2009 Prediction Scorecard & 2010 Predictions

2009 Prediction Scorecard & 2010 Predictions

Well, it seems that no matter how low Katie Couric’s ratings go, she’s going to hang on indefinitely at CBS.  I’m going to have to give up on that forecast.  Maybe she’ll just go away.  I saw that Katie did win an award from Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center—the “Let Us Fluff Your Pillow Award for Obsequious Obama Interviews”.  Couric received this distinguished award for making the following comment in one of her “hardball” interviews with President Obama: “You’re so confident, Mr. President, and so focused.  Is your confidence ever shaken?  Do you ever wake up and say, ‘Damn, this is hard.  Damn, I’m not going to get the things done I want to get done, and it’s just too politicized to really get accomplished the big things I want to accomplish?’”
Some things never change.  So how did I do with the rest of my 2009 predictions?

1. Fairness Doctrine.  I was right, the Fairness Doctrine was not re-imposed by Congress.  I suggested a back door approach and that’s the approach the Obama Administration is taking.
2. Iraq.  Right again.  Obama has not pulled all our troops out of Iraq.
3. Osama Bin Laden.  On target.  His current status will remain the same in 2009. 
4. New York Yankees.  Yes, they made it to the World Series in 2009 and they won.
5. Washington Redskins.  Wrong, they did not make it to the NFL playoffs.
6. Chicago Cubs.  Too easy.  They did not, as I predicted, make it into the MLB playoffs in 2009.
7. Katie Couric.  Gone, gone, gone!  Wrong, wrong, wrong!
8. Cuba.  The US will recognize Cuba. No, not yet, but they are inching that way.
9. Economy.  Yes, the media continues to say encouraging things about Obama policies and stokes the fires for an economic resurgence, but the economy has stalled.  However, roaring “Jimmy Carter” type inflation has not YET returned.  I’ll take ¾ of a point.
10. Spiritual Resurgence.  There will be signs of a spiritual resurgence with a positive impact on serious moral problems that confront our nation.  The book, “God is Back” does indicate a worldwide spiritual resurgence, but I do not yet see any clear signs of a positive impact on the serious moral problems that confront our nation.  I’ll take just ¼ of a point.

I scored six out of ten on my forecasts.  My forecast is not worth betting on, but fortunately no one knows the future except God.
So, here are my predictions for 2010.

1. Republican Resurgence.  The GOP not only gains seats in both sides of the US Congress, but amazingly takes control of the US House of Representatives.  This is a clear repudiation of the far left policies of the current administration and the Democratic leadership in general.
2. Chicago Cubs.  Once again they do not make it to the playoffs.
3. Tiger Woods.  Takes the entire year off, but keeps his marriage together.
4. Janet Napapolitano.  Gone as the Director of Homeland Security.
5. Domestic Terrorist Attacks.  A marked increase.
6. Obamagate.  The Obama administration is rocked by a huge scandal that includes at least one of his top aides.
7. Climategate.  In spite of the best efforts of the media to kill this story, it continues to grow and expand to include top officials at NASA.
8. The Economy.  It continues to struggle with high unemployment and as inflation ramps up dramatically toward the end of the year.
9. Supreme Court.  The Court rules in favor of Citizens United and against the FEC in a precedent setting case that changes the political landscape by allowing individuals and corporations to both donate to candidates for federal office.
10. Obamacare.  Sadly, it passes in a seemingly toothless form, but sets the stage of one-payer socialized medicine. 

There you have it, my predictions for 2010.  May not all of them come true.  A Happy New Year to one and all!

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

Tomorrow we will celebrate a gift of love like no other in the history of the world.  God sent His only Son from heaven above.  Just think of that, God the Father sent His Son to save us—everyone ever born—from their sins.  It’s an incomprehensible love—which one of us would send our son (or daughter) to suffer and die for anyone else, no matter how “good” they are?  Yet God did not discriminate.  In fact, Jesus died for everyone who has been or ever will be born, no matter how vile or disgusting they are.

All you and I have to do is believe in Jesus as our Savior.  We can’t buy our way into heaven.  We can’t earn our way into heaven.  There is nothing whatsoever we can do to get into heaven on our own.  It comes only by God’s amazing grace.  Wow!  That is the most incredible, wonderful Christmas gift of all.

Jesus came down from heaven, a perfect place, to live the perfect life that you and I cannot.  And then this sinless Son of God (who was both true man and true God) suffered and died for our sins.  But most important of all, He was victorious over the grave.  His resurrection gives you and me a 100% guarantee that we too will live forever in the perfect place called heaven.

God put the “merry” in Christmas.  It wasn’t merry for Jesus and it wasn’t merry for God the Father, but it is merry for you and me because of what God has done for us.
We were without hope, without God’s plan of salvation.  But God in His infinite mercy came to our rescue.

That’s why on December 25th we can sing and rejoice and make merry knowing that God has done it all for us.  He has saved us from our own stupidity and foulness.  He is the Savior of the World.

So indeed, Merry Christmas!

American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism

Is there such a thing as American Exceptionalism?  Is America really different or better or greater than any other nation?  If it is better or greater, what is the reason?

When asked recently if he believed in American Exceptionalism, President Obama said, “Sure, I believe in American Exceptionalism just like an Englishman believes in English Exceptionalism.”  On the surface of it, that sounds realistic.  After all, England and the Magna Carta laid the foundation for a free and democratic society.  English common law led the way to a government of laws, rather than of men.

The French gave us great art and led the way in invention.  They built the Suez Canal and made the world smell better with their perfumes.  Germany gave us great music and the Bible in the language of the common man.  Spain, where I am writing this from, had the foresight to finance Christopher Columbus, who, on his way to India, stumbled across the New World.  Many, many countries have enriched culture, made discoveries, and brought inventions to the world, so why would America be “Exceptional” or unique among the world’s nations?

Are Americans smarter than any other people?  Of course we are not.  Does America have more natural resources than any other nation?  No, many poor nations in South America and even in Africa have more natural resources than the United States.  Some would argue that Germany and Japan and South Korea make better cars.  Others would say that culture is richer in Latin America or that other nations are more advanced in science, mathematics, or even music.  So how can one state that America is superior or unique or better than any other nation?  Is American Exceptionalism just nationalism, as President Obama has stated?

Should we as Americans discard American Exceptionalism as a silly idea?  A spokesman for the national association of social studies (formerly history) teachers said recently, “Get over it, America is just another country, like any other country, no better or worse.”  Was he right?  Is Obama right?  Is America just another country, no better or worse than any other country?

Rather than opinion, what does the hard evidence indicate?  Let’s start with immigration to and from the United States.  Are there just as many people heading south across our border into Mexico and Latin America as there are headed north?  No, of course not.  But Obama might argue that’s just because our economy is so much stronger and better than Mexico and South America.  Or he might say that you can’t compare the United States with third world nations.  OK, let’s set aside for a moment the reason Mexico and South America are to a great extent relatively poor, third world nations, and agree that it’s not fair to compare them to the US.  We’ll also exclude Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe for the same reasons, although it’s hard to argue that Japan is a third world nation.  

Nevertheless, we’ll limit our comparison to Europe.  Is there any desire for those in Europe to visit and stay in the US?  And, let’s forget the politicians and other privileged classes of Europe who live in luxury.  In fact, I’ll use just a simple example.

My friend Bob runs a large printing and shipping operation in Virginia.  Not too long ago, a young Frenchman who had traveled to the US applied for a job.  Bob asked him why he wanted to come to the US to work and live here.  He had a simple, straightforward answer, “Everyone knows what a great place the United States is,” he said.  “Everyone wants to come to the US.  Everyone knows that the US is the greatest country in the world.”  Apparently not everyone, according to our President.

Admittedly, it can be argued that this simple example is not a scientific study.  But, in fact, surveys in Europe and around the globe indicate that people everywhere envy, respect, and admire the United States.  They all wish they had the widespread prosperity and freedom of the United States.  They stand in awe of the American “can do” spirit.

But the fact that Americans enjoy broader and deeper prosperity more than any other nation in the world is not the cause of American Exceptionalism.  It is representative of American Exceptionalism, but the great spread of prosperity, and the movement from poverty to riches that is possible in the US, is made possible only because of individual freedom.  That freedom is the cause of our prosperity and the reason that America is the land of opportunity as no other nation in the history of the world is or has ever been. 
Although freedom itself is a part of American Exceptionalism, it too is an effect of what makes America truly exceptional.  

Alexis de Tocqueville set about to discover the greatness of America when he traveled to this nation in the 1830s.  At that time, America wasn’t markedly more prosperous than any other nation, but it was free and the people were constantly in “the pursuit of happiness,” as the Declaration of Independence stated it.  What was it, de Tocqueville wondered, that gave the United States this special greatness?

He said he looked for it in our institutions and in our industry, but it was not until he discovered our churches afire with the flame of righteousness that he identified America’s greatness.  Or, as another writer put it, “America is great, because America is good.  When America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Alexis de Tocqueville identified public virtue as the source of American greatness.  Virtue is that part of the American character that makes a man accept personal responsibility for his actions.  It is virtue that causes him to work diligently to support his family.  It is virtue that causes him to be a good citizen.  It is virtue that causes a husband and wife to instill these same values in their children and to be faithful to each other.  It is virtue that encourages each of us to be our brother’s keeper.

But where does such public and private virtue come from?  Virtue, public and private, doesn’t happen accidentally.  It doesn’t come out of the blue.  It isn’t automatic.  

Personal virtue is a reflection of God’s love for us.  The God who blesses us with faith in Jesus as our Savior, grants us, through his Holy Spirit, the opportunity and the ability to show our appreciation for God’s love by exercising public virtue.  It’s not that we are perfect.  We are indeed just like every other person in the world, imperfect.  We sin against God and against each other every day, but God’s love for us constrains us to show our appreciation and love for him by acting in virtuous ways.  We are to care for each other.  We are to show compassion.  We are to understand and appreciate our fallen state and ask for God’s forgiveness.

Recently two Englishmen, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, wrote the book, God is Back.  What is clear from reading this book is that what sets apart Europe from America more than anything else is America’s faith in and dependence upon God.  As secular and even anti-Christian as America has become in the 21st Century, it is clear from Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s empirical study that it is America’s faith that sets this nation apart from Europe.  

Yes, it is faith that comes to us by God’s grace that is the source of American Exceptionalism.  By God’s grace we come to faith, by His grace we strive to live lives of virtue.  When we strive to live a virtuous life, we are blessed by God with freedom and freedom leads to wide and broad prosperity.  Free markets and free speech do not create a perfect society.  There is no perfection on this earth.  The earth is not an enduring place.  Heaven is the home that God created and intended for us.  It is to be our destination, and it is our destination by God’s grace through faith.

Yes, President Obama, America is, as people all around the world instinctively recognize, an exceptionally great nation.

Curious Publishing Ethics

Curious Publishing Ethics

What a curious episode in the annals of The Washington Post and its fellow travelers at Newsweek, Time, CBS, ABC, NBC, and sundry other mainstream news outlets that recently put their selective principles on display for all to see.  Did you read the story that broke on Monday, November 23 about prominent climatologists in the UK and the US who have been fabricating and hiding documentation that appears to reduce “Global Warming” from settled science to junk science?  You didn’t hear anything about it if you rely on the mainstream media giants named above.  E-mails between leading climatologists in the US and the UK, which have now been posted on the web, show that the earth is not warming, but rather is in a cooling phase.  Moreover, the hidden data indicates that these acclaimed climatologists have data that indicates the earth has apparently been cooling since the 1960s.  Yet in public, they have continued to assert that the earth is flat, the sky is falling, and that you and I have caused the earth to warm.  These climatologists and their friends in the left-leaning news media say that you and I have to reduce our carbon footprint to avert disaster.  We have to reduce our standard of living and enact painful, job killing taxes to survive. 

When the damning e-mails were released due to their website being hacked or because of a whistleblower (no one apparently knows what exactly happened), were the giants of the mainstream media who got conned outraged?  Did they pour their venom on those who tricked them and the American public?  Did these paragons of self-proclaimed virtue rage at the corruption and dishonesty of “scientists” who have foisted a hoax on the world?  Did these guardians of the public interest shout the news of this scandal from the housetops and over the airwaves?

The answer is no.  The silence was deafening.  There were no front page stories or lead stories on the nightly news.  There was only silence.  Integrity took a holiday.  Their principles were apparently set aside.  There was no righteous indignation.  

The Washington Post sanctimoniously announced that it was above revealing the content of private correspondence.  The other minions of the print and broadcast media took their marching orders and remained silent.  Apparently the public did not have a right to know.
Remember, these are the same folks who are always too eager to publish classified information that can damage the United States and its men and women in uniform.  All the way back to Daniel Ellsberg, the Post has published purloined papers with exuberance and glee because, as they stated, the public had a right to know.  They never hesitated to put stolen classified documents right on the front page.  Scoundrels like Ellsberg were celebrated.

You may recall more recently that the Post eagerly published classified information on Extraordinary Rendition and Waterboarding, in an attempt to put the US in a bad light.  There was no concern for alerting our enemies in the field how to prepare for enhanced interrogation techniques.  No qualms about trashing the US.  After all, the public has a right to know!

Ah, but when the worm turns and their pet Global Warming theory has been exposed as an apparent hoax, intentionally perpetrated by corrupt “scientists,” it's not worthy of any coverage whatsoever.  Did the cat get their tongue?

Who are these climatologists?  They are much quoted men in the US and in the UK, who, according to the now published emails, have not only stonewalled requests for historical climate information, but have also falsified data.  Their cover-up includes deleted e-mails, altered data, and a campaign to deny academic peer review of any paper which would undercut their assertion that global warming is settled science.  Along the way they have vilified legitimate scientists as “skeptics” and even “deniers” (in a clear attempt to equate these men with those who deny the Holocaust).  

As noted earlier, it’s not clear if their e-mail correspondence was “hacked” as they claim, or whether it was a courageous whistleblower inside the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) that posted the e-mails on the internet.  What is clear is that the e-mails are not taken out of context and that Phil Jones (Director of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit) and many renowned climatologists around the globe apparently intended to deceive the public and to discredit any other climatologist who disagreed with them.
These are men of low character.  If it were not for the Wall Street Journal, FOX News, The Washington Times and bloggers as well as those in talk radio, this cover up would never have come to light.  This scandal is far worse in its potential impact than Watergate.  Some of the actions proposed in Europe and in the US could condemn those in third world countries to permanent poverty and squalor.  

Sadly, those who have only been reading the mainstream news media and turning on ABC, CBS and NBC have not heard a word about this scandal.  It apparently reaches into NASA (Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and major US universities (Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University Earth System Science Center).  Moreover, it’s likely that this is just the tip of the iceberg.   Who knows how many other government and United Nations officials, along with other high profile scientists in think tanks and universities, are accomplices to the men already implicated in this cover up?

It’s a nasty, ugly story.  One e-mail even suggests violence against another climatologist because he had the temerity to challenge their data.  Other aspects include attempts to blacklist those who disagree with their argument that the globe is not only warming, but it is caused by man.

Prior to the release of these emails when Michael Mann was asked by the Wall Street Journal about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he said he “won’t dignify that question with a response.”  Perhaps we could now classify his response as arrogant dishonesty.

Where is the liberal outrage at this hoax that has been perpetrated on the American people, and indeed people around the world?  Where is the commitment to disclose the truth?  What about the public’s right to know?

Only one Republican Senator, James Inhofe, has called for a full investigation.  Have laws been broken?  Should there be demands for resignations?  Where is the outrage? 

The fact that the globe is cooling is, as Al Gore might say, an inconvenient truth that gets in the way of the political movement to take more and more freedom from the average American.  Without global warming, what excuse will they have to tell you and I what kind of light bulbs we can use, what kind of cars we can drive, how and when we can heat our homes, how many children we can have, how we can use our property, and all the other restrictions on our freedom that they seek?

Shame on you in the news media who deign to print only what advances your biased point of view.  Shame on you who do not truly believe the public has a right to know.  Shame on those of you who countenance dishonesty.  Shame on you who are willing to compromise the integrity of science to advance your corrupt ideology.

May your readership and your audience continue to decline until you become totally irrelevant.

World’s First Direct Mail Fund Raiser

World’s First Direct Mail Fund Raiser

I’ve made my living in the direct mail fund raising business for more than 35 years.  I’m passionate about my clients and their missions.  While creating goods and services is important, I believe what my clients do is even more important.  Their efforts don’t improve your standard of living, make your life more comfortable, or make your life easier.  No, what my clients do is, I believe, even more important—they improve the fabric of our society and encourage good character by supporting American servicemen and women, by rescuing animals in need, by electing good candidates to public office, by creating world-class museums to pass along our legacy of freedom, and much, much more.  Nonprofit organizations like the ones I serve add Technicolor™ to our lives.  They do good and I get to help them do good.  How could anyone have a better job?

Most of you probably think that direct mail fund raising is a rather recent phenomenon.  You probably think that it was invented in the 20th century here in the United States.  Well, if that’s what you think it’s understandable, but you’re off by nearly 2,000 years.  At least that’s what we know from recorded history—from the land of Israel.

The earliest recorded direct mail fund raiser was none other than Paul of Tarsus—Saint Paul, as recorded in 2nd Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9.  Of course, his appeal for funds was included with a much longer message of the Gospel, but even by today’s standards, Paul wrote a long, impassioned appeal to the members of the church at Corinth to contribute to the Christians in Jerusalem who were in need.

Paul’s letter followed the form of fund raising letters written today.  He addressed them personally by calling them “brothers.”  He started his letter with an emotional story of the Macedonian Christians who were dirt poor, but begged Paul to let them participate in the collection to help the Christians in Jerusalem.  Paul bonded with the Christians in Corinth by reminding them that they suggested a collection be taken up in the first place.  He praised them for their excellence in every area—faith, speech, knowledge, and love.  He even mentioned that it was the enthusiasm of the Corinthian Christians that stirred the Macedonian Christians to action in the first place.

As a friend, Paul reminded them that they made the first gift.  He even suggested an amount—something that did not leave them poor, but a generous amount that they could give with joy in their heart.

Paul was straightforward, he said complete your contribution now!  He also gave them this advice, “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.” (2 Corinthians 9:6)  And finally, Paul promised them that their generosity would encourage others to praise God.

What a powerful fund raising letter!  What a great example.  Enough of that “junk mail” stuff, OK?  It is opportunity mail—an opportunity to make this a better place to live.

Putting Lipstick on a Pig

Putting Lipstick on a Pig
Nancy Pelosi has announced that henceforth and hereafter, the “Public Option” for health care will be called the “Consumer Option.”  Wow!  I feel so much better about the government taking over my health care.  

Really, folks, this is, as Sarah Palin might say, like putting lipstick on a pig.  You can put as much makeup and lipstick on a pig as you want, but it will still be a pig.

And make no mistake about it, the goal for this pig is to get to a one payer system like Canada and England.  We know that’s the goal because Obama has been recorded on video as saying that is his goal.

And a one payer, socialized medicine program means lousy, bureaucratic and poor health care.  It’s still a pig.

In England, Canada and every other nation that has socialized medicine, people who need help suffer from ---

1. Waiting months for care.
2. A shortage of doctors.
3. A shortage of nurses.
4. Emergency room back-ups.
5. Government bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who doesn’t.  If you are 50 or older, expect the worst.
6. Out of control expenditures for second rate health care.
7. No new treatments or medications.
8. Government selection of your doctor.

By any name you choose, Public Option, Consumer Option, One Payer or Socialized Medicine, government run health care is a pig.  And don’t forget that our “public servants” who see themselves as our “public rulers” have opted themselves out of any government operated health care system.  

Time to read Orwell’s Animal Farm again.  It’s turning into reality before our eyes.

Pickett’s Charge & American Liberalism

Pickett’s Charge & American Liberalism

I recently visited Gettysburg and had an opportunity to tour the battlefield with my wife and relatives using a recorded tour CD.  The guide who made the CD did a terrific job of describing the events of those momentous days.  And, of course, part of his narrative included Pickett’s Charge, which history now recalls as the high water mark of the Confederacy.  Of course, as General Pickett and his 12,500 men stepped out across that mile long open field on July 3, 1863, no one then knew that this would indeed be the high water mark of the Confederacy.  In fact, even after thousands had died in that ill-fated charge at Gettysburg, no one would have proclaimed that the war had been won.  In fact, the war continued for two bloody years.  It was only after the fact, that it was possible for historians to look back and say that Pickett’s Charge was the high water mark of the Confederacy.

Similarly, today it is impossible to know with certainty when a watershed event has occurred.  It is only by looking back that we can see that it was indeed a turning point.
When Jimmy Carter was elected it soon became clear that his was a disastrous presidency.  Why?  Because his policies were completely at loggerheads with the American people and because it was evident that he was in way over his head.  However, little did conservatives know that the Carter victory in 1976 would lead to a triumph of the conservative movement with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

No, we can’t look into the future or even read current tea leaves to understand the flow of human events.  However, I’m beginning to feel a great sameness between the presidency of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.  The Obama presidency is, as I suspected, simply Jimmy Carter on steroids.

More than that, each day the Obama presidency is looking more and more like the high water mark of not only Obama, but American liberalism.  There’s a certain shock value to electing someone who runs as a moderate promising bipartisanship, low taxes, and bringing Americans together, who turns out to be someone who believes in the Marxist values of redistribution of income.

The Fabian Socialist movement came to the United States in the early 20th century and built up a head of steam in the heady days of Franklin Roosevelt.  The Fabians challenged the foundations of American society.  They opposed free enterprise, they sought a welfare state, and by and large they rejected God as the foundation of a free society.

After the failure of many of their utopian programs and the realization of a real Communist menace, the impact of the Fabians receded for a number of years until re-kindled under Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.  The Great Society spent billions and billions of dollars in the greatest social experiment in US history only to make living conditions and opportunities worse for those in poverty.  Johnson tried, in vain, to substitute entitlement for opportunity and in doing so, sentenced America’s poor to permanent poverty.

The civil rights movement of the 1960’s breathed new life into liberalism.  And indeed, the success of liberalism in supporting equal rights for African Americans was its one shining success.  But liberals saw that success not as one for Black Americans, but for them to use to create a permanent Democrat majority.  Liberalism corrupted its own success by taking the focus off of opportunity for African Americans and turning it into a means of making Blacks dependent upon them for subsistence living.  It was at this point that it became in the interest of liberal politicians to keep Black Americans in poverty and to limit opportunity in order to control their vote.  In this they have been quite successful.

After Watergate it looked like the end for the Republican Party.  But, in fact, from the ashes of the Nixon Presidency sprang the victory of Ronald Reagan.  Scoffed at as “just an actor,” belittled by liberal pundits, and discounted by “self styled” intellectuals, Ronald Reagan had the last laugh.

Entering office at one of the lowest points in American history, Ronald Reagan restored an economy not only afflicted by Great Depression unemployment, but inflation that soared past 22%!  Deregulation and tax cuts led to the longest period of prosperity in American history.  Contemporaneous with this success, the Reagan Doctrine not only restored respect for America around the globe, but brought down the Soviet Union.

Were the Reagan years the high water mark of conservatism?  Perhaps, but I think it more likely that they were just a harbinger of things yet to come.  Reagan proved once and for all that a nation cannot spend itself into prosperity.  The facts are on the record—tax relief that puts money back into the hands of the citizens is the key to economic prosperity.

We are through the dreary years of Bush ’41, the embarrassing years of Clinton, and the confused years of Bush ’43.  But unfortunately we now are forced to endure the wrong headed policies of a very young, inexperienced ideologue who, like Carter, is in way over his head.  

The problem for President Obama is that what he is selling, the American people aren’t buying.  They were understandably tired of Bush, they were uninspired by John McCain, but they didn’t vote for “hope and change” that included government takeover of the American economy.  

President Obama has had many opportunities to get the American people on his side, but he has muffed each one of them.  He didn’t help himself by going around the world apologizing for America.

He didn’t help himself by cozying up to dictators like Hugo Chavez and supporting the legally ousted, Marxist President of Honduras.  He didn’t help himself by appointing two dozen non-confirmed “czars,” such as Van Jones who believes that George Bush and the Israelis destroyed the twin trade towers in New York City.

And President Obama will only fall further in the eyes of the American public by forcing through a government medical care scheme that no one wants.  To continue advancing such policies is political hara-kiri.  Obstinately continuing down a course that is overwhelmingly unpopular is a sure road to defeat.

Is that the road Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are headed down?  The early sign will be the outcome of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia on November 3.  If the Republicans win convincingly in both contests, especially in the heavily Democratic state of New Jersey, then Obama and the Democrats are in real trouble. 

If that scenario turns into reality it would take a total about-face by Obama from his current out-of-touch liberal policies to have any chance of keeping 2010 from being a total bloodbath for the Democrats.

Has liberalism in America reached its apogee?  That’s my bet.  Polls of the American people show that the majority now identify themselves as conservatives, and only a tiny fraction identify themselves as liberals.  While that’s good news for Americans who treasure individual freedom, the disaster left behind by this inept and ideologically motivated President will take generations to clean up.  Perhaps, just perhaps, American conservatism is on the cusp of its greatest triumph, providing we select a genuine conservative to head up the Republican ticket in 2012.  Is the Obama presidency the high water mark of American liberalism?  May we be so blessed.

From SNL to Stockholm

From SNL to Stockholm

The Saturday Night Live parody of President Barack Obama was funny because it is true.  Even liberals can smile at the lack of any substantive “accomplishment” by the new Administration.  Conservatives can join in the laughter and, at the same time, breathe a sigh of relief.  

Thus far the ill-conceived government takeover of the health care system is stumbling.  The job killing Cap and Trade (cap and tax?) legislation dealing with an ever more scientifically dubious “climate change” issue (formerly “global warming”) seems to be going nowhere.  The big political payoff to the union bosses’ “card check” bill has been checked.  

The troops are still in Iraq and the President is “committed” to the war in Afghanistan.  Guantanamo is not closed.  The Patriot Act is still in place.

Just what is it that justifies giving the Nobel Peace Prize to an unaccomplished, new President who has served less than 9 months in office?

Perhaps it is just as FOX anchor Chris Wallace has said, “He’s not George Bush.”
What great fun!  The Nobel Peace Prize committee has provided comic relief for decades.  With only a few exceptions, the list of Nobel Peace Prize recipients reads like a “Who’s Who” of nut cases and screw balls:

1. 1925 – Austen Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who made a deal with Hitler that sold out parts of Eastern Europe for “peace in our time.”  Appeaser without parallel.
2. 1927 – Ludwig Quidde, German Parliament Member who attended various peace conferences designed to end future wars in Europe.  So very nice.
3. 1929 – Frank Kellogg, ex US Secretary of State who successfully got the European nations and the US to sign a pact outlawing war.  That obviously worked well.
4. 1931 – Nicholas Butler, President of Columbia University, for promoting the Briand Kellogg Pact.  Another brilliant choice.
5. 1934 – Arthur Henderson, former English Foreign Secretary and Chairman of the League of Nations Disarmament Conference.  Stopped WWII.  Well, maybe not.
6. 1935 – Carl Ossietzky, journalist and pacifist, first cousin of Adolph Hitler (I made that last part up). 

Note there were no Peace Prize awards between 1939 and 1944.  Just too much peace had broken out all across Europe and around the globe thanks to the Nobel Peace Prize awardees.

1. 1950 –Ralph Bunche, Harvard professor who brought peace to Palestine.  Oops.  Maybe not.
2. 1959 – Phillip Noel-Baker, English MP, “life-long ardent worker for international peace and co-operation.”  Me see no evil, me hear no evil, me do no evil.
3. 1962 – Linus Pauling, with a great peace plan:  Let’s unilaterally disarm the US in the hopes that the Soviet Union will follow suit. 
4. 1973 – Le Duc Tho, North Vietnam, for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord in 1973, which North Vietnam (who brought about the war through aggression in the first place) proceeded to break.  Great choice, guys.
5. 1982 – Alva Myrdal, Swedish writer about peace.  How nice.
6. 1990 – Mikhail Gorbachev, USSR dictator who presided over the break up the Soviet Union (another peacemaking organization) brought about by Ronald Reagan.
7. 1994 – Yasser Arafat, the pistol packing Chairman of the PLO terrorist organization. 
8. 2001 – Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, Mr. “Skim a little off the top for me and my family.”
9. 2002 – Jimmy Carter, the fellow who successfully destabilized both the Middle East and Latin America when he was President.  The nice touch was his trashing the US and George Bush in his acceptance speech.
10. 2007 – Al Gore, for something or other.  Inventing tin hats with antennas on them?  Founding the Flat Earth Society?  Something great, I’m sure.

Although this list only covers a few of the nut cases and screwballs who have received the Nobel Peace Prize, I do want to note that on rare occasions the Nobel Committee got it right.  Some of their better choices include Lech Walesa (1983), Mother Teresa (1979), and Andrei Sakharov (1975), along with a few other truly notables.

All things considered, I think that the selection of Barack Obama in 2009 is a good choice.  It is in keeping with the common sense and practical approach of the majority of past recipients.  The President should feel quite comfortable in the company of such distinguished and successful peacemakers.

God Is Back

God Is Back

The book, God is Back, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, may well be the most important book I have read in the last 10 years.  Published by Penguin Press, this book is, in respect to religion, a 21st century version of Democracy in America, written by the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, after his visit to America in 1831.  It appears that de Tocqueville was attached to, but not active in, the Catholic Church.  Some have even gone so far as to describe him as an agnostic.  Micklethwait and Wooldridge, editor in chief and Washington bureau chief of The Economist respectively, are natives of England, both educated at Oxford.  They identify themselves as a Catholic and an atheist, although they do not identify which is which.

Like Democracy in America, God is Back is a book of observations on the state of religion in the world, with a special focus on what they call “American Style Christianity” and its impact around the globe.

For anyone who is involved with or actively participating in para-church organizations in the US, and for anyone who cares about spreading the Gospel, this book is worth reading.  The data provided is surprising, even stunning.

For instance, did you know that by the Chinese government’s own estimates, Christianity in China has grown from “14 million in 1997 to 21 million in 2006”?  But, when you add in numbers from the house churches and the underground Catholic Church, today there are “at least 65 million Protestants in China and 12 million Catholics.”  The authors surmise that “by 2050, China could well be the world’s biggest Muslim nation as well as its biggest Christian one.”

In discussing the European version of state-run Christianity vs. the American model of choice by the individual, the writers state that the American model “…is winning.  America has succeeded in putting God back into modernity partly because it put modernity, or at least choice and competition, back into God.”

They deal with Voltaire, de Tocqueville, the French Revolution and its impact on religion.  Darwin, Freud, Huxley, Hardy, and Carlyle are covered in regard to their prediction that faith and religion would disappear as science and modernity proved religion to be false.
The authors contend that “America was not born religious.”  But that it “…became religious.”  They cite evidence that “Church members never made up more than a third of the adult population of New England before the revolution…”  For instance, they say that “by 1683 some 83 percent of the taxpayers confessed to no religious identification.”

They cover the Great Awakenings in the 1730s and 1740s “ignited by America’s first significant theologian, Jonathan Edwards.”  And they talk about results, “In 1769-74, the number of Baptist churches in Virginia jumped from 7 to 540.”

The primary uniqueness of the American approach to religion cited by the authors is that while Europeans, especially in the French Revolution, ran away from faith and saw religion as a roadblock to freedom, “revolutionary America embraced religion alongside liberty, reason and popular government.”  It is this harmony of religion and freedom that, according to Micklethwait and Wooldridge, set apart the United States from Europe and is still the dividing line today.

“By 1850, the Evangelical churches taken together employed twice as many people as the post office, then the most important instrument of the federal government.  They even delivered more letters...They formed societies of every kind—American Bible Society, the American Sunday School Union, the American Temperance Society and so on.”
The information I have provided thus far covers (very lightly and briefly) the first 70 pages of this magnificent book that runs 373 pages in length.

Even if you are just interested in history, this is a book worth reading.  You’ll learn about the amazing growth of the Methodist Church, the somewhat strange beginning of the Pentecostal Church, and the astounding size, scope, and influence of modern churches.  The rather odd story of Aimee Semple McPherson and the church legacy she left behind is also covered in God is Back.

Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Rick Warren, and James Dobson also play a role in the fascinating story told of Christianity in America.  You’ll learn about the astounding financial power of Christianity in America today and what two professional groups are the most active in and leaders of the Christian cause in the US.  I predict you’ll be surprised by the answer.

The pace doesn’t flag, the writing is excellent, and the story is amazing and encouraging.  You’ll be captivated and inspired.  Read this book!

God Is Back

God Is Back

The book, God is Back, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, may well be the most important book I have read in the last 10 years.  Published by Penguin Press, this book is, in respect to religion, a 21st century version of Democracy in America, written by the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, after his visit to America in 1831.  It appears that de Tocqueville was attached to, but not active in, the Catholic Church.  Some have even gone so far as to describe him as an agnostic.  Micklethwait and Wooldridge, editor in chief and Washington bureau chief of The Economist respectively, are natives of England, both educated at Oxford.  They identify themselves as a Catholic and an atheist, although they do not identify which is which.

Like Democracy in America, God is Back is a book of observations on the state of religion in the world, with a special focus on what they call “American Style Christianity” and its impact around the globe.

For anyone who is involved with or actively participating in para-church organizations in the US, and for anyone who cares about spreading the Gospel, this book is worth reading.  The data provided is surprising, even stunning.

For instance, did you know that by the Chinese government’s own estimates, Christianity in China has grown from “14 million in 1997 to 21 million in 2006”?  But, when you add in numbers from the house churches and the underground Catholic Church, today there are “at least 65 million Protestants in China and 12 million Catholics.”  The authors surmise that “by 2050, China could well be the world’s biggest Muslim nation as well as its biggest Christian one.”

In discussing the European version of state-run Christianity vs. the American model of choice by the individual, the writers state that the American model “…is winning.  America has succeeded in putting God back into modernity partly because it put modernity, or at least choice and competition, back into God.”

They deal with Voltaire, de Tocqueville, the French Revolution and its impact on religion.  Darwin, Freud, Huxley, Hardy, and Carlyle are covered in regard to their prediction that faith and religion would disappear as science and modernity proved religion to be false.
The authors contend that “America was not born religious.”  But that it “…became religious.”  They cite evidence that “Church members never made up more than a third of the adult population of New England before the revolution…”  For instance, they say that “by 1683 some 83 percent of the taxpayers confessed to no religious identification.”

They cover the Great Awakenings in the 1730s and 1740s “ignited by America’s first significant theologian, Jonathan Edwards.”  And they talk about results, “In 1769-74, the number of Baptist churches in Virginia jumped from 7 to 540.”

The primary uniqueness of the American approach to religion cited by the authors is that while Europeans, especially in the French Revolution, ran away from faith and saw religion as a roadblock to freedom, “revolutionary America embraced religion alongside liberty, reason and popular government.”  It is this harmony of religion and freedom that, according to Micklethwait and Wooldridge, set apart the United States from Europe and is still the dividing line today.

“By 1850, the Evangelical churches taken together employed twice as many people as the post office, then the most important instrument of the federal government.  They even delivered more letters...They formed societies of every kind—American Bible Society, the American Sunday School Union, the American Temperance Society and so on.”

The information I have provided thus far covers (very lightly and briefly) the first 70 pages of this magnificent book that runs 373 pages in length.

Even if you are just interested in history, this is a book worth reading.  You’ll learn about the amazing growth of the Methodist Church, the somewhat strange beginning of the Pentecostal Church, and the astounding size, scope, and influence of modern churches.  The rather odd story of Aimee Semple McPherson and the church legacy she left behind is also covered in God is Back.

Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Rick Warren, and James Dobson also play a role in the fascinating story told of Christianity in America.  You’ll learn about the astounding financial power of Christianity in America today and what two professional groups are the most active in and leaders of the Christian cause in the US.  I predict you’ll be surprised by the answer.

The pace doesn’t flag, the writing is excellent, and the story is amazing and encouraging.  You’ll be captivated and inspired.  Read this book!

Uncivil Behavior

Uncivil Behavior

The headline from the Tuesday, September 15, 2009 edition of USA Today shouted, “What Happened to Civility?” and the front page of The Washington Times on the same date carried the headline, “Whatever Happened to Civility?”

Both papers referred to a series of well known people behaving badly.  Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina made the list by shouting out, “You lie!” during a speech by President Obama.  World class tennis player Serena Williams joined him by screaming threatening obscenities at a line judge during the US Open semifinals.  Even Michael Jordan was included for his bad taste in singling out individuals with whom he disagreed in a speech after being elected to the NBA Hall of Fame!  Not to be outdone, rapper Kanye West barged onto the stage and seized the microphone from Country & Western singer Taylor Swift who had won an award for the best female music video at the MTV awards.  He proceeded to tell the audience that she should not have received the award.

But uncivil behavior is not limited to the powerful, wealthy, and famous.  No, you and I experience it regularly as we hear young people utter foul language at the top of their lungs while walking down the street.  Or we hear it from older folks, who should know better, in a public venue such as a sports arena or a park.  

Commonly, we hear the expression, “Oh, God!” from our business colleagues and neighbors as if God’s name is just a way to emphasize a point.  The Hebrews reverenced God so much that they wouldn’t even say His name out loud.  Apparently today it’s just another slang expression.

What others have observed for several years is that America is becoming a more coarse society with each passing year.  The fact is that young people don’t have any manners unless they are taught them at home.  They certainly don’t learn them in school.  Young men don’t open doors for women and they certainly don’t give up their seat on a bus or the Metro for a woman, no matter the age.  And they are not averse to using any foul word, no matter what company they are in.

Why are we witnessing a coarsening of our society?

Psychologists rush in with all sorts of explanations.  Others make excuses such as foul language is just an expression of our more casual society.  It’s no wonder that year by year it seems to get worse and worse.

Bad behavior doesn’t seem that complex to me.  Few children receive a moral upbringing that helps them to understand that such behavior is not only improper, but wrong.  The more religion is driven out of the public square and the greater the decline in faith and trust in God, the faster public morality and good behavior continue to descend.

Today you and I can swear in public, but praying in public is frowned upon.  Filthy language is protected speech, but the Ten Commandments are banned.  Blasphemous pornography is financed by the National Endowment for the Arts, but children can be suspended from school for praying before they eat their lunch.

The bottom line is that we live in an increasingly immoral society that justifies and defends any kind of behavior, no matter how bad.  The abolition of absolute standards successfully implemented by the moral relativists is reaping a logical result—a coarsening of our society.

Betrayed

Betrayed

Most of you who read my blogs know that my dear wife, Kathi, was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) about ten years ago.  Thanks to the extension of the patent period on drugs for so-called “Orphan Diseases” (by Ronald Reagan), many new drugs have been developed to inhibit the progress of MS.

Of course, because of Kathi’s diagnosis, we have supported the National MS Society in their efforts to find a cure for this disease.  We trusted the Society to focus on research and assistance to those with MS.
Our trust has been betrayed.

Last week I received an email from Scott Hanson who works for the National MS Society and who identifies himself as an “MS Activist.”  What was the purpose of Scott’s email—passage of President Obama’s national health care plan.

To say that I was shocked would be an understatement.  I was, in fact, outraged.  I was also incredulous.

How could a group that serves those with Multiple Sclerosis support a government-run national health care program?  How could such a program possibly benefit those with MS?

One would have to be a fool to believe that the goal of the Democrats and Obama is anything less than total socialized medicine.  Any government-run program that is subsidized by the taxpayers will inevitably crowd out any private insurance that must operate on a profit and loss basis.  So, what we are talking about is indeed a national health care program
. 
In fact, Obama has said on camera that he prefers a one payer system like Canada.  The fact is Canada’s national health care system is imploding.  Doctors are fleeing, enrollment in medical schools is dropping, patients are dying while waiting for treatment, costs are skyrocketing, and care continues to deteriorate
.
What does nationalized health care mean to someone with an incurable disease like MS?  It means first and foremost rationing of medical care services.  How else can government reduce health care costs?  Of course, costs will not be reduced because the extra layers of bureaucracy will simply make health care more expensive and more limited.

Obamacare also means an end to the development of new drugs.  No more progress in finding cures for diseases, especially orphan diseases.  Today 96% of all new drugs introduced into the market come from private drug companies!  And it is the demand created by the American free market system that is the source of all new drugs for the world.

Unfortunately, one of the first things that Obama did when he entered the White House was to send an order to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) instructing them not to license any new drug that was not better than an existing drug.  That single order caused one big drug company to immediately close down research on several new drugs.

How do you know in advance if a drug will be more effective or better than an existing drug?  Of course, you can’t know that and therefore the risk factor for developing a new drug has become much, much higher!  Moreover, the truth is that some drugs work for some people, but not for others.  For instance, my wife was on Copaxone™ for a year or two, but it eventually stopped working.  Now she is on Rebif™ which has been working successfully for a number of years.  In contrast, a friend of ours with MS was on Rebif™ but could not tolerate the drug and is now on Betaseron™.  On paper different drugs may appear to work equally well, but in reality, everyone is different and different drugs work differently for each person.

But back to health care.  The Obama-Pelosi-Reed plan is built, in part, around something called Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) which is simply a standard for rationing health care.  It works something like this.  Standards are established that say an 85 year old woman cannot get a pace maker, but a 40 year old woman can.  A 65 year old man who needs a hip replacement must go to the back of the line while a 45 year old goes to the front of the line.

The fact is that someone who is approaching retirement with MS will not gain access to new drugs and new treatments, while a younger person might gain access.

Advocates of national health care cannot cite one instance at any point in history or in any country that has worked successfully.  Obamacare will ultimately lead to the government picking your doctor, to deciding what care or treatment you will receive, and to long waiting periods before treatment, if any treatment at all.

Obamacare will lead to shortages of doctors and nurses similar to those that exist in England and Canada. 

Obamacare means medical care by rules and regulations, not by a doctor and a patient deciding what is best in each individual case.  For example, I have an airline pilot friend that took a bad spill in a bathtub while he was in London on turnaround between flights from the US to the UK.  He was taken to the hospital where they took one x-ray.  The doctor told him that his ribs were only bruised, so he dealt with the pain and flew the plane home.  Upon returning, the pain got worse so he went to a doctor here in the US who took three x-rays.  Lo and behold, he had three clearly fractured ribs!  Now there’s not much you can do about a fractured rib, but he would not have been allowed to fly the plane back from London if it had known that the ribs were broken.  More importantly, the lesson is that rules allowing only one x-ray are just typical of what you and I can expect in medical treatment if Obamacare passes.  Medical care by rules and regulations lead to bad diagnosis, more severe health issues, and ultimately to a shorter life span.

No one can contest the fact that survival rates from cancer and other diseases are much, much higher in the US than they are in England.  Medical care in England, in Canada, and in all other countries beset by socialized medicine, are inferior in every way to the quality of medical care that you and I receive today. 

Socialized medicine doesn’t work.  That’s why medical clinics and hospitals in Seattle, Minneapolis, and Buffalo are filled with patients from Canada.  It’s the same reason that people from England and around the globe come to the US for treatment.

The United States has the best medical care in the world.  It’s not perfect, but the Obama proposal does not even address the biggest cause of high medical costs—punitive damages.

The elimination of punitive damages would immediately and dramatically lower the cost of medical care here in the US. 

Making medical insurance premiums deductible by each individual, instead of by employers, would immediately make all insurance plans more affordable and totally portable.  You could choose a deductible plan that suits your life and your situation.

Trying to solve our health care issues by having the government take over health care is like trying to do heart surgery with a hand axe instead of a scalpel—the damage will be irreversible.

I’ll say it once again, a national government-run health care system will have the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the Post Office.

Shortsightedness

Shortsightedness

Ain’t it great?!  That’s what you hear when a doctor gets sued and loses a malpractice case.  Or when McDonalds gets sued for making coffee hot and a jury awards the “victim” $2 million.  Or, as a USA Today headline blared, “Pfizer fined $2.3 billion for illegal marketing.”  

And then the same person complains about the high cost of medical insurance, the rising cost of hamburgers, or the soaring cost of drugs.  Duh!

How can they be that shortsighted?

Who do they think pays for outrageous legal costs and awards?  Who do they think pays for a $2.3 billion fine?

You and I do, of course.

Malpractice insurance for doctors costs $100,000 to $300,000 per year depending on the type of doctor.  Those sky high insurance costs are paid for by the fees the doctor charges.  When those fees go up to cover their insurance premium, so does your medical insurance.  If we get rid of punitive damages, the number of lawsuits will decrease dramatically and medical insurance bills will fall accordingly.

When McDonalds has to pay out $2 million for someone else’s stupidity, or another company has to pay out totally unreasonable amounts to settle a claim for doing something stupid, the cost of the service increases.

When Pfizer has to pay out a $2.3 billion fine for “illegal marketing,” either the cost of our medications goes up or a new drug that could save a life or stop a disease gets sidetracked.
Wise up Americans!  When huge fines are paid or huge legal awards are made by the court, you and I lose.  It may make you feel good to stick it to someone, but in the end, you are the one who gets stuck.

The only ones who win are the lawyers.  

Our President claims to be promoting health care reform, yet this so-called reform does 
not include tort reform!  What kind of reform is that?

Is Jesus a Liar?

Is Jesus a Liar?

If you’re like me, you’ve probably read books or heard people say that Jesus was a good person, a good teacher, but not the Savior of the world.  Of course, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.  But Jesus would not have been a very good person if He was a consistent liar.

When you read the Bible, you will find that Jesus was either a consistent liar, or the Savior of the world.  Here are just a few of Jesus’ words related by a number of different writers over more than 70 years.  

In Matthew 16:16-17, after Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by My Father in heaven.”  Clearly Jesus is claiming to be the long promised Messiah.  Is He lying or telling the truth?

When questioned by the religious leaders of His day in Mark 14:61-62, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"  Jesus replied, “I am.” 

John 4:25-26 describes a discussion Jesus had with a woman at a well in Samaria.  The woman said, "I know that the Messiah is coming.  When He comes, He will explain everything to us."  Jesus responded to the woman, "I who speak to you am He."
  
Jesus is blunt in John 6:46-47, “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.  I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.”  Here Jesus claims to be the “one who is from God and has seen God the Father.”
In John 8:12 Jesus says, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

A conversation with a man to whom Jesus gave eyesight is described in John 9:35-37.  Jesus asked the man, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"  The man replied, "Who is he, sir?"  Jesus answered, “You have now seen him; in fact, He is the one speaking with you.”

During a feast in Jerusalem, Jesus said in John 10:27-28, “My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.  I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.”  Who can give eternal life except the Messiah?

In John 11:25-26, Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life.  He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in Me will never die.”
In a powerful declaration in John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me.”  

The quotes I have listed above are just a very few of the declarations that, according to witnesses, Jesus made proving He was indeed the long promised Messiah.  Jesus’ claim is, in fact, the foundation of the Christian faith.  Accordingly, by logic, Christianity is not just another religion.  It is either a false religion, or it is the only true religion.  You cannot have it both ways.  Jesus is either the way to Heaven or He is a fraud.  Which is it?  You make the call, is He a liar or the Messiah, the Savior of the world?  Just remember, eternity is forever.

Edward M. Kennedy, RIP

Edward M. Kennedy, RIP

It’s no secret that I was not a fan of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.  To me he represented and epitomized the entirely wrong approach to government.  He believed in big government, but I see government as the primary threat to individual freedom.  He wanted to push religion out of the public square, I feel that religion is the glue that holds a civil society together.  As a Catholic he personally opposed abortion, but as a Senator he was a strong advocate of all forms of abortion.  I believe in the right to life and that equal protection under the law applies as much to the unborn as it does to someone who is 90 years of age.  He favored liberal judges who rewrote the US Constitution to fit their liberal views, I believe in original intent.  

The aforesaid gives you a pretty good idea of how I disagreed with Senator Kennedy.  Nevertheless, by all accounts he was a personally charming individual, a man of fierce personal beliefs, hard working, and inspiring to many, especially his children.  

Conservative spokesmen have reminded us of his personal shortfalls—Chappaquiddick, his nearly out of control attacks on Robert Bork, and his lack of temperament and civil discourse on other occasions.

The fact is all individuals, rich or poor, intelligent or simple, liberal or conservative, have feet of clay.  That includes you and me.  We’re all sinners.  We’re all mortals. 

Commentators, at times of the death of national figures like Senator Kennedy, like to talk about someone being in heaven or hell based on how good they perceive that individual was.  At the time of Ronald Reagan’s death, one lout commented something about Reagan roasting on a spit.  Such talk shows ignorance of the Christian religion to which both Reagan and Kennedy publicly subscribed.  

It seems to be a general concept that “good” people go to heaven and “bad” people go to hell.  The catch is that there are no “good” people by God’s standards.  As it says in Romans 3:10, “There is no one righteous, not even one.”  What a quandary!  In Romans 3:20 it goes on to say, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”  So if heaven depends on our “goodness,” then you and I and Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan will all fall short.  We have a problem.

God has created this perfect place called heaven, but if He lets in one person who is imperfect, then heaven is no longer perfect.  But God, in His unfathomable love, provided a solution which He described clearly throughout the New Testament, and is summed up perfectly in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.”

The solution that God provided doesn’t require anything of us except that we believe in Jesus.  That was God’s plan and Jesus’ message.  He said it repeatedly in the New Testament, and was especially clear in John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Thankfully, our going to heaven doesn’t depend on how good we have been, but only on our faith in Jesus.  That is the rock solid foundation of the Christian message.  It’s what makes Christianity unique among the world’s religions.  It’s the hope upon which Ted Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and all the powerful and not-so-powerful people in the world can depend on for going to God’s heaven.

Through God’s grace we believe and our sins are washed away.  We can enter the perfect place God has created—heaven.  All the stupid, unthoughtful, unkind, and downright evil things we have done get washed away in the flood of Jesus’ righteousness.  We can’t do anything.  God has done everything.
Pro Gloria Dei!

Uncharitable

Uncharitable

I had read several reviews of Dan Pallotta’s book, Uncharitable, and had mixed emotions when I purchased the book.  His now defunct company, Pallotta TeamWorks, had raised millions of dollars for several charities via high profile events.  The worthwhile causes, fighting AIDS and breast cancer, received millions of dollars for their programs as a result of the special events conducted by Pallotta TeamWorks, but the company was brought down by criticism of the high cost of raising funds for these groups.

In reality, although the ratios were somewhat high for special event fund raising, the size of the funds generated was exceptional with some groups receiving more than $50 million a year for their projects after costs.

In their well researched and well thought out book, Forces for Good, co-authors Leslie Crutchfield and Heater Grant take issue with the self-styled charity regulators who rate nonprofits primarily on the basis of their efficiency in raising funds while ignoring the effectiveness with which they spend the money raised.  Pallotta also takes issue with these groups, but in a sour, self-serving way that will win no points with those who are open minded on the issue.  This is a book that fell far, far short of its potential.

Although I confess to not reading the entire text, it’s clear from the beginning that Pallotta is bitter and that his book is neither well researched when it comes to history, nor is it charitable to the incredible successes achieved by those who have given their lives to serving others through a nonprofit organization.

The book starts out with a diatribe against religion, especially the Christian religion.  His understanding of Christianity is superficial, at best, his knowledge of history is selective, and his assertions are inconsistent with the facts regarding who gives to charity in the U.S.

I was disappointed in the beginning when he didn’t even mention that the word “charity” means love.  I was further disappointed when he made no reference to Alexis de Tocqueville and his observations of the uniqueness of private charity in the United States.  Pallotta blames Christianity for creating a wrong view toward charity, although it was the church that has been and continues to be the primary source of charity in the United States.  If he had taken the time to read Who Really Cares? by Professor Arthur Brooks, he would have known that Christians are still the primary source of charitable giving in the United States.  This includes all causes, secular and non-secular. 

It’s not that Pallotta doesn’t make some good points about getting better nonprofit leaders by increasing compensation and about shifting the emphasis to the effectiveness with which an organization succeeds in reaching its goal, rather than the efficiency with which it collect funds.  He does make these arguments, but only after he has gone to extra lengths to offend those in the U.S. who are the primary sources of charitable funding.

Pallotta is an angry, bitter man.  This book had potential, but it will change no minds.  It’s not worth the price, nor is it worth the time reading, especially when there are so many other books out there worth reading.

A Totalitarian Mindset

A Totalitarian Mindset

This is getting creepy.  George Orwell was amazingly prescient.

Now the White House wants you to spy on your neighbor?  I could see this from MoveOn.org, but the White House?

Here’s is a word-for-word excerpt from the official White House Blog (found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/):

       “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out
        there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. 
        These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or
        through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them
        here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an
        email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that
        seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

Just what does the White House plan to do with this database?  Spy on fellow citizens?  That’s what totalitarians throughout time have done to control their citizens.

What about free speech?  What about the White House’s own disinformation? 
In two recorded speeches, Obama said that his healthcare plan was just the
first necessary step toward a one payer system, i.e. socialized medicine.  He went on to say that is his goal.  Now he says he doesn’t favor a one payer system.  And he and his supporters in Congress haven’t even read the bill!

And speaking of free speech, what about the White House dismissing and attacking those who attend town hall meetings in Congressional Districts as “mobs.”  I would think that a politician from Chicago would be able to
identify a real mob.

Nancy Pelosi said they were people carrying swastikas.  She said they were not grass roots protesters, just managed “Astroturfing” dissidents.

This is how Pelosi, Reed, and Obama treat average American citizens who are genuinely and understandably concerned with a government takeover of health care?

As I recall, it has been the left that has acted thuggish—throwing pies in the face of conservative speakers, shouting down those with whom they disagree, blocking access to attend speeches, breaking windows, and burning flags. 

Which ones are the mobs, the hard working average citizens who have turned out on their own to ask intelligent and informed questions about the proposed health care program, or the rabbles who harass and obstruct freedom of speech?

And as one parting shot, if you think this administration does not have a totalitarian mindset, check out this story on You Tube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZxaWDqUmho - if it hasn’t already been taken off the air by the censors.

Obama’s Political Trajectory

Obama’s Political Trajectory

July certainly proved that the Obama honeymoon with the American people is over.  Over the past 50 years, nearly every President has had a higher approval rating at this point in their presidency by the American people than does President Obama.  What a fall!  He was elected overwhelmingly as President, only to tumble to record lows in disapproval ratings with the economy, with his health program, with his foreign policy, and with seemingly everything.

As of this writing, his government take-over of health care, his cap and trade (better written as cap and tax) program to curb scientifically questionable climate change, his take-over of General Motors, his support of a dictator in Honduras (as well as kowtowing to assorted other dictators in Venezuela and around the globe), his endless spending programs, bail-outs galore, high taxes (including the middle class), and giving more power to union bosses are all in disrepute by the American people.

The reason?  The American people are beginning to think they were conned by a politician who promised tax cuts but is instead delivering tax hikes.  They feel deceived by a politician who promised to balance the budget but has instead broken the budget by spending trillions of dollars we don’t have.  They voted by for a post-racial President who expressed his own racism by attacking police officers without knowing any of the facts.  They were assured of an economic recovery with shrinking unemployment, only to see unemployment soar after a questionable “stimulus” package laden with Congressional pork directed primarily toward Districts that voted for Obama.  They were promised bipartisanship and instead have witnessed the most partisan Presidency in history.

If President Obama continues to push his radical agenda, he will be a one term President.  He can recover, but only by backing off these unpopular programs and moving back toward the center.  If not, our economic woes will increase as we face skyrocketing inflation followed by high interest rates and a further slow-down in the economy.  That’s just Economics 101.  You can’t tax or spend your way into prosperity. 

If any one of his marquee programs stumbles, i.e. universal medical care, cap and trade, union card check, they are likely to all collapse.  There’s a herd instinct in Congress when it comes to political survival and it’s called “every man for himself.”  It has absolutely nothing to do with political philosophy or political party.  Getting re-elected to the next term takes priority over every other consideration by Congressmen and Senators.

Should Republicans sweep the statewide offices in Virginia and New Jersey in the off-year elections, the hand writing will be on the wall and Democrats in marginal Congressional districts will be running away from President Obama and all of his policies.

Unless Obama changes course, 2010 and 2012 could turn into a rout by the Republicans.  But, to be sure, there’s a political eternity between now and 2012 and anything can happen.  The GOP has to find good candidates for 2010, nationalize that election with a new contract with America, find a winning conservative candidate for President in 2012 and, along the way, raise millions of dollars and successfully play catch-up in political technology in order to win.  Should the Republicans do this, and should Obama fail to move back toward the center, his political trajectory will be down and out in one.

Funding Fathers

Funding Fathers

My good friend, Ron Robinson, is the co-author of a book that came out last year, Funding Fathers (Regnery Publishing).  Nicole Hoplin co-authored this book with Ron and together they did a great job.

It’s been in my stack of “to read” books for quite some time.  Honestly, I had been putting off reading Funding Fathers because I was afraid that it would be less than interesting, a tome solely dedicated to promoting Young America’s Foundation (the organization of which Ron serves as President).  It’s not that I thought Ron and Nicole couldn’t write well, it was my fear that the topic would be boring and the narrative more text book like.  To my great delight none of my fears were justified.

Funding Fathers is a very well written book that keeps you turning the pages to learn more about the interesting people and fascinating backgrounds of those who were instrumental in providing the funds to ensure the intellectual underpinnings of the conservative movement as well as the talent to succeed politically.

Funding Fathers is a great read.  Ron gives the lion’s share of the credit for developing the personalities and the background of the individuals covered to Nicole.  But regardless of who contributed what to this book, it is really worth reading, especially if you are a conservative, and all the more so if you are also a donor to conservative causes.

If you haven’t heard of William Volker of Kansas City, Missouri, you will be surprised (as I was) by his powerful, positive impact on providing the funds and the inspiration for such groups as the Mount Pelerin Society.  You’ll learn about his high personal standards, his compassion, his character, and his commitment to freedom.  I think you’ll also be intrigued, as I was, by his business acumen, his far sightedness, and his willingness to take risks as a philanthropist.  He touched the lives of so many people you have heard of: Friedrich Hayek, Leonard Reed, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, and even Ronald Reagan.  His scholarships and funding at critical points literally helped to make the modern conservative movement in America, and around the globe, a reality.

In the book you’ll learn about the late Henry Regnery, the Founder of Regnery Publishing, and how William Volker played a role in his development as a conservative leader and a businessman.  In fact, you’ll also learn about Regnery’s extensive philanthropic activities.

Volker and Regnery are just the tip of a lovely iceberg when it comes to learning about the good hearted, patriotic, clear thinking men and women who played essential roles in providing the necessary funds to get the conservative movement off the ground.
It’s well worth taking the time to read about the amazing financial and personal contributions of conservative founders such as Bill Buckley, Jr., Dean Manion, Ronald Reagan’s Kitchen Cabinet, Antony Fisher, Spike Hennessy, Joe Coors, Sr. and John Engalitcheff.  The stories of their lives will amaze you, and their commitment to freedom along with their love of America will inspire you.

We Need to Quit Inhaling Our Own Exhaust

We Need to Quit Inhaling Our Own Exhaust

Recently I heard the phrase, “We need to quit inhaling our own exhaust.”  Unfortunately, I don’t remember the originator of this statement, but bless him.  How true this is when we try to innovate or solve problems.  I tend to always go back to what worked in the past.  My response is usually, “Well, that’s not the way we do it here.”  Wrong!

During the course of my studies toward becoming a mechanical engineer at what was then called Missouri School of Mines & Metallurgy, I had the privilege of taking a class led by Professor Emeritus A. Vern Kilpatrick.  The story was told (I can’t vouch for the accuracy) that Professor Kilpatrick had been with Henry Ford when his first Ford came off the greased iron rail.  As you probably know, Ford was the originator of mass production and was known for “putting America on wheels.”

Professor Kilpatrick said one thing that has stuck in my mind.  He said that when facing an engineering challenge, remember that there are seven ways to solve the problem.  Now, are there always seven ways to solve an engineering problem?  I don’t know, perhaps the number is 17 or 27, but for certain, there is always more than one way to solve a problem.

This doesn’t mean that the rules of math or physics or chemistry can be changed.  It just means that you can apply these laws in multiple ways to solve your problem.

Too often we tend to think that there is only one way to write a fund appeal, fix a leak, deliver a sermon, build a house, get in shape, etc.  We get in a rut and we begin reading only our own literature, talking only to each other, and evaluating by our own standards.  We are, in short, “inhaling our own exhaust.”

This doesn’t mean that we should alter our standards or principles, but it means that we should open our mind to look at ways that other people approach similar challenges.  After all, it would be pretty arrogant to think that God gave me and only me the ability to understand and solve a particular problem.

But, aeronautical engineers primarily read aeronautical engineering literature.  Maybe they ought to take a look at the literature in another engineering field or even outside that field.

Here at the Eberle Communications Group, we think we know the best way to write a fund appeal.  We tend to look down our nose at the offerings of other agencies.  But you know what?  Some of those agencies have been around longer than we have.  I like it when I interview a prospective new copywriter and he or she says, “I don’t write fund appeals that look the way yours do.”  That’s good news—I’m going to learn something new from this person.  Or, as the old saying goes, “There’s always more than one way to skin a cat.”

But the religious field is even more adamant about “doing it our way.”  For instance, I’m a Lutheran and we Lutherans think we know everything.  I’m not talking about doctrine (although we are absolutely sure we are right on everything when it comes to doctrine).  I’m referring to how we conduct a worship service, how we reach out to those who don’t know Jesus, how we keep our members, how we activate leaders, etc.  And when we can’t figure something out, we go to other Lutheran churches and read Lutheran literature as if Lutherans are the only Christians to whom God has given an understanding of how to touch the hearts and lives of others.  We think we are totally unique and singularly blessed.

But you know what?  I’ve talked to Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc. and they all think the very same thing!  Again, I’m not referring to doctrine as practiced in these churches, but rather to the “way things are done.”  It’s nuts.  We all want to reinvent the wheel so that it will be a Lutheran wheel or a Baptist wheel or a Pentecostal wheel, when in truth the best wheels are those that are round and turn fast and reliably.

No matter what business you and I are in, or what volunteer activities we are involved in, we can reduce wasted time by finding out how others (even with whom we may not agree) made their wheel turn fast.  I’d sure like to know how the Obama campaign executed such an efficient and effective fundraising effort.  It was nothing less than fantastic.

If you are a pastor, I’d think that you would have the same attitude about finding out how other churches reach out so effectively, rather than just dismissing them as “apostate” or some other slur that has absolutely nothing to do with the processes and approaches they use for reaching out.

May I be so bold as to suggest that Lutheran pastors should (gasp!) visit a Pentecostal church or a Baptist church on their vacation?  Or that Baptist pastors should (gasp!) stop by a growing Episcopalian church one Sunday?  Or possibly that Presbyterian pastors should unfreeze at a rocking and rolling independent Christian church?

We need to quit reading our own internal studies, quit talking to each other, and start looking at empirical studies of Christian churches in general to find out what works, and what doesn’t.  Don’t hyperventilate!  You’re not going to be poisoned by visiting another church.  Just open your mind to the possibility of doing things differently.  Try for just a day to push tradition out of your mind and look at methods and processes (consistent with your doctrine) that work.  Then go back and apply what works to reaching those who don’t know Jesus and keeping those who are already members.  You might be surprised to find out what you can learn if you are willing to open your mind.
And by the way, the next time you are on vacation, you might try this when you stop at a new restaurant for lunch.  Let everyone else order their hamburgers and fries, and then when the waitress gets around to you, have Rhubarb pie à la mode for lunch.  It’s less greasy and the calories are about the same.  Thinking outside the box can be fun, and inhaling fresh ideas can invigorate the mind.