Confidence Men - Notables

"Presidents are amoung the few mortals who are sometimes graced with chances to change a culture. Throughout a windswept march, the country had been working to dislodge some of the era's prevailing certainties about markets being efficient, about people--- economically, at least--- getting what they deserve, along with the concomitant belief that financial barons are brilliant and indispensable, and manufacturing executives are dinosaurs. With the eyes of the country on him, Barack Obama ended the the month by shielding Wall Street executives agains these winds of cultural change, while he fired a man who had effectively managed four hundred thousand workers in their making of seven million cars a year-- without bothering to meet him. At the same time, he agreed to try to bail out Chrysler, and eventually GM, by adopting the practices and principals of private equity in the use of government funds." p241 "Someone said to me the other day that history produces great leaders. But I don't think that's quite right. I think the American people produce great leaders. The fact that they took a guy who was four years out of the Illinois Senate and made him the president, but insist that he run every mile of the race to get there, clear every hurdle, run every gauntlet-- there's wisdom in that....but now, 5 months along he [Axelrod] and his boss were furiously trying to run up steep and unforgiving learning curves." p 283 "The confidence of a nation rests on trust and can endure for years after this trust has been broken. But it cannot endure indefinitelyif the foundation of trust is not at some point earned. Confidence is the immaterial residue of material actions: justly enforced laws, sound investments, solidly built structures, the well-considered decisions of experts and professionals. Confidence is the public face of competence. Separating the two -- gaining the trust without earning it -- is the age old work of confidence men." p292 "The president received the report on May 15. it took just a few days for Summers to hear about it. He found out through Emmanuel. Orszag looked up from his desk. Summers had stormed over from the White House to Orszag's office, and his face was red with rage. It looked like he was about to burst a blood vessel. He told Orszage he'd found out about the paper. He said that he, Peter, knew the rules, no matter what the president had said. Everything was supposed to go through NEC....[Summers] What you've done is IMMORAL!..." p 297 On Peter Orszag writing a summary report at Obama's direction to get it directly to him. "'What is my narrative?' he all but shouted. 'I don't have a narrative.' Of course he was right. The extraordinary story of Barack Obama -- a boy, so truly African American, who was blown between countries and households before finding his solid stance in the United States and then racing upward through its meritocracy-- no longer seemed pertinent to almost anything he was doing. It was, no doubt, always a narrative of 'up ahead, a dream of what would be': of how he would bind the country into an enlarged ideal of shared purpose, integrating its dissonant chords into a melody as elegant and surely struck as he, himself, appeared to be. Instead, he had vanished into a cloud of endless policy debates and irreconcilable factions, of bold words -- still hoping to summon the magic -- so often divorced from measurable deeds. Bit by bit, month by month the first narrative had faded, even if plenty of people felt it's presence, like the ghost of a lost limb. 'He was right' one of the participants that morning recalled. 'He had no narrative. No story. For someone like Obama, that's like saying I don't know who I am. That I've lost my way." p 372

Confidence Men

A new book by one of Washington's primary journalists came out in the last month.  Ron Suskind, who wrote of the sordid misdeeds of the Bush administration has given his take on President Obama's first 3 years in office.  Chock full of information, interviews and storyline from primary players in the administration the book is being hailed by conservatives as proof positive that the President didn't/doesn't know what he is doing and indeed, appears to have the Washington elite closest to Obama wondering what hit them.  Apparently, Suskind was given access to the top players with the idea that his book would paint a strong and confident picture of the President and his administration.  The Obama elite, instead seem to be taking this as a hit job.  I understand why they think this, but my opinion is that the book positions him pretty uniquely, if not well, for his attempted re-election.  The book itself is divided into three sub-books entitled:  The Two Capitals, Home Alone, The Education of Barack Obama.

The Two Capitals mostly details his rise and highlights the hope and expecation of both the genius's make up his support team and the electorate.  Suskin's narrative weaves in and out of the run up to the election with a starting point in September 2010 and looking back.  A good deal of this reads like a novella detailing the early brushes with Wall illuminati that allowed him to understand the markets.  Between the informational growing spurts, the enlightment on Wall Streets transgressions and the coming fall-out that, according to the narrative, the soon to be President was told was a matter of when - not if, this book details a compelling lead up to his ultimate inauguration.  It details the wonderment and even awe - and occasional distaste that the President felt about his rapid rise in favor amoung the people.  (47)  Finally, this section details the transition team.  Presumably this is where the sections from which the title "The Two Capitals" comes.  I would say that I don't quite understand it's emphasis as a section title since really only the 7th chapter deals with post-election ending as events actually did, with the climax of his inauguration.  The title suggests to discuss the oddly symbiotic relationship of George Bush (seemingly) going into seclusion in Washington and  Barack Obama (seemingly) running things from Chicago.  Except that George Bush is never brought up so apparently it should be common knowledge to the reader.  The seed of quirks in personality, pride and sometimes pomposity of staffing that would contribute to an (at least early) organizational dysfunction are finally in place.

Home Alone  describes the President through his early learning of issues in general management.  These lessons according to the narrative were largely in setting his own agend and not allowing the agenda to be set for him.  Geithner and Summers are highlighted as strong personalities early.  But then, in a story woven to highlight the strong leadership skills of the new president, we visualize a meeting with staff to discuss priorities:  Healthcare or Economic Focus.  In the absence of his primary health care expert, the former Senator Tom Daschle the president calls on a tentative assistant to Daschle to defend Healthcare as the priority.  The poor fellow is trounced by the minds in the room until the President puts him out of his misery, "Ok, enough, enough...I'll play Daschle." (178)  Upon which the President flips the rolls and trumps all the smartest guys in the room.  Healthcare becomes the early focus.  That's not to say he wasn't rolled however.  The book details Rahm Emmanual derailing talks to "rip the bandaid off" and enable true reform with forcible and punctuated language that may as well have been a punch in the stomach to Christina Romer. (219)  This, after the President seemed to be leaning toward a more industry harsh, "bad bank" solution from Romer and Summers.

The final section seems to highlight his ongoing education.  Details how President Obama realized that his team was manipulated situations (if not him) and he was not truly making or implementing policy as he was directing it to be made or managed.  He attributes this largely to the learning process and in effect the book argues that we might consider the first four years as a down payment and that to be fair he really needs another 4 years to work out the details.  The Obama administration seemed a bit shell shocked when the book came out but I suspect that this will be a good jumping off point for them to persuade the American people not to give up on him yet. 

There were several things that discouraged me as I read the book.  The first is that the people that who are in charge of the government are the exact same people that instigated the laws and regulatory environment that allowed it to happen.  Lawrence Summers (Citi and repeal of Glass Stegall), Rahm Emmanual (Fannie), Timothy Geithner (New York Fed, TARP) Ben Bernanke (QE's).   These guys are smart enough to figure out how to rob the american people in a way that is either legal or there is no controling legal authority.  I am bewildered that the President feels that it is wise to work with the very individuals that allowed this mess to occur - and in fact capitalized on the loop holes they created in their roles - to help his resolve what is the most critical economic challenge in my lifetime.  The second thing that I am amazed at is that no one seems interested in truly resolving the problem.  Their plan seems to be do whatever you must in order to make people feel confidence in the market place, and then the market will come back.  Wouldn't it seem wise to work on underlying principals that would actually provide us with strong fundementals?  What must be done to accomplish a fundementally strong financial infrastructure?  How do we drive business toward growth rather than making it more difficult to make money.  How do we discourage the gambling mentality of our financial service sector that provides nothing but naked profit?  Something from nothing?  There must be a way to retstrain the gambling markets and contract the productive markets.  And yet we have no positive suggestions from the smartest guys in the room.     

           

Progressives to taste the racism Smear?

Progressive 2008 Obama voters find themselves finds himself in an interesting predicament.  With liberal progressives and even those within the black community unsatisfied with the his agenda there is a curious shot being fired in the progressive publication, The Nation.  Melissa Harris Perry writes in this weeks online issue that a more pernicious racism could very well be afoot.  In spite of President Obama's efforts to minimize the issue of raise, at least in his public voice, the table is now being set to guilt those unsatisfied with his work as a progressive and possibly set up a primary challenge for him prior to the 2012 general election. 
Harris-Perry points out the obvious that voters were willing to bring him into office in 2004 as a senator in Illinois (against a black republican opponent no less) and then again 2008.  To her credit she admits that the most "naked, egregious and aggressive form" of racism is no longer a factor.  She comes to this conclusion by pointing out the less obvious (which I take at her word as I've not researched it myself) by comparing the "roll-off" vote in prior elections.  "Roll off" is the number of voters who vote in a primary election but then fail to vote in current year municipal, state or local elections.  The same can be compared to off year elections.  For example, those who voted in the Kerry-Bush race in 2008 but refused to vote in the Illinois senate race which was comprised of Obama and another black candidate Alan Keyes.  If the number votes cast were significantly lower for the senate race then one could deduce that racism was still alive and well.  The "roll off" was statistically insignificant.  This allowed Harris Perry to conclude the worst form of racism is no factor.

But don't celebrate yet.  According to Harris Perry we still need to look out for what she has termed "liberal electoral racism".  This is defined as "...the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.  She goes on to compare the legislative "successes" of President Obama and President Clinton concluding of course that Obama has seen as much success as did President Clinton.  Concluding that both Clinton and Obama are centrist Presidents.  Of course she concludes the only difference between the two:  one is white and the other is black.  Therefore any push for the base to abdicate him, or heaven forbid, push for a primary challenger will indicate a form of racism that still exists.  An interesting theory I disagree with on many levels but I will leave the reader to decide.

What I find equally interesting is the comments section.  "I love you Melissa but bunk!"  or "...don't you listen to the reasons liberals give for being very unhappy with President Obama? To blame it on racism is, frankly, insulting...".  On and on it goes.  I don't know if a primary challenge is in the cards or not, but it offers some small satisfaction to see those that would accuse me of racism for not voting for this President (much less agreeing with His policies) beginning to get back a bit of their own medicine.  Is it possible they will learn from this and cease and desist?    

Roots of Obama

We hear much rhetoric in the conservative right about President Obama's political ideology.  Marxist. Socialist.  Communist.  I read a book that I only wish I could change the title.  I'd call it "The Roots of Obama's Policy".  Of course that sounds pretty boring and probably wouldn't sell as well, but it is was a fascinating read.  This book may present a more accurate picture of who and why the President acts in the way that he does.  The premise of the book is that we are not living out the ideology of Barack Obama so much as we are living out the legacy of a failed Kenyan civil servant that Barack Obama has been trying to live up to his entire life: Barack Obama, Sr. 

The author, Dinesh D'sousa's first and most basic clue to this possibility is to look at the title of President Obama's first book, "Dreams from my Father".  The very title itself implies that he has received his dreams from his father.  D'sousa's book suggests an Obama I and Obama II.  Obama I is the inspirational Obama that was so praised and lifted up in adulation during the 2008 campaign.  The Obama that - putting it in the words of the man himself -was "...a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views..." .   I think the premise of the book is that President Obama is not a communist or a socialist or a marxist.  He is anti-colonialist and anti-Imperialist.  D'Sousa suggests that President Obama believes the US, in the 20th and 21st century, is colonial in it's foreign policy.  It suggests Mr. Obama's hope is that he can help make the US the last of the colonialist powers. 

The consequence of this is that his policies are designed for one purpose: to weaken our standing abroad, and strengthen the role, power and impact of the federal government domestically.  The book suggests that - when given the choice of policy - his choice will always further this objective.  The book offers a tremendous amount of evidence to make this case.  I won't present all of the evidence here, but agree that it does seem to serve as a predictive measure of how Obama has acted.  Think about it.  Health Care (domestic)- increases government control.  Finance Reform(domestic)- increases government control.  Buying GM(domestic) - increases government control. Poland Missile Shield Abandoned (foreign)- weakens foreign influence.  Leading from behind in Libya (foreign)- weakens foreign influence.  Flooding economy with (borrowed) printed dollars(QE I, II, III?) - increases government control and weakens foreign influence.

Perhaps the most interesting things that it explains, in my mind, is why the President finds himself with eroding support in both conservative and progressive political camps.  We have the right clamoring for his ouster, we have the left clamoring for his ouster and we have independents exceedingly dissatisfied.  His policies have seemingly pleased no one and the reason, this book would argue, is because he isn't playing to any of us.  He is acting to more fully realize the dreams of his Father.  Could this explain why a "really good one-term Presidency" would be OK with him?  If "really" good is defined by him, and not by the rest of us, then he can - in principal - be "really good" even if no one (but him) is satisfied with his results.     

I will say there were occasions in this book for what I perceived to be hyperbole.  Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, even the title of the book plays to the hard core Obama malcontent.  While hyperbole may increase sales, it likely prevents a more wide range of political ideaology in it's readership.  I think that's unfortunate.  Were it not for the title of the book I think it offers a reasonable (even one for which we might objectively empathize) explanation for how and why the President takes action. I wonder though, what an honest to goodness, clear thinking, progressive might think?  

Tax Cut + War = Deficit

Tax Cut + War = Deficit

This subject line on an email greeted me this morning from my friends at MoveOn.org.  It really bothers me.  Not because I am a "hawk" and am very satisfied with the status of our offensives in the Middle east.   (I'm not.)  Not because it makes a very powerful argument.  (It does.) What really bothers me is the presupposition that one is required to make in order to agree that it is true.  Now, if they had said, "Medicare+War+Funding female Jello wrestling in Antarctica= Deficit".  Alright.  Or I'm even OK with "Food stamps + Shrimp on a Treadmill Studies + War =   Deficit".  But please, please, please...if you're interested in Truth, stop telling us that Tax Cuts are a COST to government.   

That statement is wrong on so many levels.  To hold that view presupposes that the government owns all of our money -- all of it -- and simply allows us to keep a certain amount of it.  It presumes that anything that it "gives back" to us "costs" it something.  That is the only assumption that can be made if allowing us to keep what we think is our hard earned money "costs" the government something.  This is why so many people from the right and, to a lessor extent, the independent side of the political spectrum think that our President leans toward socialism.    

The only way to assume a tax cut a cost, is if you start from the view point that all resources are owned by the government.  Then, anything that you give to people becomes a "cost".  Only then can you can say that a Tax Cut "costs" the government something.  However, understand the importance of personal property and John Locke's argument of ownership: that we own our production and the results of that productivity.  This is ownership.  If you agree then you will also agree that the government takes from what "we the people" own.  It takes for many reasons, some of which are well intentioned and some reasons of which are necessary.  I'm OK with that...in balance.  To live in a free, (relatively) just society, it is good for the federal government to take funds to assure certain things are accomplished.  That must be balanced however, with the idea that government does not have the authority, much less the obligation to borrow beyond our ability to repay, in order to provide these services.  And we are dangerously close to that position in 2011.  When you cut taxes on the means (owners) of production, productivity increases.  When productivity increases, taxes increase: even if the tax rate goes down!  It's a proven fact with which even President Obama apparently agrees.    

Recall the debate between then Senator Obama and Hillary Clinton that Charlie Gibson moderated?  This was the Gibson debate that was "fair" according to the pundits.  Senator Obama tells in so many words that he doesn't really want to raise taxes because it will increase our revenues in the Treasury (Apparently he knows that it won't.)  He wants to raise taxes out of "fairness".

GIBSON:  You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Breath taking.  He wants to raise taxes, not because it will increase revenue in the treasury which we desperately need, but because it's not "fair" that other people get to make lots of money.  Is it fair that the money that is taken from the wealthy can no longer be invested in assets that will require people to run (jobs) and new business for people to own? (jobs)  Is it fair that we are actually going to have less money in the treasury to pay our bills because the government would rather play to some intellectual notion of fairness? The reality that the President and Charlies Gibson agreed upon is that revenue in the government treasury GROWS when taxes are lower.  It's not fair to raise taxes, when lower taxes improve all of our lives. 

This is what brings us back to our original notion. Barack Obama and his  wing of the Democratic Party (and yes, some Republicans) want to control as much of our assets as they can, even if it is counterproductive to increasing our revenues.  Plans in place are well on their way to a maximum tax rate over 60%.  This isn't imaginative, congress works on this as we speak.  These tax rates rival the rates of the Jimmy Carter era.    Is it any wonder that one might suspect that it's not really about fairness - that contradiction smacks of control.  Controlling as much of the assets and dollars as possible and giving to "each according to his need".  Thereby explaining why MoveOn considers a tax cut - a "cost".

War + A whole host of Other things we Can't Afford = Deficit. 

AWKWARD: You go public, I go public. Love, Bibi

Awkward starts at 7:48.  Awkward for the President.  Awkward for Israel. Awkward for us.  Just awkward.  This week President Obama insisted upon going public with a partial policy before the world that, at one time was a baseline for closed door negotiations.  Israel pleaded with the President to  focus on the supposed "Arab Spring" or some other important issue, but the administration declined and went public with their demand.  This left Prime Minister Netanyahu left to clarify, in no uncertain terms, and define the other absolutes which the President chose not to highlight.  It was awkward for the President.  It was awkward for us to watch.  It had to be done.    President Obama willfully, perhaps unwittingly, chose to be provocative by bringing something into the public eye that has always remained behind closed doors.  By doing so, the President created a scenario where Palestine will hold that the President stands for unilateral sacrifice to get 1967 borders. 

There are those that argue that President Obama hasn't changed policy at all.  And it is true that 1967 borders were a baseline for Clinton, a baseline for Bush and until now, a baseline for the Obama administration.  What the administration would appear to not understand is that you don't publicly state what the baseline will be in a forum where you cannot establish the entire baseline.  To wit:  You cannot have a return to 1967 borders with "swaps" without the host of other conditions that must be accompany this baseline.  To the Presidents credit he did try to outline the non-soquitur that is Palestine relationship with Hamas and the improbability of US support for the UN's intent to vote on Palestinian sovereignty.  What the President Obama has done, that other administration did not do is bring to the public eye where negotiations, behind closed doors, are supposed to begin.  Making the statement that the President made was counterproductive because it offers the Palestinians what they want, without requiring what past administrations would have required to achieve that return to borders with a swap.

We can tout the support of the Anti-Defamation League and a host of other supporters of the state of Israel that have praised the work of President Obama in his speech detailing his "return to 1967 borders" to a large contingent, including the Press, at the state department.  The phrase had no place in public dialogue because it makes it more difficult for the Palestinians to give up - something, when seemingly the President of the United States is already saying publicly what the Palestinians should get.  This appears to be a unilateral statement because of what the President doesn't say.  This faux-pas in negotiating tactic is really what is wrong with what the President has done.  As always he means well, he just doesn't seem to get it.  Alan Dershowitz, a fairly well known attorney, and not exactly a right wing ideologue criticizes the President's quite effectively here .  Dershowtiz goes even further in this interview admitting that inspite of voting for the President, Obama's  foreign policy clearly demonstrate a "sophisticated and realistic approach to negotiations which he doesn't seem to have."  Dershowtitz rightly points out the propensity for the President to not understand effective negotiation technique by recalling the Presidents equally unilateral demand for the Israeli's by demanding earlier in his term that the Israeli's impose a "freeze on all settlements".  Fortunately, the administration understood it's mistake and this demand was dropped.  Hopefully, there will be a way for our President to clarify his position on this episode as well.  It seems that there are lots of our congressman asking for clarification - read: retraction - from our President as well.

It would have been nice if neither the President, nor the Prime Minister would have had to bring up the topics they did - but the President took the lead, chose the provocative - and left Mr. Netanyahu no other choice but to attempt to mitigate the damage and clarify.  Awkward, but necessary. 

"Did you plug the hole, Daddy?"

On the morning of May 27, 2010 as the 45th President of the United States began his day - as we all do, in the bathroom grooming himself.  Little Malia took time away from her standard morning preparations to ask her father, in her own way, the question that is seemingly on everyone's mind:  "Did you plug the hole, Daddy?"

Does anyone besides me find this an odd question, for the President of the United States to draw upon for addressing the media?  Never mind the President's (rightful) disposition about the media highlighting the goings on of his young children.  Never mind the supposition that most of our - non-presidential - children rarely pay too much attention to what we do in our day to day.  Never mind the ubiquitous notion (at least in my mind) that the presentation may have been for dramatic purposes only and using what may generously be termed as poetic license to do so.  His opinion that he must command and control - this is a recurring one. Days before that we are treated with insider accounts of the President demanding staff to "Plug the **** hole!".  He felt the same way about GM...and AIG...and Health Care.  

I, for one, would like to give the President a pass on "plugging the hole".  If you are tea party faithful, I think you should too.  In fact, I think that the interests of the country would be better served if President Obama simply maintained pressure on the companies in charge to corral  the resources of the American people - and get the hole plugged.  They will get it done.  Then he can use what he does control:  the regulatory agencies that monitor this situation to correct, rebuke and penalize the appropriate parties at an appropriate time and in an appropriate way.  In this he would be condoning what is good (creativity, inginuity and efficiency of the American people).  And punishing evil.  (Those who through neglect, greed, or political posturing allowed this to occur.)

I know, my republican friends are secretly behind the scenes, even as I write, trying to figure out how they will follow the advice of the Presidents Chief of Staff.  Who famously stated out loud what every politician intuitively knows, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."  And make no mistake, politically, this will be a "great" crisis for the opposition.  I'm not from that school of thought, anymore.  I am tired of living in a world that is so caught up with the "social investment" by our government  (read: taxes) that we don't know where our ownership ends and government control begins.  Let me rephrase that, "I am petrified of living in a  world that is so caught up with the social investment by our government that we don't know where our ownership ends and government control begins.   

We demand our medicare; We demand our social security; We demand our public school funding; We demand our unemployment compensation; We demand, we demand, we demand. And then we rally ourselves Washington, or Chicago, or Madison, or Atlanta and demand that government get out of the way. Shame on us. We should be appalled at the notion of which our President burdens himself: that he "is in control". That is exactly the problem. And that would be true whether the President of the United States who held the notion were Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln. So, please, take a step back Mr. President, give yourself a break. Let the creative and fiduciary forces available in this country (so far) create a solution to "plug the hole." The result will be a more efficient and effective solution than a distant central government could ever provide.

I am tired of the hypocrisy. I am tired of it in myself and I'm tired of it in those around me. When will we repent of this? When will we acknowledge the need for sacrifice and when will we take action based upon those prerequisites?  Give yourself a break Mr. President, you can't control this - nor can you control GM, AIG, Healthcare, the student loan industry, ad infinitum...   Please stop trying to control - guide, enforce and lead.  Punish evil and condone what is good.  Then stand back let the people come together and take care of themselves.

Our Point counter Point President

President Obama spoke at the University of Michigan commencement exercises this year.  The question he posed and provided an answer to the expectant graduating class is this:  how will we keep our democracy going?

Now, ignoring the fact that we don't have a direct democracy - and offering the benefit of the doubt that the "representative" portion of our form of government was omitted out of rhetorical expediency and not as a means to imply we are a direct democracy, President Obama attempts to answer the question.  He gives us 2 things to consider: 
 
"First, American democracy has thrived because we have recognized the need for a government that, while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world."

"The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate.
 As I've found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of slash and burn politics isn't easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect."

The President postulates that the reason our representative democracy has thrived is because we recognize the "need for a government that, while limited, can help us adapt to a changing world."  I don't know if that is true - much less if it is the reason democracy has thrived.  We do have a people that recognizes we must adapt to a changing world.  We also recognize that our institutions must adapt to a changing world - as he alludes to Thomas Jefferson's quote on the 4th panel of the Jefferson memorial.  "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but...with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times."  Where does it say that government must adapt or that the government should "help" us do this?  This sounds like a representative tyranny to me, not representative democracy.  Now, I would agree that there are certain things that the people must do, and if they do not, the government must step in.  The people must remain moral.  Where the people do not remain moral, the government must punish evil.  There are many reasons that our form of government has thrived, but an understanding about the efficacy of government is not one of them.  Even Jefferson in his quote - between Obama's ellipses of the Jefferson quote - speaks of the individual, and the accompanying change of government.  Not government, to change the individual.

The President then goes on to explain that our second method of maintaining our democracy is to maintain civility in our debate and beyond that to listen to all sides.  On this point I agree with the President.  But I wonder, does he agree with himself?  We should remain civil in our debate - but under what circumstances is calling a form of government health care "socialist" not civil - if in fact we discuss socialized medicine?  The President points out the hypocrisy of a (tea party) sign that reads - "Keep government out of my Medicare!"  The President rightly (is this civil?), mocks, "...this is like saying 'Keep government out of my Government-run Healthcare...".  On the other hand, he also allows his party leaders to call their opponents names ( Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi) and himself and his executive branch staff to attack the private sector for political purposes.  (news, banks, insurance, citizens)  I agree civility is important in debate, but the commentary - even the harshest commentary - is part of the debate.  It shouldn't scare us away or prevent engagement.  It should spur us on to understand the real issues.  Obviously, harsh commentary is something that flows freely from both sides - let it.  Ignore it, process it, add to it.  The Presidents best advice comes next:  "...if you're someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you're a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website..."  Diversity of opinion and thought is a good thing, it allows us the choice as God intended.     

To eliminate these forums would go directly against the effort the President then goes on to encourage in the UM commencement address:     

" The point is, when we don't pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders; when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day; when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that's when democracy breaks down. That's when power is abused. That's when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That's when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of Washington - because none of us are there to speak up and stop them." 

Frederick Douglass once said, "Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.  They want rain without thunder and lightning.  They want the ocean without the awesome roar of its many waters.  This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.  Power concedes nothing without demand.  It never did and it never will."  

Well, Mr. President, if we don't pay attention, and fail to educate ourselves, and choose to be silent - in short if we are not there - shame on us.

President Obama claims Christ

Here we are again with President Obama Claiming the person of Christ as his only hope for redemption.  We saw this earlier in his campaign for the presidency as well.  Words that make the Christian believers that support the President and everything he does so proud.  And cause those of us who are concerned about his intentions and his policies stare drop jawed at our computer monitor.



While he did not mention the resurrection, I think if one heard this as a testimony from a member of our church we would be hard pressed to be critical of such a testimony.  While some may bicker with his inclusion of American's who celebrate Ramadan and Passover.  And many will argue from an evangelical perspective about whether President Obama's "fruit" is consistent with that of a believer - his words are quite clear: he counts himself among "us".  May God use the Truth he knows to lead him to just counsel and godly policy.  Let us pray daily for evidence of this answer to prayer.   

Walking with Lincoln: Spiritual Strength from America's Favorite President

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.

Obama's Reproductive Healthcare Hype

I must say that I am a bit concerned about the huge negotiations that appear to be taking place around keeping federally funded abortion out of the health care bill.  I am concerned that the democratic administration is hyping the inclusion of this as a leveraging ploy to get a government run program that will take over our health care economy.  I am not sure of the politics preventing them from dropping the abortion clauses in reconciliation simply to get the government in place.  I have largely been opposing this for social justice reasons, but do we really want governement health care?   Won't this fly through congress if abortion is gone?  Think of it:  we all breath a sigh of relief, no federal funding of abortion...whew.  But that begs the question: once abortion is gone - do we really want government health care of any kind?  By doing this the government will beome both a player and the referee in the medical community.  In so doing it will be able to regulate all other options out of business.  If the government could actually run a transparent, efficient and effective system that wouldn't be so bad.  But what is the history  of our government running things?

1. The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. 234 years to get it right and it is becoming more unsustainable by the day.

2. Social Security was established in 1935. 74 years to get it right and it is bankrupt.

3. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. 71 years to get it right. It is bankrupt and now has an unlimited line of credit from the Fed (printing fiat).

4. The War on Poverty started in 1964. 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor".  We are still around.

5. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. 44 years to get it right.  They are bankrupt.

6. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. 39 years to get it right. It is bankrupt and now has an unlimited credit line from the Fed.

7. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

FAILED in every "government service" attempted while overspending massive tax dollars that could be saved, invested or spent by the American people. Can we NOW trust a government Health Care system to work...a system bigger than all of these programs?  And aside from that once they put private insurers out of business, what's to stop them from reinstating the funding? 

Case in Point: Bankrupting the Coal industry

Yesterday we discussed the honest understanding the President Obama articulated that he would rather be a really good one term President than serve a mediocre two terms. An honest and forthright statement, which seems to indicate that in his mind doing what he believes is "right" - regardless of the political consequences - is the definition of being a "really good" President. That concept juxtaposed to the idea that a "really good" President is one that can get himself re-elected. I argue there is truth to this statement and a point of view that is clearly defensible. We all had the opportunity to know and understand who this President was and how he would choose to govern. Case in point: Senator Obama tells us specifically that bankrupting the coal industry is his solution to limiting non-renewable energy. Utilizing government regulation in order to create a hostile business environment would be the solution to limiting an environmental problem. (ie global warming) Check this out: Should we expect that President Obama would be elected and use government as a battering ram against those interests for which he disagrees? Is it really a character flaw that the man is governing in the way that he indicated he would govern? The simple fact is that while we didn't frequently hear the President articulate his views, he articulated them clearly enough that any independent or republican that voted for him has no excuse but a willful (or at least negligent) disregard for the meaning of his public statements, associations and past action. If you don't like what he is doing, then get up and do something about it. What is truly remarkable is that he is choosing to govern in the very way that we all anticipated. While we may not agree with his policy, and we may wish he would change his views I submit that there should be some respect for the fact that he is continuing to govern according to HIS principles. Those who disagree have no one to blame but themselves. (Nope - Not even Bush.)

Again, I submit that a "really good" President:

1.) has the judgment to govern in a way that is myopic in his attempts to avoid polarization where at all possible;
2.) where this is not possible-He stands courageously firm on the principles upon which he was elected(having been honestly articulated during the campaign)
3.) and in ANY case acknowledges that in the United States the People decide.

Prayer of Thanks, Forgiveness, Balance, Justice and Wisdom

Father: Thank you for the virtue of compassion that you have given President Obama. He has weathered so much criticism for the financial crisis. Please don't allow him to exacerbate or prolong a bad situation and make it worse. Thanks that he has called upon President Bush to join him and President Clinton to use their influence to help the people of Haiti. Father, teach us your love and compassion, and give us a heart to repent for any unforgiveness or resentment we may be harboring against President George Bush and his Administration. Thank you for President Bush who, faults clearly identified by this administration - and in spite of being called out again and again by this administration and even it's prayer warriors, put these direct insults aside and lent his credibility to the Haitian people - responded to President Obama's invitation in servitude. Thanks that he set aside the political even though the invite comes from one who continually heaps scorn upon the former President's service. Replace hurt feelings with the agape Love of Christ. Teach us to follow the examples where our President makes good decisions. Father, give us a heart to forgive Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck for trying to manipulate, influence, and turn the people against President Obama with lies, accusations and more often distortions of truth. Forgive Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and to a (barely) lessor extent the media in general too for their misrepresentations of Truth, omissions in research and ideologically driven editing. Teach us your love. Love conquers all. Father, even when we don't agree with every decision President Obama may make, open the eyes and ears of America and the international community; even among those who would seek to do us harm, to understand that our President’s ultimate goal and agenda appears paved with good intentions even where it is ill informed: goodwill, good health, and dignity for all humanity. But he cannot do it alone. It is only through Your Divine guidance can he stay or acquire the path of your Divine Will for our Nation. Correct him where he is wrong, and direct him where he is right. Keep him and his family healthy, safe, and secure. Position people around him; particularly in his inner circle of advisors who will provide him with sound advice, and good judgment. Instill in his security forces the utmost professionalism and vigilance. Place in his cabinet leaders and the tiers of leadership in his administration loyalty to the truth, and a commitment to integrity. Fill the seats of power in congress with those who will stand with President Obama in a vision that is according to Your purpose and Your will.

In addition provide us a spirit of forgiveness for Mssrs. Pelosi and Reid who (against the will of a solid majority of people and President Obama - according to his public statements) - are providing a bill that will require the American people to subsidize the death of defenseless babies through a gov't premium - unless the taxpayer "opt out". Father please don't let our default premium subsidize increased death to the innocent. Help us to forgive them for going behind closed doors-even cutting out members of their own party who are concerned for the smallest among us. Even going against President Obama's wishes who advised that all meetings be broadcast on c-span - are violating the transparency he so frequently called for during the campaign.

Father, bless those of us not insured. This is truly a difficult situation of Freedom and how to align it with Compassion. Protect those who are defenseless and in dire financial straits. May the solution, be your solution - may your sovereignty be acknowledged and the strong hand of government be balanced with an acknowledgment by that government of the people of your supremacy. Don't let the bureaucracy use this as an excuse to manipulate the people for it's own purposes. May You Bless the United States.

An Open Letter to the Obama Prayer Chain

I am responding to an item of concern on the Obama Prayer chain. I do so through this seldom used blog out of respect for the forum of prayer that the Obama Prayer blog represents. This post is in response to questions about the availability of federal premiums to be used for the purpose of abortion on demand.

In the fall of 2009 Bart Stupak (D-MI) presented an amendment to clearly and strictly prohibit the use of any federal tax dollars to be used for the purpose of abortion. This amendment was voted and approved by the House of Representatives. (240-194) You can see the amendment here. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both oppose this amendment which would assure that no federal funds were used to fund abortions. Click here for an article that offers both perspectives on this amendment. The side antagonistic to this bill (generally democratic) continually emphasizes that it is an "assault" on women's reproductive rights. This is a euphemism for a woman's right to kill her baby for any or no reason. We know this because Stupak specifically allows for cases where "a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself...". I'll leave the rightness or wrongness of the exceptional type of abortion to God...the fact is that this amendment is designed to prevent our federal dollars from being used to fund abortions as a means of birth control and our House leader, Ms. Pelosi voted against it. See paragraph 3 in this article for proof. Further, the very next paragraph has Ms. Pelosi telling us she is confident - as they reconcile the two bills (house and senate)- they can eliminate the language because Stupak goes "to far". Harry Reid for his part didn't even include the Stupak language in the Senate version of the bill for consideration. Instead they wish to work with something called Nelson(D-NE)-Casey(D-PA) which allows for a subsidized insurance exchange to pay for abortions. (See paragraph 9 in this article.) While we can opt out of the exchange as a federally insured individual - Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says it's an accounting procedure to allow premiums to still be used to subsidize the exchange whose sole purpose is to accommodate abortion on demand. Hence, Mr. Stupak's continued opposition to the Senate version. In any case Rep. Stupak is not included in the reconciliation process to stand up for the fetus, which would be obvious to all if the Senate/House leadership were broadcasting on C-Span as Obama repeatedly indicated they should during the campaign. Which brings up the next question.

"GOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS" ... DOES ANYONE KNOW ANY GOOD REASON(S) THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE?

It is out of line for several reasons. Many who voted for President Obama did so with the understanding that he would be bi-partisan. Clearly our congressional majority leaders have decided that if you can't get 'em to join your view then leave them out of the process. The President clearly advocated for transparency, and a minimum of 48 hours for the American public and our leaders to review legislation before a vote. I suspect that you wouldn't be wondering about the legitimacy of my concern if the negotiations were being broadcast on c-span. There would be ample information as a result of that public forum for the interested observer to understand what is happening. This trend is something that even many democrats are concerned with which, in my opinion explains why the race in Massachusetts is as close. There is now a pro-choice republican advocating transparency running a close race behind a pro-choice democrat who advocates casting the final vote required to pass a bill that has lacked transparency. And even a solidly democratic constituency understands that this is not what we were promised.

Finally, "RICHARD, WHY DID YOU CAPITALIZE THE "O" WHEN YOU REFERRED TO PRESIDENT OBAMA...". I'm so glad you ask that question because as I wrote the note I first wrote it with a lower case, then changed it because I thought some would feel offended that since the one I was talking about was President Obama. (as if I used lower case to say 'president obama') No doubt this confusion on my part is a result of Oprah christening of Mr. Obama as "the One" for prior to that incident I would never have even considered that there might be people that actually believe the capital letter is necessary. Sometimes reading the Obama Prayer team prayer submissions, it seems there are those who believe he can do no wrong. That his efforts and administrative team is absolutely right in all things. To that I repeat what my friend Benjamin stated shortly after my prayer, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...". This includes me. you. obama. bush. and every man making decisions and passing laws on behalf of "we the people". I voted for George Bush, I don't think he did everything right. In fact I disagreed with many policies. My past vote doesn't preclude me from hoping in the Lord and asking God's protection and direction for our current President. I take great pains to be objective. What I don't understand is the disposition about our President which implies that all who disagree with him have 'hate' or somehow have a 'wicked spirit of judging' - and those who agree are among the righteous. He does not define right and wrong. Only God in his infinite wisdom can define right and wrong - and I do believe that Obama, our congress - just as Bush and the congress that served with him can and do get it wrong on occasion. The beauty of our system however, is that by balancing the interests of us all - e pluribus unum - from many come one. From many opinions come one rule of law. It is a truly an amazing system. When that one rule of law is a result of only one view (60 democratic votes), and that view serves to destroy the most innocent rather than protect - I become exceedingly concerned, hence my prayer earlier today.

I have come to accept Ms. Jordan's assertion that we all pray what the Lord places on our heart and let the prayer be given to the ONE [smile] who truly is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins"I Jhn 1:9, even those that we commit out of ignorance of the facts.

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."