some African Americans feel toward our justice system. To be clear, Christians must stand for justice, but we must also stand against injustice of the kind perpetrated by the protesters in Ferguson. The system declared Darren Wilson innocent of wrongful actions. The Grand Jury based their decision on facts of evidence, not on a preferential treatment of whites or disregard for blacks. The pressure under which they labored surely would have pushed them to indict if there were the slightest evidence of wrong doing. They declined. To protest that decision with violent action is to commit sin. Those violent acts betray the darkest regions of human fallen nature. Those acts do not merit any sympathy.

We can be sorry that a young man lost his life as a result of a police officer performing his duty. We can be sorry that a situation exists in America where a segment of our citizens so distrust the police and the justice system that their default attitude is set on grievance. We can even be sorry that our ancestors treated African slaves so badly for so long that they feel aggrieved. What we should not feel is sorry that Darren Wilson was declared just in his actions. And we certainly should not feel sorry for the sinners who are burning Ferguson because of that decision. Not to contradict the President, but I think we Americans should be concerned about the risk of bowing to the demands of sinful human nature instead of calling a sin what it is: sin.

The Truth About the Truth

I wrote recently that it is important to focus on the truth. Quite obviously this is essential in religious matters, and every major religion has its truth documents. Another sphere in which the truth plays an indispensible role is public policy, more commonly called politics, where truth documents are harder to identify. I frequently hear people say that they pay little attention to politics because they are disillusioned with the lack of integrity they see throughout the system. Yet this very lack should be the driving force to seek the truth and elect those who support it.

In America we have a representative republic. This means that we elect others to make judgments for us concerning public policy. The ultimate reason for believers to demand truth from their representatives is survival. In early post-WWII Germany Martin Niemöller famously said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- 

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- 

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

There are countless examples of “border skirmishes” that mirror the socialist-unionist-Jew progression Niemöller pictured. The anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week allows pro-lifers to see the dramatic results of losing that battle. As of this writing, the casualty count is over 57 million.  Thankfully support for unrestricted abortion is waning, and there is reason to hope that Roe v. Wade may one day be overturned. The reason for that turn-around is often credited to the use of sonograms, a poignant truth document if ever there was one.

Another sphere where freedom is being slowly eroded is economic. Certainly, material wealth is low on the list of concerns for Christ-followers, but economic equality (socialism) is not biblically supported. However, equal opportunity is in line with the overall teaching of Scripture. We should be concerned when government policies drive down opportunity and drive up unemployment essentially limiting opportunity for large numbers of people.

The current administration likes to say that the economy (and hence opportunity) is becoming more healthy under its policies. The truth does not support these assessments. The figures being used to paint an optimistic economic picture are “massaged” to say it kindly. Most media outlets are reporting a drop in unemployment to less than 7%, when in fact, the number of people not working or working part-time but desiring full-time is closer to 20%. The labor participation rate, a truer measure of unemployment, is at its lowest since 1978.

The rising price of stocks is also highlighted as a sign of economic health, but inflation, a drag on true economic health, is the largest contributor to a rising Dow Jones average. This administration does not use realistic means to measure inflation either, creating a double truth-challenge to the overall assessment. (For an excellent article on this see Marotta.) To become properly informed, to learn the truth, believers cannot trust the major news media anymore, as they have become propaganda organs for the administration.

We should also be concerned with the way the our country’s founder’s plan for a separation of powers is being eroded. The executive branch is usurping powers it was never intended to have. The bureaucracy (think IRS scandals), the judiciary (think court stacking) and even the Senate are complicit with this administration in attempting to whittle away the freedoms our founding fathers wrote into the US Constitution. The head of the Justice Department, Eric Holder, has repeatedly gone beyond the stated purpose of his office. President Obama said blatantly last week that he will [mis]use the executive order provision to create law when the appropriate branches do not cooperate with his agenda.

Gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association are sounding the warning that our Second Amendment rights are under attack. While many people who don’t own guns think this issue does not affect them, it must be viewed in light of Niemöller’s perspective. Second Amendment rights are very closely tied to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. If a majority of people stand by and watch Congress and the administration chip away at the Second, there will be no grounds for resistance when the First is attacked more stridently. It is already illegal to preach from parts of Leviticus in certain jurisdictions (the UK , Canada and the US) because to do so would be “hate speech,” a limit on believers’ speech.

The truth is that the traditional American way of life is under attack. We still have the power of the ballot box to combat this attack. To do so, believers must become informed voters. Thomas Jefferson said, “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” Believers need to start noticing and doing something to set things right. If we don’t do it soon, we will find ourselves in Niemöller’s predicament with no one to blame but ourselves.

Blessed are the Poor

Today the President announced a new anti-poverty initiative. He chose the unfortunate name of "Promise Zones" to signify areas where the efforts will center. With all the smart people around him, you would think someone would have warned him off using the word "promise" given all the press recently about his record for keeping his promises. Besides the unfortunate nomenclature, there are several problems with another government anti-poverty program.

First, our government has spent trillions of dollars to fight poverty since Lyndon Johnson declared war back in 1964. Sadly, the application of all that tax money has done next to nothing to relieve poverty in the United States. The rate of poverty is still at 15%, virtually unchanged from the 1960's, according to an article in US News and World Report.

Second, why only certain zones were chosen is a mystery. If the policies the President is suggesting are going to lift the people in these areas out of poverty, it would make sense to apply the same principles across the board. There is no question that these are good ideas; they have been proven in actual practice under the name of Enterprise Zones. The idea is to offer tax concession, infrastructure incentives, and reduced regulations to attract investments and private companies into the zones. While it is true there are mixed results from different locations, the success rate compared with government hand-out programs is undeniable.

Third, what we call poverty in the United States would be unimaginable wealth for most of the people in the rest of the world. For 2013, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $23,550 for a family of four. I am familiar with this demographic. My wife and I maintained a family of five at near "poverty" levels for most of our married life. During that time we always owned a home, had two or more cars, ate well-balanced meals and even had a little left over for vacations and recreation. Both of my daughters went to very expensive private colleges toward which we made substantial financial contributions. In other words, we were not poor in my estimation.

I understand that there are genuinely underprivileged people in America. However, I think the level of privilege to which many aspire may be unrealistic. The use made of food assistance (aka food stamps) is a good example. You seldom see people buying beans and rice with their food stamps; it is more likely to be Coke and potato chips. Then there are the ones who buy hamburger to feed a dog because food stamps cannot be used to buy dog food. These abuses are not rare; they are rampant.

The solution: make assistance personal. The President's idea of relieving some of the government pressures to encourage personal industry is laudable. Give most Americans a way to earn a buck, and they will go to town with it. The best weapon against poverty is a job. But more jobs will be created by government stepping back instead of stepping in. Then the truly needy can be identified by people closest to them, and assistance can be tailored to their personal needs. 

The best vehicle for doing this is the church. The Roman Emperor Julian (332-262) was confounded by the way Christians took care of "not only their own poor, but for ours as well, while those who belong to us look in vain for the help we should render them." I don't have the statistics handy, but I would wager that if each church community took care of its own, the welfare rolls would shrink considerably. And since it is "more blessed to give than to receive," the blessing of the poor would multiply to us all. That is a promise you can count on.

Kindergarten Rules

The folks we have representing us in Washington right now should read Robert Fulghum’s little book, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. This government shutdown is revealing them to be very much like spoiled children who cannot learn to get along. Any kindergarten teacher worth his or her salt could straighten them out in about five minutes if they would listen.

I have linked to the list above, but I wanted to apply some of Fulghum’s ideas myself. First, “Share everything.” Power is Washington is meant to be shared. That is the beauty of the founders’ plan: limited government with multiple checks and balances. Power is supposed to be shared between the three branches of government. If actions speak louder than words, then President Obama is saying that he thinks he was elected king and the rest of us peasants must do his bidding, including Congress and the courts. If he can’t get his program rammed through Congress (like Obamacare), then he just orders the job done by one of the many bureaucracies the executive branch controls (like Cap and Trade). So much for shared power.

Second, “Play fair.” The phrase, “All’s fair in love and war” needs to be amended with the addition, “and in politics.” If Cervantes’ intention in Don Quixote was to imply that sincerity trumps morality, then the shoe certainly fits. The Obama administration seems to believe that their ideology is so important that its implementation must proceed regardless of moral, ethical or legal boundaries. There are many examples, but the one that comes immediately to mind is the recent scandal involving the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. There are others: voter intimidation by Black Panthers, capitalizing on emotion laden situations like Congresswoman Giffords being shot or the Sandy Hook tragedy, knowingly sending guns to Mexican thugs, barricading national monuments and attractions because of the shutdown.

Next, “Don’t hit people.” There have been few reported physical assaults, I admit, but verbal abuse is rampant. Two of the cardinal rules of rhetoric are to argue responsibly and respectfully. Ad hominem attacks are supposed to be below civil argument. The kids in Washington need to be reminded of that.

Then there is, “Clean up your own mess.” There are so many examples of this I don’t know where to begin. The federal government has gotten so large and so intrusive that I fear nothing short of a literal nuclear option will ever bring it back into its intended proportion. No Child Left Behind is a mess; the farm subsidy situation is a mess; immigration and border security is a mess; Obamacare is a mess; I could go on. These are messes that Congress and the burgeoning bureaucracies have created. There is an old joke that asks what you call a lawyer drowned in the bay; the answer is a good start. That’s what I would call ending just one government program that operates outside of the narrow boundaries of our Constitution. After that we should go on to deep six the rest of them.

There are about a dozen other lessons on Fulghum’s list, many of which are a perfect corrective to the childish whining and bickering going on in Washington right now. I have not written much lately because I am sickened by what I see, and I see no point in endlessly repeating the same charges. I chose to write now because I stumbled across Fulghum’s list and the word “childish” seems so apropos. All I can say is I hope we can elect a few grownups to send down there in the next couple cycles. God help us if we don’t.

The O-bomb-a Policy

Warning: Rant to follow.

Baker College announced this week that due to Affordable Care Act (ACA) aka Obamacare regulations, they will be required to reclassify their part-time (adjunct) faculty (which is most of its faculty) in a way that limits the number of classes adjuncts will be able to teach. This is no doubt a well intentioned move by bureaucrats to keep employers from classifying large numbers of employees in part-time status so that they can escape the Obamacare requirement to provide health insurance for them. On the surface, it seems harmless. In the real world (a place unfamiliar to Washington bureaucrats) it just means more of us will be forced into lower income brackets.

Washington is also discussing another O-bomb-a attack on citizens to determine whether the President has the Constitutional right to kill American citizens on US soil using drones. OMG! (Sorry. Wasn’t it the Democrats who were so upset with George Bush’s use of drones to assassinate foreign terrorists?) The Senate is examining Attorney General Eric Holder on the policy which he seems to be defending. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is filibustering in Congress to block the confirmation of CIA Director nominee John Brennan because Paul adamantly opposes the administration position on drone use on American soil. May his tribe increase.

I fondly remember Nancy Pelosi’s comment during the original Obamacare debate (debacle?) saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” Those were the days. Back then we only feared that President Obama and his ilk were trying to take over America. Fear has been replaced with certainty; it is happening. This is the change some people hoped for. Obama has admitted that he wants to rebuild America. Bill Clinton affirmed this during the 2012 campaign. What many people do not realize is that in order to “rebuild” one must first raze the existing structure.

Voters in this country are clearly divided on whether we want the Obama rebuild or not. A la Pelosi’s comment about healthcare, now that we have elected Obama, we are seeing what he really meant by “hope and change.” Barak Obama and the current crop of political progressives hope to reshape America in the pattern of socialist Europe. The rest of us would like to keep the model of America that allowed us to achieve the exceptional success we have. Europe is not currently doing well by any honest appraisal; following their lead is not attractive to those of us who realize that America’s uniqueness has spared us some of the Continent’s pain. Greece (or Spain or even Great Britain) is not an appealing model at present.

I believe the driving force behind Obama’s popularity is a tectonic shift in the American spirit. Something happened in the middle of the last century that fundamentally altered the attitude of millions of Americans. Many things doubtless contributed to this change of heart: the unbridled prosperity immediately after WWII; the breakdown of moral restraint regarding sexuality, drugs and behavior in general; a burgeoning welfare state (this may be effect and cause;) the disappearance of the traditional family unit and its ancillary components; the gradual take-over of media by the political left.

The strength of character that got us through two World Wars and an economic disaster in between is fading from public view. I say “public view” because I think there is still a large conservative cadre in this country; its views are not widely or fairly presented due to media bias. Because the media only reports those things that are complimentary to the Obama administration and its policies, many Americans are fooled by the President’s rhetoric (see Words Have Meaning.) Add to this the human tendency to want something for nothing, and Obama wins re-election by 53%. I hope that this week’s events will stir some of those “five-three-ers” to reconsider their vote for change. Smaller pay checks and armed drones overhead is definitely not the America I hope for.

Selective Amnesia

I have had enough. I can't take it anymore. What is wrong with these people in Washington? Does someone sneak into their heads and steal their brains as soon as they get into town? That Obama should nominate John Kerry as Secretary of State makes perfect sense; they are bedfellows. But why would the Senate republicans nearly unanimously confirm him?

Last week the Senate confirmed John Kerry as President Obama's new Secretary of State. John McCain even supported him, of all people. Three lone Republicans voted against confirmation for what I believe are all the right reasons. John Cornyn of Texas (huah TX) summed it up best: Kerry's "long history of liberal positions are [sic] simply not consistent with a majority of Texans." Cornyn may have grammar problems, but he's got the important stuff right.

This is the same John Kerry who dissembled about his service in Vietnam when he was running for President in 2004. The whole truth may never be known, but there is enough smoke in the air to suspect fire. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, reported after the election that, “It’s clear that both the uniformed and civilian leadership of the U.S. Navy view the Kerry matter as a political 'hot potato.' The leadership of the Navy has failed to ensure its awards process was not corrupted. This is shameful.”

One may ask why Kerry's 45 year old service record is material to his nomination as Secretary of State. If there were only questions about the record, the mystery might be written off or blamed on any number of innocent parties. But Kerry made a point of speaking proudly of his record, when in fact he became a Vietnam War protester after he came home. Kerry also had trouble keeping his facts straight regarding this part of his past. On several occasions he told different versions of his activities at one particular protest. According to an ABC News story, in 1971 he proudly claimed to have thrown his Vietnam medals over the fence at the White House in protest. In later interviews he variously said they weren't really his or that he only threw the ribbons but not the medals. It matters little. He took an active role in protests against the war.

This part of Kerry's history is no problem for anyone who is anti-war. The problem is that he told different stories to different people. He wanted some crowds to see him as a proud former naval officer and others to see him as a war protester. He cannot have it both ways. If he had simply said that he changed his mind about the war after he got back and became active in the anti-war movement, that would be fine (for his anti-war buddies.) One might even admire his honesty.

But John Kerry is not and has not been an honest man. William Levinson of American Thinker reminds readers that Kerry is the man who admitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Commission and the media that he had committed heinous war crimes. Kerry told Meet the Press, "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed." He clarified what he meant by atrocities with his (should be infamous) quote, "they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

I am a Vietnam War non-draftee. I spent my time in the draft lottery but was not called up. I would have gone had I been called, but I did not volunteer because I disapproved of the political idiocy that dictated the prosecution of the war. If a country is going to spend the blood of its brave men and women in battle, it should be spent in the best effort to win: defeat the enemy, crush the opposition, eliminate the threat. Playing nice and making war are incompatible and unconscionable. I have many good friends who did fight in Vietnam, and they are some of the most honorable people on earth. They deserve our undying gratitude and complete respect. John Kerry is not one of those people. He should never have been elected to the Senate, let alone Secretary of State.

Words Have Meaning

I watched some of the coverage of President Obama’s inaugural speech. I couldn’t watch it all. My excuse for leaving mid-speech was to attend my next class of the day, but I would have made up another excuse if it hadn’t been that. I just couldn’t stand to watch.

Barak Obama is a fine looking, well spoken man. His presentation is so sincere, so believable, his manner so presidential that I am not surprised at his popularity in spite of his accomplishments – or should I say lack of accomplishments. I will not repeat his resume as community organizer and short term Senator during which time he mostly voted “present.” I will not rehash the list of 2008 campaign promises he failed to accomplish. I will not remind the reader that his first four years produced no measurable improvement in the worst economy since the Great Depression. A track record is of no consequence to a man who looks and sounds as good as Barak Obama.

And he does sound good. If you know nothing of his policies and their historical record of failure, you can swoon with the rest of the 53% who wanted four more years of him. But for anyone with a modicum of sense and a perspective that includes more than two minutes of history, this President’s speeches are unbearable. There is no good way to explain the disparity between what the man says and what he has done (or not done.) He is either a pathological liar or he has a severe mental disability which causes him to disregard the requirements of logic and morality. I don’t think he is disabled.

He makes sweeping statements about his vision for America that sound good, yet his meaning is hidden behind the lovely words he uses. For example, he claims to want America's position in the world arena strengthened. A review of his policies leads to the conclusion that by strength he means likability. He actually said, in a rare moment of clarity, that he believes we can talk our enemies into better relations. That sounds wonderful, but it is disconnected from the realities of a modern world fraught with ancient religious fanaticism. There have been radical Islamists since Mohammad invented the religion. The difference now is the tools they have at their disposal. On camel back with a sword, the radical jihadist was no threat to civilization at large. Armed with box cutters that granted access to 747's, they shook our very foundations.

Similar disconnects inhabit his domestic policies. His opening remarks included the statement that, "We bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution." Only a blind deaf mute who lives under a rock could have missed the fact that the Constitution has been under attack by this President since before he was elected. The hottest current battle is his open assault on the Second Amendment in the aftermath of Newtown. But there is also his arrogant ignoring of Constitutional requirements to reveal his regulatory schedule (see Tsunami Warning.) There was his First Amendment attack on religious liberty when he tried to force the Catholic church to pay for employees' birth control. Then there is his apparent disregard for the separation of powers by which the Constitution gives certain duties to Congress and he feels at liberty to subvert.

A theme Obama carried throughout his speech was "we the people." He said that, "The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few." And yet virtually all his actions privilege the few. He is most egregious in his abuse of his position, jetting about the globe for junkets and family vacations spending millions of taxpayer dollars on his and his family's entertainment. Doling out "stimulus" money to those who supported his campaign (think Solyndra) privileges the few. Thwarting attempts to learn the truth about his administration's behavior (think Benghazi or "Fast and Furious") privileges the few. Excusing outright illegal activity of his associates (think Timothy Geitner) privileges the few. One must wonder who "we" is to Obama.

I could go on, but I must stop for the same reason I couldn't listen to the whole speech; this is what this President does to me: he makes me crazy. His words don't mean anything, or rather, his words mean something different to him than to the reasonable man listening to him. Jesus' brother James said, "Let your yes be yes and your no, no lest you fall into judgment." Barak Obama is tumbling headlong into judgment by this standard. Speaking in the context of the verbal gymnastics former President Clinton employed, Rush Limbaugh used to say, "Words have meaning." It is impossible to judge the meaning of the golden words in bowls of silver delivered by our President. I hope that in four years enough of us will be tired of it to elect someone who simply says what he means and means what he says. What a relief that will be.

Anybody Hear a Fiddle?

I have nothing against violins, really!

I have been trying not to rant about the nonsense going on in Washington D.C. since the fiscal cliff non-event, but it is a target-rich environment that I can no longer avoid. The Republicans held a three day retreat this week before going home for the weekend. Some people wonder why folks who have a three day work week need a retreat, but I understand that Congress does not have to be in session for my elected official to be “working.” In fact, with all the arcane shenanigans that hobble true accomplishment in government, maybe not being at the Capitol leads to more work actually getting done.

Anyway, according to The Hill, the GOP went off to Williamsburg to seek unity as a party after the fractious fiscal cliff fiasco. The concept sounds great; the question becomes what they will unify around. Hugh Hewitt has a great satire of what the welcoming speech should have sounded like on his blog. Hewitt’s point is well taken: the current face of the GOP is as telling as a poker player holding a royal flush. It is unclear if they really stand for anything, which according to popular wisdom means they are primed to fall for anything.

Perhaps the poet in me makes me more attuned to curious metaphors than most, but I could not help seeing the irony of a keynote speaker at the GOP retreat being blind. Erik Weihenmayer was the first blind person to climb Mt. Everest, so there is reason to believe he can help the Republicans. They have a mountain to climb, and they have been acting as if they are blind recently. To extend the metaphor, perhaps Weihenmayer can provide a few tips regarding preparation and equipment necessary to scale the heights of the debt ceiling debate which looms before them.

As Charles Krauthamer said on O’Reilly this Tuesday, President Obama has been consistent in his approach to the fiscal problems facing the country. He has not been providing serious plans to avert the cliff or solve the bigger issues; his strategy has always been to add gasoline to the flaming factions within the Republican Party to render them impotent. Back to Hewitt’s point, the GOP has not presented any real solutions either (if you discount Ryan’s budget plan of campaign days and a few other unsupported efforts.) The best defense against Obama’s tactics would be to propose real solutions and force up or down votes in Congress. Maybe they would only be congratulated by half the country, the other half not wishing to lose their entitlements, but at least they would stand for something.

The Bible says, “where there is no vision the people perish.” We are dying out here in “Red State America.” As Dorothy said when the strange landscape of Oz overwhelmed her, “We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.” Neither are we, if by Kansas we are referring to Cohen and Winston’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? The ideals that spawned the Tea Party seem to be forgotten or ignored in Washington these days. Just like buying a vowel on Wheel of Fortune to make sense of a puzzle, I wish we could buy an idea in the game Congress is playing. Could this be why Nero fiddled while Rome burned?

Tsunami Warning

Beware: a massive regulatory wave approaches.

Elections have consequences; that is what the winners keep reminding us. Today we learned one of the consequences of the last two elections. The Obama administration has proposed nearly 6,000 new regulations in the last ninety days. In other words, since last August, when the reelection of President Obama was beginning to look chancy, his executive powers started working in overdrive. The regulations were put in a holding pattern until Obama's reelection was assured. Once Obama won, the tsunami of regulations was released (see Breitbart.com.)

Not only is this a direct contradiction to the candidate's promise to decrease business-stifling regulation, it turns out the President has also reneged on his claim that his administration would be open for public examination. The executive has also shortened the mandatory public comment window on proposed regulations from sixty to forty-five days. Since many of the new regs run into thousands of pages each, the likelihood of any real examination in that time is small. Foreshortening the comment period also contradicts Obama's previous call in an executive order released on January 18, 2011, for, "comment periods to last for at least 60 days." This must be another of the changes Obama was talking about in the 2008 campaign.

According to FactCheck.org, it is normal for Presidents to increase the pace of their executive creations in the final years of their term in office; it is called the Cinderella Effect. When the clock is about to strike the midnight of their power, they rush to make the most of their last minutes. What Obama has done is far in excess of any of  his predecessors, however. According to Town Hall, Obama averaged over 17,000 new regulations in each of his first two years. This number outstrips all previous administrations. Although his administration's 2012 rate of regulations is down, the number will explode when the 6,000 new rules he has held back hit the pipeline.

Besides all this, according to Senator Jim Inhofe, President Obama has failed to follow the rules regarding his regulatory agenda. Inhofe charges that the Obama administration has failed, "to comply with the law by refusing to publish its regulatory agenda." The purpose of providing such an agenda is to allow the effected parties enough time to practice due diligence and provide meaningful commentary during the public comment period. By refusing to publish the agenda and shortening the comment period, Obama has effectively shut off any real evaluation of his new proposals.

Back in 1773  the cry was "no taxation without representation." The new Tea Party should be chanting, "no regulation without representation." President Obama is achieving by fiat what he cannot by due legislative process. In his first two years, he had both houses of Congress, so they were able to ram Obamacare down our throats by legislative force. Since 2010 when the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives, the tactic has been to use the power of the judiciary and executive, even at the expense of violating standard rules and practices.

Barak Obama is as President what he was back in his Chicago days: an arrogant, unprincipled ideologue. He believes he knows what is best for America, and he intends to make it happen any way he can. He appears not to mind bending the rules to the breaking point if it suits his purpose. Sadly, there are plenty of people in this country who have no more respect for rules than he does, so they applaud his bold style.

The Bible says that in the last days things will get worse and worse before the end comes. It predicts that men will behave badly and be proud of it. When I see the shameless depravity of our politicians, or think of the debauchery that is standard fare for Hollywood and television, or witness the audacity of the LGBT movement with their claims of legitimacy, or recoil at the flagrant violation of all that is fiscally responsible in Washington D.C.,  or mourn the millions of unborn children slaughtered since Roe v. Wade, I can't imagine a more striking fulfillment of those Bible words. Scripture also says there will be some in the last days who will remain righteous and "be mighty and do exploits." It's beginning to look like people just doing right will be the mighty exploit. The only exploit common in Washington these days seems to be those exploiting their public trust.

A Modest Proposal (2012)

I have an answer to the divided political situation that plagues America.

Divide. That seems to be the only workable solution in a country where we split almost right down the middle on virtually all the fundamental issues we face. Both parties say there must be compromise to get anything done, but neither wants to make any real concessions to reach an agreement. Obama's idea of compromise is Republicans agreeing to his agenda. The Republican efforts at compromise tend to look like the George W. Bush era which, frankly, was satisfying to neither conservatives nor liberals.

Why not just give up on the idea that we need to remain fifty united states? Who says fifty is a magic number anyway. Have you looked at the electoral map of the last election? Geography doesn't really matter that much in our digital age, but for convenience sake, we could remain pretty contiguous in the new nation (under God) I propose. The "other guys" would be splintered and scattered, but that seems poetically justifiable. (Click this link to see my map.)

Most of  the current states that are equally divided can be partitioned easily. Virginia lets D.C. annex the surrounding counties. Pennsylvania can split somewhere between the I-76 and I-80 corridors. Ohio could do the same using I-70 and I-80. Michigan just gives the south east counties to North Ohio. They wanted that land back in the Toledo War anyway, so let them have it. (I would let them take everything west to Lansing if they wanted, although I know some State fans who would object.) We may have to continue the division across northern Indiana and Illinois even though I realize that cuts off West Michigan (my new home state) from her sisters to the south. I could live with that since I am not giving up the entire Great Lakes to the other guys. Add parts of Iowa and pretty much all of Wisconsin and Minnesota and you have the tier complete.

Moving out west, I suspect if division fever really strikes, there might be three different countries along the coast. Seattle is so distinctly different from San Francisco which is different from San Diego that I don't see them making nice. Oregon would probably go along with Washington, but I don't know the politics there well enough to predict. I would love to see San Diego vote with our side; they have the best weather anywhere and that would give us a Pacific seaport. This would be contiguous with the southern tier also. I wouldn't complain if Nevada went with the rest of the left coast fruitcakes; gambling and deserts would be no loss.

So there you have it. I know it gets a little sloppy with my insistance on keeping West Michigan and the U.P. in our camp. There are doubtless hundreds of other similar issues buried in my simplistic division of states with which I am unfamiliar. I don't care. This is what I call compromise. As for the names of these two new nations, I propose the Central States of America for our side and the Discontinuous Democratic Socialist Atheist Union of Like-minded Liberals for their side. Or they can pick their own name.

They can have the Navy and the Marines and the Coast Guard; we will take the Army and the Air Force. They can have the paper dollar and we will go back on the gold standard. We will keep Old Glory and they can have the LGBT flag or whatever they want. We will declare English the official language of our country, but we will universally teach Spanish as a second language in our schools and invite everyone to assimilate into our traditional American culture. We will keep the borders open with the DDSAULL (or whatever they choose to call themselves,) but we will close the border with Mexico and invite everyone who lives in our territory to become citizens with all the rights and privileges and responsibilities pertaining thereto.

Any citizen who can pass a rigorous background check (parameters to be decided) can carry a weapon openly or concealed. All religions will be free to practice as they wish, but the Bible will be brought back into schools and used as a moral foundation for all students. Prayer to whatever God one chooses will be welcomed. Homosexual practices will be treated the same as smoking or alcohol abuse; these behaviors create unwanted health problems and shorten life expectancy and as such should be warned against, not promoted. This is not a moral judgment; it is a general welfare consideration.

We will have no IRS. Revenue will be generated by a consumption tax on all purchases except groceries. Manufacturers will pay the tax on capital expenditures but not raw materials (trying to avoid double taxation.) Deficit spending and government borrowing will be illegal; all spending will be based on projection of revenue. All government entities will be required to operate under a balanced budget which will be submitted prior to the fiscal year for which it applies. Medicare and Social Security allotments will be deducted from revenue on a per capita actuarial basis and placed in escrow from which payments will be made. A separate fund will be established for paying present citizens already receiving payments.

As for foreign policy, we will not join the United Nations. We will seek friendly relations with any nation that wishes to deal openly and honestly with us and their own people. We will not have military bases in any other nations unless they invite us and pick up at least half the tab. The same deal goes for defending our allies. If they can't put up at least half of their own defense, we will not help them fight their battles. Fair trade treaties will be welcomed with any nation that applies.

There it is. I know this has been a rant: what I would do if I were king of the world. I needed this. After last Tuesday, I needed this. It was fun to think about. Could it ever happen? You tell me.

Hoping to Move Forward

He still wants us to hope he can change things.

President Obama’s speech to the Democrat National Convention last night was masterful. The delivery, the affectations, the cadence were flawless. Had I no sense of recent history or concern for credibility, I would have been as rapt and teary-eyed as many in the hall in Charlotte. As a speech teacher, I have to say the President’s address was a rhetorical delight. As a concerned citizen of America, I consider it a disaster.

While the speech was a treat to the ears, there were many minor issues with the content such as accusing Republicans of saying things they have never said or holding positions they have never held. He made a few fantastic remarks like praising Joe Biden as the best Vice President he could have hoped for. There was the misleading statement or two like claiming to have saved the auto industry when in fact he stole it from its rightful owners and gave it to his political cronies. There was the false implication that everything would be fine if the rich just paid their fair share (see my last post.) This kind of half truth and disingenuous dissembling is expected in politicians, especially today’s Democrats.

There were also glaring omissions from the President’s address. He did not mention that in his efforts to save the economy he has racked up about the same debt  in three years that George W. Bush did in eight. While he still blames Bush for the fiscal mess he found when he took office in 2009, he failed to mention that it was the Bush surge (which he opposed) that made it possible for him to pull troops out of Iraq. Likewise, he failed to mention that it was the Bush military apparatus (which he hopes to dismantle) that made killing Osama Bin Laden possible. Finally, he did not mention the critical fact that the Bush debt covered the prosecution of two costly wars which spread democracy and liberated fifty million people from murderous tyrants.

Besides all the typical political soft shoeing, there were two major problems with the content of the President’s speech in spite of its delicious delivery. First, the speech contained nothing but promises to do what he has not been able to do in his first term. He promised America four years ago that he would fix just about everything, including the rising of the oceans. By any measure one applies, things are not fixed; they are worse than when Obama took over. He belittled the Republicans for saying nothing specific about how they would do things, and then proceeded to offer nothing but lofty goals with no mention of how they could be attained. In other words, he made more promises.

Second, while the President’s desire to help people is laudable, it is fiscally irresponsible. He does not seem to grasp the irony of loading an enormous debt on the backs of future generations as a means to secure America’s future. We would all like to see that child get the operation she needs, or the young man have his college tuition paid or the displaced worker trained in a new trade. Sadly, honestly these well-intentioned, charitable acts cannot be paid for except by borrowing money or printing it. We have both borrowed and printed money to the point now where even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is talking about the “fiscal cliff” we are in danger of tumbling over.

This has been an unabashed, partisan rant. This space is supposed to glance heavenward, but I do not want to imply what Senator Durbin accused Fox News’ Bret Baier of doing: insinuating the Democrats are godless. Let us assume President Obama was sincere when he said, like Lincoln, he is driven to his knees by the immensity of his responsibilities. Let us do the one thing we can do as Christians to affect our government (besides voting.) Let us ask God to speak clearly to whomever we elect to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly before the One to whom they will eventually give an account. We can do no less; we can do no more.