Road Map toward sustaining our American Way

The congressman to the 1st district in Wisconsin - my congressional district - has offered a plan that by all counts should be taken seriously.  Ryan, a quiet guy, rarely seeming to peek his head into the media glare much less the stratosphere that get's ideas on the table - has thought long and hard about the threat to our future.  Will anyone address the plan with seriousness or will it be criticized with hyperbole?  Hopefully this can be a start toward sanity as it relates to our spending.  We shall see.  This post from The American Mind seems to cover it well. 

By Sean Hackbarth
Today at the Conservative Bloggers Briefing Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) talked to us about his “roadmap” that addresses out-of-control spending, entitlement reform, and tax reform in a comprehensive way. He told us the federal government is on a path to taking 40 cents out of every dollar just to pay for all programs. Echoing Fred Thompson during his Presidential run he said that path is unsustainable. It’s a “stagnant path.”


Ryan proposes health care reform with a $2500 refundable tax credit ($5000 for families) to empower people to shop around for the best health insurance value they can find. It would also make health insurance portable no longer forcing people to stay in jobs simply because of the company’s health plan.

Ryan’s plan would establish price data and quality transparency so consumers can make better insurance choices. Ryan also wants Medical Savings Accounts expanded.

For Medicaid users Ryan proposes high-risk pools and letting states have plenty of flexibility in finding their own solutions. For Medicare users 55 and older nothing would change. For those under 55 when they become Medicare-eligible they would receive a base payment of $9500. That payment would be means tested and risk-adjusted.

Like with Medicare, those 55 and older would see no changes to their Social Security. Those under 55 would have the choice to invest a third of their SS contributions into a fund like the Thrift Savings Plan. Individuals would have property rights to these personal accounts allowing them to pass them onto their children after they die. Changes in the growth of SS’s initial benefits along with increasing the retirement age would make the program solvent.

Ryan’s ideas on tax reform appear to be the most controversial especially in a Democratically-controlled Congress. Ryan would ax taxing capital gains, interest, and dividends. To further encourage economic growth the corporate income tax would be replaced with a “border-adjustable business consumption tax” of 8.5%. The Alternative Minimum Tax would go away along with the death tax. As for income taxes Ryan proposes giving Americans an option. They can either stick with the current, complex, bloated tax code or choose to file using a tax return the size of a postcard with two tax rates: 10% and 25%.

Ryan told us government actuaries and analysts have run the numbers for his plan. They would make both Social Security and Medicare solvent while keeping federal taxes to 18.5% of GDP.

I asked Rep. Ryan how his plan can be sold during an economic downturn and increased economic anxiety. Ryan mentioned he lived near the Janesville, WI GM that will be closing. He understands the hard times many Americans are going through with a slowed economy and increased global competition. He said his comprehensive plan that includes fiscal along with tax reform can reward companies for staying in the U.S. Transforming the corporate income tax into a “border-adjustable business consumption tax” will make U.S. companies more competitive and encourage foreign firms to move to the U.S.

The legislation has been written, and the numbers have been crunched (assuming the vagueness of peering so far into the future). All that’s needed are ways to sell the plan. Ryan understands something so comprehensive will need bipartisan support. He told us he took ideas from Democrats and is talking with some (unnamed) to get their support.

The plan is bold. Bob Novak says it’s broader than Kemp-Roth. He also thinks Sen. McCain should seriously look at it to inject some policy excitement into his campaign. Maybe McCain could get Ryan’s roadmap into the national debate.

Audacity of Hope's Audacity of Faith: Obama's "ground rules of collaboration"

The following excerpt will be particularly relevant when/if Mr. Obama becomes President.  Maybe we'll revisit it when the time comes.  The passage is excerpted from his book The Audacity of Hope it clearly articulates his agenda which will be to discount any discussion that can't be seen, heard or quantified because it must be argued in a way that can be agreed  upon by "...people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all..." (Mr. Obama says "accessible" but implies "agreed upon"... since religion, by definition, IS accessible to all)  

"To do this the tensions and suspicions on either side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration. The first and most difficult step for some evangelical Christians is to acknowlege the critical role that the establishment clause has played in not only the development of our democracy, but also in the robustness of religious practice. Contrary the claims of many on the Christian right who rail against the separation of church and state their argument is not with a handful of 60's judges but with the drafters of the bill of rights and the forebearers of todays evangelical church. Many of the leading lights of the revolution, most notably, Franklin and Jeffereson, were deists, who while believing in an almighty God, questioned not only the dogma of the Christian church, but also the central tenents of Christianity itself. Including Christ's divinity. Jefferson and Madison in particular argued for what Jefferson called a "wall of seperation" between church and state. As not only the means of protecting individual liberty, and religious belief in practice, protecting the state from sectarian strife, and protecting organized religion from the state's encroachment or undue influence. Of course, not all founding Father's agreed. Men like Patrick Henry and John Adams forwarded a variety of proposals to use the arm of the state to promote religion. But while it was Jefferson and Madison who pushed through the Virginia statute of religious freedom, that would become the model for the first amendments religion clauses, it wasn't these students of the enlightenment who proved to be the most effective champions of a separation between church and state. Rather it was baptists like reverend John Leland and other evangelicals who provided the popular support needed to get these providsions ratified. They did so because they were outsiders, because their style of exuberant worship appealed to the lower classes, because their evangelization of all comers including slaves, threatened the established order. Because they were no respector of rank and privilige and because they were consistently persecuted and distained by the dominant anglican church in the south and the congregationalist orders of the north."

"What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religious specific values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to arguement and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me then I have to explain why abortion violates some principal that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. For those that believe in the inerrancy of the bible, as many evangelicals do, such rules of engagement may seem just one more example of the tyranny of the secular and material world over the sacred and eternal. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Almost by definition, Faith and Reason operate in different domains. And involve different paths to discerning truth. Reason and Science involves the accumulation of knowlege based on realities that we can all apprehend. Religion by contrast are based on truths that are not provable through ordinary human understanding. The belief in things not seen. When science teachers insist on keeping creationism or intelligent design out of their classrooms, they are not aserting that scientific knowlege is superior to religious insight. They are simply insisting that each path to knowlege involves different rules and that those rules are not interchangeable."

"In a pluralistic democracy, the same distinctions apply. Politics, like science, depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. Moreover, politics, unlike science, involves compromise the art of the possible. At some fundemental level religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God is spoken, then listeners are expected to live up to God's edicts regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. The story of Abraham and Isaac offer a simple, but powerful example. According to the worlds three great monotheistic religions Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son Isaac, "whom you love" , as a burnt offering. Without argument Abraham takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an alter, raises his knife prepared to act as God has commanded. Of course we know the happy ending. God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, Abraham has past God's test of devotion. He becomes a model of fidelity to God. And his great faith is rewarded through future generations. And yet it is fair to say that if any of us saw a 21st century Abraham raising the knife on the roof of his apartment building we would call the police. We would wrestle him down, even if we saw him lower the knife at the last moment, we would expect the department of CFS to take Isaac away and charge Abraham with child abuse. We would do that because God does not reveal himself or his angels to all of us in a single moment. We do not hear what Abraham hears, we do not see what Abraham sees. True as those experiences may be the best we can do is act in accordance with the things that are possible for all of us to know. Understanding that a part of what we know to be true as individuals or communities of faith will be true for us alone."

"Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism require some sense of proportion. ..this is not entirely foreign to religious doctrine. Even those who claim the bibles inerrancy make distinctions between scriptural edicts based on a sense that some passages, the ten commandments say, or a belief in Christ's divinity are central to Christian faith. While others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accomodate modern life. The American people intuitively understand this which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those who oppose gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics. If a sense of proportion should guide christian activism, then it should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach of the wall of separation. As the supreme court has properly recognized, context matters. It is doubtful that children siting the plege of allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God'. I didn't.   Allowing the use of school property for voluntary students prayer groups shouldn't be a threat any more than it is used by the high school republicans should threaten democrats."

"I thought of Sasha asking me once what happens when we die. 'I don't wanna die, Daddy.' And I hugged her a said you've got a long, long way to go before you have to worry about that which had seemed to satisfy her. I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn't sure what happens when we die any more than I was sure of where the soul resides, or what existed before the big bang. Walking up the stairs though, I knew what I hoped for, that my mother was somewhere. Together in some way with those four little girls capable in some fashion of embracing them and of finding Joy in their spirits. I know that tucking in my daughters that night I grasped a little bit of heaven."

Our Collective Salvation?

Under a clear blue sky and the eyes of a restless, anticipatory graduating class at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, Barack Obama has once again delivered a stellar dissertation. Not of fire and brimstone from whence the philosophy comes, but rather candy coated with the eloquence that great orators posssess. Speaking words of partial truth to a liberally indoctrinated class of 2008, we can only HOPE. Hope that there are some in that class, and every class across this great land, who will act as salt and light to a world of the young and impetuous. Salt and Light to those so seemingly hungry for a message of humanism and how great we can be. There have always been times in history where the cadence and rhythm of a strong orator has trumped experience, logic and Truth. To wit:

Barack Obama - "...there is no community service requirement in the outside world, no one is forcing you to care.... You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live life in a way that tries to keep your story seperate from America's. But I hope you don't....because you have an obligation to yourself: because our individual salvation, depends on our collective salvation..." ( see below starting at 9:20)



When it is all said and done we are left with the empty rhetoric of Karl Marx, rising up from the ash heap of history, propped with the strength of a government by the people.

Karl Marx - "Religion is [the world’s] general basis for consolation…The struggle against religion is…a struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of [people], is a demand for their real happiness… " [in Tucker, Marx-Engels Reader, 1978: 53-4]


In order to abolish religion one must first replace it with something of perceived equal import and efficacy. What could possibly be more important or efficacious than a graduating class from any of our nation's illustrious bastions of academia? A SELF annointed-importance and efficacy will do just fine, thank you very much. Replacing the gift of salvation, with a collective work ethic toward the common good can't be all bad, can it?

The challenge that we face here is not that we have a presidential candidate who doesn't understand religion: it is that we have one that DOES. At least, religion defined as man's attempt to reach God. On the other hand, we have a God who makes it clear that our reach is far too short. "True religion is this, to help orphans and widows in their distress and to keep one self from being polluted by the world. " In some ways, religion (man's reach toward God) is best exemplified by our reach toward one another. That is truth, and is neatly tucked in Obama's message. The falsehood lies in the perception that our pursuit of religion IS our salvation. Barack Obama is, intentionally or not, confusing salvation with religion. The two are not the same. Salvation is a True altruistic Gift from Almighty God to us, relgion is a type of gift from us to Almighty God.

See how he confuses this. In the mind of Barack Obama, our would-be next President, religion is something that we use to satisfy our inner most desires when they cannot be appeased. He proves it with his words:

" ...each successive administration has somehow said that these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who are not like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations..."



By his account, religion among other things, is something that we "cling" to when hope is lost. Salvation is what we strive for by collectively working together. Karl Marx said the same thing much more clearly: "...Religion is the sigh of an oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world..." The logical conclusion? No oppression equals no RELIGION. No RELIGION equals a heart-full world.

Watch out for the fallacy of humanism that awaits outside this door disguised as HOPE.

China's "great" Rise

"Anti-Americanism will disappear as Europeans realise how much better it was to have a world super power that was a democracy (however flawed) not a dictatorship."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=559133&in_page_id=1811

We in the states don't understand that as we continue to suck up China's loans and consumer goods...while leveraging foreign oil supplies rather than our own - it is only a matter of time before they leverage our "fat and happy" appetites by cutting us off and sending us into chaos. Hegel spoke of controlling history by creating just such chaos. China has a great "opportunity" (in their eyes) to open up its markets and make America "rich" strategically, and they will just as quickly turn off the spiggot and quash their own "ascending middle class" to force us into submission. The ruling elite could careless about their own people, why would we think that they can be trusted as a strong, primary trade partner. Whoa to US should the Chinese (ruling elite) and a handful of mid east states join forces. Caveat Emptor.

What's hidden under Barack?

Barack Obama is an amazing politician. Able to persuade his followers(and make no mistake, they are followers) that he somehow can lead them to "change". In my daily walk I see no ambiguous supporters. No supporters that are half way there. People seem to either like him or not. He has no demonstrable experience in changing diapers (see his wife's early comments), much less society.

But, oh can he speak. I love to watch him communicate, almost as much as I admired Reagan's ability. This begs the question though. Other than this campaign, which is a function of personality, how has he brought anyone together to accomplish something of value? Reagan had been around for 20 years in Politics we could see, rightly or wrongly his impact. How about Obama, 24 months, 36 months? 5 years if we give him the benefit of the doubt and offer a Clintonian stretch? He has no practical experience creating change by "uniting". And even if that ability were visible on his resume, under what view of democracy do we believe that "uniting" the country requires unanimous agreement? We are the "United States of America" yet the US constitution was agrued about all the way to Independence Hall. Once it was signed the disagreement on execution continued. (Ever heard of the federalist papers?) What we need is someone that is not afraid of disagreement, acknowledges the options, persuades and influences our legislative bodies and then signs the resulting legislation.

With Obama I suspect that we have an individual that will let personality and political shrewdness drive him to the nomination (an amazing feat in itself given his democratic competition) -- then sit back and watch as a lack of personality and passion (on the republican side) gives him the keys.

Then all of these friends that Mr. Obama has chosen to cultivate, and will continue to creep up in this campaign will (in Dr. Wright's words) "...come home to roost..." Watch closely as 12 million illegals are given the keys to the kingdom and 20 years of a Pastor's influence result in an apology and the resulting fiduciary obligation of said apology to this country's "original sin".

May God Bless America.

Democrats smeared Martin Luther King?

By Frances Rice - Executive Director of NBRA

As we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the month of his birth, let us also pause to remember the indignities he endured, who caused his suffering – the Democrats – and how. Character assassination. That's the tactic used by Democrats in the 1960's to discredit Dr. King, a Republican who was fighting the Democrats and trying to stop them from denying civil rights to blacks.

The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King's home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.

An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963. With the approval of Democrat President John F. Kennedy, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy – President Kennedy's brother – authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King's telephone by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on the telephones in Dr. King's home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King's hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.
The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings' criticism of the Kennedy Administration, according to the author David Garrow in his book, Bearing the Cross. The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly was that two of Dr. King's associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King. However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.

The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King's reputation continued for years after his death. To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats' smear campaign and made Dr. King's birthday a holiday. Under President George W. Bush, a memorial to Dr. King is being built in Washington, DC.

Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still trying to sully his image by making remarks that diminish his civil rights achievements and continuing to claim that Dr. King embraced Communism – a system that is secularist and socialist.

In reality, Dr. King was a Christian who held deeply religious beliefs and was guided by his faith and his Republican Party principles in his struggle to gain equality for blacks. He did not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democratic Party today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and banning God from the public square.

An understanding of who the real Dr. King was can be gained from a glimpse of Dr. King as a young man who participated in an oratorical contest when he was 14 years old. The title of his speech was "The Negro and the Constitution" which had the following sentences: "We cannot have an enlightened democracy with one great group living in ignorance…We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flout the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule…."

If Dr. King were still alive, he would be slandered by Democrats in the same way that they smeared him in the 1960's and demean all black Republicans today.

"...No Longer a Christian Nation..."

I have to say that the rise of Barak Hussein Obama may well be one of the most intriguing political stories of my lifetime. Not that the unique nature of this political season is fallen by the wayside. Nor that the concerns wrought by the current republican administration aren't important. A seemingly self-righteous administrative process my result in a possibly less responsible (and perhaps less experienced) democratic alternative. I have been a staunch supporter of GWB. I have articualted my concerns in prior submissions. On the face of it, whether I like it or not, there is a very strong possibility that the next administration will be one of the democratic pesuasion. Imagine my chagrine and concern then to hear these words from Barack Obama. "The dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever, whatever we once were, we are no longer a christian nation, at least not 'just'; we are also a jewish nation, a muslim nation and a buddhist nation and a hindu nation and a nation of unbelievers..." (see link below at 8:03)



With oratory capabilities, unparalled in my life time, I sat amazed as did so many others watching him as the key note at the 2004 democratic convention. Like Ronald Reagan before him, Obama does captivate. Unlike, Ronald Reagan he does so with an academic tone. A thoroughness, less folksy and more sophisticated presentation that resonates like Reagan, but in a different way. Seeing his victory speech in Iowa and the democratic debates one appreciates a gifted man. Watching crowds inexplicably mesmerized by his words, in spite of seemingly shallow experience, turns a curiosity on which is difficult to explain without causing disbelief among those who know me. The statement titled above by Obama, though stunned me. To see a politician at the highest level in US politics boldly proclaim that we are no longer a "christian nation" struck me in a painful way. Everything within me wanted to decry such a statement...

But how can one argue?

It is now a very real possibility that we will have a democratic nominee who identifies with my faith in Jesus, yet promotes conceptually that we "...are not a christian nation...". Add to that a possible republican nominee who identifies with a faith that our culture, at least until this year has general defined as a cult.

If our choices become one of these two individuals or both, then I suspect that is evidence towards the statement being accurate. Shame on us... Our goal as christians, then should be to change that? DeToqueville very eloquently mentioned the opinion that American society would last only as long as America remained a moral people. The question now must be, how long can we remain "moral", if our morality is guided by an ethos other than that of scripture? We know the Truth: with no foundation in God's word "...every man does that which is right in his own eyes..." Proverbs 21:2. Unfortunately, outside of scripture we can't all be right. I dare say that in some regard the tendency of the church to abdicate its responsibility to "...act justly, and love mercy and to walk humbly before your God..." may in fact create a defacto obligation for governmental intervention. Where there is less responsibility, there is more government. Where there is more governement, there is less freedom. Will we begin to take back that responsibility, or continue to loose freedom? Only time will tell. Lord help us. Prov.21:1

For context see Part 1,2,3 and 4 of Obama's Call to Renewal presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Senator+Barack+Obama+Call+to+Renewal+Keynote+Address+faith+politics+religion+speech&search=Search

***UPDATE*** for some reason the entire Call to Renewal Speech is no longer available on YouTube. Too bad because the context offers interesting topic of debate about the wanna-be President.