Social Security's billion dollar Loan to US

It's official folks.  We are now giving out to social security more than we are taking in.  All that money our government representatives borrowed starting with Lyndon B. Johnson and moving forward is going to be borrowed from some willing developing nation.  China?  India? Japan?  Singapore? 

We need a way out. 

Our unique assault on Greed

Greed is not good. It is sin. And sin is a REALITY. The genius of our system of gov't is that it takes this biblical truth into account and pits these "power" tendencies against one another. (3 branches of government/seperation of powers/checks and balances)

It is also the reason why we must be very careful when we rely on an a-moral government system to control industry, healthcare, financial and social constructs of our society. All of which our gov't is doing. Once gov't is - debate is squelched, and with no struggle for power the ruling elite begin to, well, RULE, instead of govern. Listen for the crecendo about how representative governement is "structurally flawed" for the 21st century, when in fact it is doing exactly what it should.


 Especially if Obamacare is voted down. Lose representative government and that is a big problem no matter who we are: democrat, repub or inde. We are veering dangerously close to that.

IMHO we have the greatest government system since the Israelites walked away from the "kingless" system of judges in I Samuel chapter 8 against God's wishes. (albeit for "good reason"; the judges (samuels heirs) were corrupt). Even still, God had another plan, and warned them what would happen (8:11-18 it wasn't pretty) and finally threw up his (figurative) hands and said, "...give 'em a king." (8:21). Interestingly, he told Samuel they reject this not because they don't like you (the system, Samuel/Judges), but because "they have rejected me." Could this speak to America today?

Private citizens, (particularly US Christians, in my view) in our comparable wealth should be: helping the poor, orphans and widows, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, teaching the young (and this means voluntarily financing it too), encouraging the downtrodden - we abdicated that responsibility to our government. In place of the above we have welfare, food stamps to the hungry, Medicaid to the sick (and soon who knows?), public schools to teach, unemployment compensation for the downtrodden all of which are well intentioned, poorly managed and incredibly inefficient in comparison to private efforts. Which is why Jesus parable (WARNING: opinion alert) had the "good samaritan", an individual, provide health care, not the Samarian Government. A nation of citizens premised on this "citizen action" would require NO government assistance.

Instead we have abdicated those responsibilities to a government all too willing to take power and to "...lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." (8:20) Shame on us.

Maybe today is the day that we pledge OUR "...lives, fortunes and sacred honor..." for justice instead of just prosperity. God help us if we expect the government to do it for us.

Why Israel can't go back to 1967 Borders

Here's a great description of why the state of Israel cannot offer to go back to the 1967 borders of Israel. 



FACTS:

*Israel is sournded by Arab countries 650 times it's size
*44 miles between it's western land borders and the sea
*6 Day War - Israel attacked by 4 Arab countries on 6 fronts
*UN voted to allow Irsrael a land with "defensible" borders
*Need to control the Jordan Valley - A cliff that provides a natural fortress agains ground attack
*Must control the Mountatin Ridge (to prevent attack from the Mountains coming down on Israel)
*1967 Borders would create only 9 miles between the wester Israeli boundry and the sea
*Must control West Bank Airspace
*Israel must control it's transportation arteries

Watch as the world starts to make demands for 1967 borders.  This must not happen.  Israel is more than willing to give up land to the Palestinians for a peaceful treaty.  Just as it has secured peace for years with Syria and Egypt.  They aren't friends, but they are at peace.  The Palestinians should simply admit that the state of Israel has every right to exist and then come to the table and negotiate safe and defensible borders for all.

Heal our Land: a call to repentance, sacrifice and action

The rise of President Obama may well be one of the most intriguing political stories of my lifetime. Not withstanding the unique nature of the 2008 political season having fallen by the wayside, his meteoric rise and unprecedented adulation were a story for me. Of course I had concerns wrought by the former Bush administration. I was a staunch supporter of GWB. I have significant concerns with the way that he governed, but in general I believe that he punished evil and condoned good. I think the Privacy Act has opened us up to all kinds of government control through setting precedents, so much so that the NSA (National Security Admin) now regularly monitors the emails of private citizens for content and information. George Bush signed into Law the first Stimulus which was a paltry $182 billion, and opened the door for a follow up proposal that totaled over $700 billion. Our big government is a bi-partisan effort.  Here even  the conservative may agree with the progressive Pogo who infamously said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

In his book the Audacity of Hope Barack Obama said, "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..."

With oratory capabilities, unparalleled 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 an audience. Unlike, Ronald Reagan he does so with an academic, lucid and hip 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. “We are the ones that we have been waiting for.”  Watching crowds inexplicably mesmerized by his words, in spite of seemingly shallow experience, turns a curiosity and an admiration 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 powerfully painful way. Everything within me wanted to decry such a statement...

But: can I argue?

It it is now true that we have a President who identifies with my faith in Jesus, yet promotes conceptually that we "...are not a christian nation...".

Our goal as Christians, then should be to change that?  Well maybe.  Maybe our goal should be to change ourselves.  Alexis DeToqueville was an author/sociologist in the 18th century who very eloquently expressed the opinion that American society would last only as long as America remained a moral people.  This morality that DeToqueville, a non-believer, saw is rampant in early American rhetoric.  John Adams said in his address to the Massachusetts Militia that “ We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  As Christians (perhaps living in denial about our current impotence) we like to trot this rhetoric to prove out the "christian nation" point. 

But the real question now must be, how long can we remain "moral", if our morality is guided by an ethos other than that of scripture? We now live, "christians" and non-christians alike, by a moral humanism. Real Christians know the Truth: with no foundation in God's word "...every man does that which is right in his own eyes..." Judges 17:6. Unfortunately, outside of an agreement with 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..." (Micah 6:8) may in fact create a defacto obligation for governmental intervention. Where there is less responsibility by the people, there is more government for the people. Where there is more government for the people, there is less freedom of the people. Humanism wants that responsibility. Will christians begin to take it back, or continue to loose freedom?

Fareed Zakaria, a national commentator/editor for Newsweek said in February 2010: "...in one sense, Washington is delivering to the American people exactly what they seem to want. In poll after poll, we find that the public is generally opposed to any new taxes, but we also discover that the public will immediately punish anyone who proposes spending cuts in any middle class program which are the ones where the money is in the federal budget. Now, there is only one way to square this circle short of magic, and that is to borrow money, and that is what we have done for decades now at the local, state and federal level...So, the next time you accuse Washington of being irresponsible, save some of that blame for yourself and your friends.”

We live in a country where there are 30 million people uninsured. Yet the remaining 270 million people receive the best health care in the history of mankind. Does the overwhelming majority who receive it in excellence justify the small portion who do not? Should those who receive healthcare now, receive inadequate, less efficient care so that those who do not will get something?  Governmetn helathcare is really just an extension of things that most of us take for granted. 

Do you complain when congress begins to tamper with social security? Do you groan when Medicare or Medicare Advantage are touched? How about unemployment compensation? Have you been educated or paid by a public school system? How many of us have a home loan that is underwritten by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mae?   (By the way, if you're loan has ever been “sold” chances are 90% it is held by one of these two entities.)  All of these are area's where the government confiscates property  from one individual and gives it to another. All of these are area's where a form of injustice or inequality brought the arm of government into the equation. And the Church, for the most part, has stood back and said, “Yeah, that's good.” In what ways has the church “acted justly” and “loved mercy” and “walked humbly” in providing for the less fortunate who were in need of these services?
So, what am I saying?  What I would like to propose is a question. If we as Christians  were doing our duty, (that is our Christian duty not civic duty) would any of these needs be unmet?  Much less by government intervention? Would the government have been given the opportunity to step in? Would it not be best if the government concerned itself with issues of punishing evil and condoning (not mandating) what is good to a body politic that is moral - and left these things to a “christian people”? I think so.

“The only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion.” Benjamin Rush

“Statesmen may plan and speculate for Liberty...but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” John Adams

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports...”  George Washington

Sturdy statements all.  Yet they are the same founding fathers that allowed for slavery to remain an important part of our industrial mechanisms and commerce for almost 100 years. A system where one ethnic group, who was no less “endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights” was subjugated to other men. “Act Justly”? “Love Mercy?” “Walk humbly”?

So, I have to think that even as we sit here today that there are things in our civic lives for which we should be repentant. Maybe what we need is a second American Revolution where we pledge our “lives our fortune and our sacred honor” for justice.

Too often "conservatives" rail against Gays, Evolution, Pro-Choice'ers, Academicians, Science, Government, the media - you name it - but I wonder if that is where our focus should be? The Apostle Paul says in I Corinthians chapter 5 “...What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside....” What do we expect from them? Should we not look at ourselves?

So what of repentance? Paul tells us that godly sorrow brings repentance. See 2 Corinthians 7:9-11: ...yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.” Do we need a revolution of repentance? Will it require godly sorrow? Have we seen “godly” sorrow?  And if we have, what has it produced?

I thought immediately following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 that this might lead to the spiritual revival that we needed.  The people enmasse were heading back to their houses of worship.  Franklin Graham predicted that Americans were committing themselves to God in an “enduring” way.  Pat Robertson predicted one of the “greatest spiritual revivals in the history of America”.   And for a few months it looked as though they were right.  Then the hype was over,the flood to God subsided and in 2003 George Barna produced a study that indicated that 90% of Americans reported that 9/11 had “no lasting impact” on their faith. What's more the Barna Group reported that people who held that “moral truth is absolute” actually dropped from 38% 2000 to 22% in the fall of 2001.  Indeed according to a study one by the University of Chicago while the church pews were emptying out, the psychologists offices were filling up.  Pill use and drinking increased statistically. But 9/11 apparently wasn't without some “good”.   Another study at the University of Chicago indicated that Americans after 9/11 were more likely to consider their fellow citizens fair, helpful and trustworthy--an optimism that has persisted.   "Rather than thinking about the acts of the terrorists," the study concluded, "people reflected upon the acts of those involved in the rescue and relief efforts in New York, acts of charity, and acts of patriotism both within the country and abroad."   Nationally, volunteerism increased 4.1%, they reported.  So, in our time of sorrow, which in a biblical community should lead to repentance Americans were largely turning to each other.  In other words, there was a spiritual impact, driven by the inspirational behavior of ordinary Americans, NOT by our inherent need for God. One Christian social commentator said, “In effect, the book of the moment was not the bible but "Chicken Soup for the Soul".

But perhaps, I am looking in the wrong place. 76% of American's call themselves Christians. That means 228 million of us are “Christians". And my outlook was to the repentance of them. After all, I'm certainly not so sinful as they, yes? I mean I'm solidly middles class, no more greedy than the next guy...and always give God the glory for my blessings.  I don't drink, smoke or chew.  I don't even have cable. But here I go again, comparing and contrasting. What is it in my life that I need to repent of?  I'm a pretty good guy, right?

Well, the Israelites were pretty good people too, at least when they built the temple. 2 Chronicles chapter 6 and 7 was the pinnacle of the Israelites positive and offertory relationship with God. Solomon had become king. He asks for wisdom and almost immediately (chapter 3) he begins building the temple that God had promised David, Solomon would build. They get this thing built and Solomon still brimming with God's wisdom and free of worldly distraction begins his prayer to God.  This goes on in praise and worship for the remainder of chapter 6 with Solomon praising God, warning him of the frailty of their devotion, asking God to come and dwell with them and offering a sacrifice and celebration in expectation of his acceptance. God graciously accepts Solomon's invitation in chapter 7 with one sentence: "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices."  Then God immediately transitions to the antidote for the tendency of man to walk away from him in 7:11-15.

It is not insignificant, in my mind, at least, that God after what was days of celebration and consecration for a people that had the best of intentions and perhaps, the best relationship with him of any people group to date – that his foremost purpose in communication following that act of worship was to offer guidance for the time and the place where those who were unanimous in glorifying him – would turn away.

We are God's temple now. We are the light of the world. I don't know in your own life where you are in need of repentance. What I do know is that the country in which we live is no longer a Christian nation. We are living on borrowed time. We are living on the good intentions of our founders but day by day, our popular culture is denying, decrying and destroying even the notion that our founding fathers believed in the God of the Universe. Amidst this extinguishing culture, the light of the world is not effectively shining back. What I know is that darkness cannot fight off the light – it simply disappears. Whether our sin is in our luke warm approach to scripture, our silence, our distraction by leisure or pleasure or busyness. I don't know. But God grants repentance and we know that if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Our permanent Unemployment

The Washington Post today spent some time discussing whether our system of unemployment has become a welfare system.  The longest can receive 99 weeks of unemployment compensation.  Let's just say that you are no week 85 of unemployment.  85 weeks of looking for work.  In that time youhave had countless interviews, a couple of rejections based on "better" fit...and a whole host of companies that simply change their mind about hiring.  Would you be here to complain about unemployment compensation?  Or argue against it?  Even as you diligently sit each day looking for what will hopefully the next opportunity that pays you "what you're worth" I wonder about what would be so wrong with "under-employment"?  Inconvenient, for sure.    If there weren't the unemployment compensation system, wouldn't you be under-employed right now?  You are a hard worker.  You are generally competent. On the face of it you'd rather work than not work.  But there is this problem.  You have a home, a family of 4, rent of one form or another to pay and mouths to feed.  Under the government system that we have in the United States here is what is available.  $388 per week in unemployment compensation,  $688 per month for food and medical care that is pretty good.  Let's put a monetary value upon it of $300 per month.  (Even though it would probably be closer to $800.)  Let's see what this means.  This translates into almost $36,000 a year for an individual to remain unemployed.  (OK, you do the math.)

Now this assistance, while we can all appreciated in the sense that there might be something, rather than nothing coming in, has unintended consequences.  This assistance creates an artificial floor under which it does not make economic sense for one to take employment.  That is if you come from working  within organizations where target compensation is over $150,000 annually, why settle for a 30,000 "reset". 

So, under what circumstances does it make sense for this individual, since he's "...worth $150k..." according to the market, to take a position for say $40,000?  After this individual has begged, borrowed and pleaded with creditors, family, friends, his savings account and is now struggling to keep the bills paid, does it make sense for him to take a job for $40k when the elusive 6 figure job is just around the economic bend?  How does this guy communicate to his wife that he is going to take this position?  Of course, faithful always, she knows that his six figure job is just around the bend.  Why 40k?  Take taxes and health care out of that and he can make the same amount of money by sitting home and looking for something more. 

Will he ever find it?  In this economy, we may never know. 

The Racist ravage of Abortion

Center for disease control numbers seem to indicate that abortion is a serious problem that is ravaging the babies of the black community.  More is here.  We need to join together to fight this atrocity. 

"Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black."


--Erma Clardy Craven (deceased)
Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader

Our flawed Constitution

So what about our fundamentally flawed Constitution?




I agree with President Obama. Our constitution is fundamentally flawed. It was created by man and reflects the specific bias of the time and the overall bias of human history. Self Interest. But, to re-apply a Winston Churchill truism, The American constitution is the worst of it's kind - except for all the others. The beauty of our constitution is how it uses self-interest against itself in order to come to the closest approximation to social justice in the history of the world. And offers a mechanism to (so long as we don't truncate it) get increasingly closer and closer to complete social justice-as close as we'll get this side of heaven.

What are we doing to increase the approximation of Christ's true justice - to act Justly, love mercy and walk humbly before God?  What are we doing?  Those with a Christ relationship should be leading the charge. 

Hear the entire audio here.

What's wrong with the Banks?

Capitalism combined with our American representative democracy has provided a social system that facilitates the wealthiest economic system in the history of the world.  So what is going on with our banking system?  Should we regulate it?  Should we bail it out?  The banking system is in place to act as a savings (thrift) and distribution point for capital and to the economy.  One of the confusing things about this is that when the Glass Steagall act was repealed back in the 90's it meant that banks could begin to deal in equity markets in order to gather a return on the deposits which they held.  So, here is how it works.  The bank invests money that you or I deposit OR money that they "borrow" from the federal reserve at interest rates significantly less than you or I could borrow - they also have access to lots more money from other banks and the federal reserve that you or I could not acquire. 

Our concern with the banks should be limited to what they are doing with private funds acquired from the government and how they meddle in the equity/commoditities markets.  Many banks are "trading on their own account", meaning that instead of trading equities (stocks/commodities/bonds) on money from their investors or depositors, they are borrowing money from the government, using it for operations and then investing what they call their "own money" in the equity markets.  Because they have access to so much money for so little cost, they will often continue to pour "good money after bad" until the market turns around.  Let me give you a sort of example.  Let's say that I am in Vegas playing the 25 cent slots.  And I know that my slot machine will pay at least 1 - $1,000,000 pay out every year.  If I had $50,000 to spend, a lot of money for some of us - I could spend the first 138 days of the year (a little over 4 months) trying to win that million dollar pot.  If I could get $221,400 in cash available what would I do?  I would borrow $221,400.  Why?  Because then I could hire my "investment advisors" who would sit at the slots doing two things, retaining my "position" at the guaranteed payout and placing my "bets".  I would pay 3  individuals (8 hr shifts) $30,000 ($90,000) to make the investments each day.  At a rate of 25 cents per minute it would cost me no more than $131,400 each year to retain my position at the slot and make the investment.  It could be even less because, their is nothing that says that my investors have to put a quarter in every minute.  I simply know that the slot will pay out at least 1 time per year.  When the time comes that the slot pays out I pay back my investment of  $221,400 and my profit becomes $778,600. (1 million minus $221,400)  I can take the rest of the year off or start the process all over again.  If I had unlimited amounts of cash available I could play the slots even if I didn't didn't have a guaranteed payout - so long as statistically the slots I were playing were strong bets.  If on the off chance I was statistically incorrect - the government to would bail me out - then guess what - I have no reason not to play and every reason to play.  This is where we find ourselves now.      

This is understating the complexity to be sure.  But the fact remains that big banks have access to unbelievable amounts of capital and they aren't using all of that capital to finance big and small business.  Some of it is being to bet on the equities markets and sometimes, when they find themselves in a losing position, they will simply hold that position until the down cycle reverses.  Worse yet they will sometimes flush massive amounts of capital into the position persuading the market to buy - at which point - they begin to sell their position to get out.  The unfair advantage here is that unlike a typical investor - the banks have enough capital to continue to fund a bad postion until it is good or influence the market itself.  This isn't right.  It gives the banks an unfair advantage over the standard investor that should not be allowed.

At the same time, part of what banks offer is a valuable service to the market.  And many individuals within our banking institutions are providing necessary and vital services to our economy.  It is a very dangerous thing when the government comes in, even if it is providing capital, and mandates what a banker should or should not be paid.  It is even more significant when the government takes away or taxes away a bonus that an individual banker has contractually agreed.  If the governement will nullify that THAT contract, they will usurp the power to nullify any contract deemed not in "the people's" best interest.  This issue relates to a point of law and contracts which, given the power, the government would just as soon do away with.  May it never be.

This is a good read on the matter:  Liar's Poker