Bruce Eberle's Blog

God’s Power

BruceEberle — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:31:58 GMT

God’s Power

I’m always a bit confused when I hear someone say something like, "I believe in God, but I don’t believe in the miracles of the Bible, and I don’t think He could have created the world. It just happened." It makes my head spin.

If that’s what you believe, then what kind of a god is it that you believe in? Is it a god that has limitations on its power, or is its power limited to the laws of nature? That’s a pretty small god.

By definition, God is "supernatural." That means He is not limited by nature. He’s above and beyond nature. In fact, He created nature itself and all the so-called immutable laws of the universe.

I thought that Pastor Mark Jeske hit it right on the head in his Grace Moments of Friday, June 13, 2008.

God Is Omnipotent

So tell me, how strong are you? How much can you lift? Can you bench press 250 lbs.? Could you lift a mountain? How much of your world can you control? Can you change the weather? Well, of course you can’t. But your God can.

God is omnipotent—there is no limit to his power. When God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ, his disciples watched in awe as he showed total mastery over all creation. Once, when he silenced a violent storm that had threatened to swamp their boat, the disciples were amazed: "Who is this, that even the wind and the waves obey him?" And so, wherever you go today, rejoice that your Savior, Jesus Christ, has absolutely no limits on his power.

You can receive Grace Moments each day by going to https://www.timeofgrace.org/emailgrace.asp. Grace Moments are always brief and they are free. In 15 to 20 seconds each day, you will be inspired, uplifted, and renewed. If you don’t like them (you will, of course), you can cancel at any time.

Misdirected Finger

BruceEberle — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:34:53 GMT

Misdirected Finger

Should one laugh or cry? It’s highly unlikely that United States Senator Dick Durbin is an idiot. He has a college education and he was elected to the US Senate. Yet, when he exhibits absolutely no understanding of the way the free market works, one is left with limited choices regarding the august Senator. He’s one (or more) of the following:

1. A cynical politician who knows better.

2. An economic Marxist.

3. An economic illiterate.

Whatever he (and all the liberals in the Senate who called the oil executives to the Hill for political posturing) is, there’s one thing he is for sure—a certifiable hypocrite.

Let’s make this short and sweet. When there is a shortage of beans, the price of beans goes up. When there is an oversupply of beans, they become worth very little. The same thing is true of oil. When you have plenty of oil the price goes down. When there is a shortage, the price goes up.

There is only one group that has caused high gas prices—politicians who blocked oil exploration, production, and refining. Politicians like Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, Harry Reid, et. al. These "leaders" are the ONLY reason we have exorbitantly high gas prices.

They blocked off shore drilling (even at 60 miles out). They blocked drilling on a miniscule 10 square miles in Alaska. They blocked exploration in Montana, Utah and other states. They blocked the construction of new refineries.

Their finger pointing is misdirected. They need to look in the mirror, because they are the problem.

If you like gas prices at $4.00 or more per gallon, then keep electing these folks, because there is no end in sight. In fact, on May 27, 2008 the price of a gallon of gas in London was the equivalent of $10 per gallon US.

It’s time to throw the rascals out!

Who Stole My Church?

BruceEberle — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:33:48 GMT

Who Stole My Church?

If you go to church regularly (and I hope you do), I recommend that you read the book—Who Stole My Church? by Gordon MacDonald (Thomas Nelson, Inc.). As someone who goes to church, you may have noticed a number of non-theological changes in your church service, i.e. contemporary music, bands, and a generally less formal atmosphere.

Today, the Christian religion is going through major changes in its approach to worship. The idea is to make the church worship service more welcoming to the current generation. Maybe you welcome these changes. Or perhaps you dislike them. Regardless of your reaction, this book is worth reading.

And it is also very clever. Gordon MacDonald has written more than ten books, but this one certainly takes an unusual approach to a topic. Instead of being your typical nonfiction book, MacDonald has written a fictional account of a church located in New England. The only real characters in the book are himself and his wife, Gail.

The general idea of the story is that a few years back, the faithful, loyal, and committed members of a small church outside of Boston called Pastor MacDonald to shepherd their church. They felt their church had plateaued, not doing the best job of reaching out into the community, and needed a new outlook and some new energy. Well, they got what they wanted and perhaps more than they wanted, but I’ll not ruin the story by going farther.

I do promise you that you will "recognize" people in your church (maybe even yourself) as you read this enlightening and entertaining book. MacDonald doesn’t promise solutions in this book, but he does provide an entertaining read that allows the reader to look at the changes going on in Christian worship from a different perspective. I don’t think you will be disappointed.

What’s Your Line in the Sand?

BruceEberle — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:10:26 GMT

What’s Your Line in the Sand?

The McCain game plan is now clear—take conservatives for granted and head left. The McCain folks are convinced that conservatives have no other place to go and that the thought of an Obama White House is so bad that no matter what McCain says or does, you and I will hold our nose and vote for him.

Is he right? Maybe.

Frankly, I hope not. There has to be a line which McCain cannot cross and still count on conservatives to support him.

We already know his track record—wrong on taxes, wrong on "global warming," wrong on amnesty, wrong on McCain-Feingold, wrong on ANWR, wrong on the Gang of 14, etc. There’s no logical reason to believe that Senator "Compromise" is going to fight for conservative judges, a secure border, lower taxes, oil exploration, nuclear power, or smaller government. No reason whatsoever.

Richard Nixon was elected by a landslide in 1968 over Hubert Humphrey. It was a disaster. We got wage and price controls, and diplomatic recognition of Red China. Humphrey would not have accomplished any of that, but compliant Republicans went along with liberal Democrats to push through all of Nixon’s bills.

President Obama may not be able to push through amnesty for illegal aliens, but you can plan on it with President McCain. Congressional Republicans will fight Obama tooth and nail on tax increases, but they will roll over for President McCain. Republicans will fight President Obama on signing "global warming" legislation that cripples our economy, but they will play patsy to President McCain. And the GOP will fight to the death against the socialized medicine proposals of President Obama, but cave in for President McCain.

Once again it comes down to the war in Iraq. But can a President Obama really precipitously pull out of Iraq? It’s not likely. The pull out message is directed solely to the far left Moveon.org crowd. Obama has to keep them on board through election day. After election day the anti-war crowd is expendable. Once Obama is in the White House he’ll have to take a more responsible course. Besides, there is nothing a President likes more than being in power during wartime.

So once again, is there any line that McCain can’t cross and still get your vote?

As I said in an earlier blog, I want to vote for John McCain, but I need a reason. My line in the sand is his choice for a running mate. If the running mate is another John McCain, he has crossed my line. If he or she is a young, certifiable, conservative, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Senator McCain.

What’s your line in the sand? Or is John McCain right? Can he do anything he wants and you will still vote for him?

Who Does the Housing Bail Out Really Help?

BruceEberle — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:41:23 GMT

Who Does the Housing Bail Out Really Help?

I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." It’s beginning to be that way when it comes to government spending. If I lose a thousand dollars it’s a lot of money, but the government spending another billion dollars is just an incomprehensible statistic. I’m no cynic, but it seems to me that the government is totally out of control. Just what is it that happens to normal men and women who come to Washington, DC as Senators and Representatives? It appears that they become intoxicated on the power that comes to them through government spending.

All of which brings me to ask the question: Who does the housing bail out really help? Some would say that the answer is obvious—the ones who received the money. But is that really true?

Forget about the fairness of those who acted responsibly having to pay for those who acted irresponsibly. That’s not even that important in the scope of things. I think far more damage is done to those who are bailed out by the government.

Let me ask you this question: Do you help your children when you bail them out of problems that happen because they made bad decisions? When you do, does it really help them? Or, if you let them suffer the consequences of their mistake, does it have a positive effect on them?

Sometimes pain is good for us. We don’t like it. We’re embarrassed by it. It’s a struggle to overcome. But generally we’re better off as a result of it. I once had a friend who was a POW for nearly six years tell me aside from the lost time, his experience as a POW was a worthwhile learning experience. No, he wouldn’t do it over again (who would choose to be a POW or have any of the problems we face as humans—financial, health, relationship), but after the fact we are often willing to admit that they were good for us.

So back to my question: Who was really helped by the housing bail out? I don’t think we helped those who were bailed out at all. Will they now become more responsible because they were bailed out? Or will they forever assume that someone will bail them out when they encounter problems and difficulties as a result of bad decisions? I’d bet on the latter, not the former.

It’s not that I don’t care about these folks. I do. Believe me, I’ve made terrible decisions that have cost me dearly, but I must admit that they were also valuable learning experiences. Maybe I’m just someone who learns by making mistakes, and maybe you can’t relate. My experience is that problems are rarely as bad as we assume them to be. We may be embarrassed. We may be humiliated. We may have to crawl on our knees. We may have to overcome hardships, but we will, in the end, be better for it.

I don’t like it more than anyone else when I have to suffer for my stupid mistakes, but if someone were to bail me out, would I learn anything?

The only folks I can see the bail out helping is the politicians who seek to manipulate and control their fellow citizens to their political advantage. The more dependent the average Joe and Jill become upon government, the less freedom they will have and the more power the politicians will have.

Are we raising an entire generation of Americans who think that government should care for them from cradle to grave and protect them from every stupid decision they make? Look around the globe. There already are many governments like that. We call them dictatorships. They are located in Cuba and China, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran.

I Want to Vote for McCain

BruceEberle — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:21:26 GMT

I Want to Vote for McCain

I want to vote for John McCain. I really do. Several times I have gotten close to deciding that I can overlook his track record on taxes (voted against the Bush tax cuts twice), on big government (McCain-Feinstein), on blocking the appointment of conservative judges (Gang of 14), on the "Global Warming" hoax (McCain-Lieberman), and on amnesty (McCain-Kennedy). I think, "I’ll just hold my nose and vote for Senator McCain." And then he becomes John McCain again.

First, he attacks the North Carolina Republican Party for running an ad he disagrees with. (What is he running for, president or dictator?) Then he reiterates his stand for "comprehensive immigration reform," i.e. amnesty for illegal aliens.

This election year reminds me of the lyrics from that old song by Ervin Drake/Steve Lawrence, "A room without windows, a room without doors." Basically we have a choice between two liberal candidates—Barack Obama (liberal strong) and John McCain (liberal light). Or perhaps it reminds me of the inverse of the title of Phyllis Schlafly’s book – An Echo, Not a Choice.

Obviously Senator McCain feels more at home with Democrats like Kennedy, Lieberman, and Feinstein than he does with Goldwater, Reagan, or any other conservative. For some men, their word is as good as their bond, but with John McCain, who knows? Yes, I salute him for his service as a POW, but that in and of itself doesn’t qualify him to be President of the United States.

John, I (and millions of other conservative Americans) want to vote for you, but we need a reason. Why should we cast our vote for you? Will you really nominate conservative judges even though you said that Sam Alieto was too conservative ("wears his conservatism on his sleeve")? Will you really reduce the size of government even though McCain-Feingold dramatically expanded the size and scope of the Federal Election Commission? Will you really "secure the border" even though you co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill? Will you really push hard for making the Bush tax cuts permanent even though you voted against them twice? Will you really work for energy independence even though you voted against drilling in Anwar?

Who are you, John McCain?

I’m holding out hope (but not much) that you will pick a young, clearly conservative running mate. That could push millions of conservative votes into your column (including mine).

Short of that, is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan enough to justify the election of another Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, or Tom Dewey? Will President McCain really do less long-term damage than President Obama? Ugh! What a choice.

The Message of Jesus

BruceEberle — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:43:52 GMT

The Message of Jesus

All over the news and the Internet we find clips of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright cursing the United States, stating that the US Marines are just like the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus, and saying that when terrorists attacked the twin trade towers, "the chickens came home to roost." He went on to say a lot of other weird, hatful, and racist things. He’s not defensible. And it’s hard to understand why Barack Obama stayed at his church for more than 20 years, contributing lots of money.

Politics aside, I am disturbed by the fact that a preacher like Wright damages the Christian message just as much as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and the other "fallen" Christian leaders.

The message of Jesus wasn’t revenge. It wasn’t hatred. It was love. In fact, Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-45, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

The result of Jesus’ love was forgiveness. In fact, as he was dying on the cross, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). It was because of the Father’s love for you and me that he sent his Son, Jesus, to earth. He shed his power and his glory to become a simple, humble man. We are not lovable, but Jesus still loved us.

He then lived the perfect life that you and I can’t live and in his innocence gave his life on the cross for your sins and mine. As it says in 1 John 3:16, "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers."

Thankfully the story didn’t end there. Jesus rose triumphantly from the grave in a victory that he shares with us if we only trust in him.

That is the Christian message. It is worth saying again. It is a message of love, not hate; of forgiveness, not vengeance.

Politicians and misguided preachers come and go, but the good news of Jesus gives you and I hope that never fails.

John McCain & The Washington Post

BruceEberle — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:57:58 GMT

John McCain & The Washington Post

I hardly knew whether to laugh or cry when I picked up the Sunday, April 20, 2008 edition of The Washington Post. There on the front page, presented as the feature story of the day, was the beginning of a "hit" piece on John McCain. The issue was John’s famous, always self-serving temper.

Could this be the same Washington Post that endorsed John McCain in the heat of the Republican primary race? When the Post and the NY Times endorsed McCain, I said to myself, "So what?" They certainly won’t endorse him in the general election." I’d like to say "I told you so," but it wouldn’t be a solo, it would be a chorus.

I wanted to write a blog about John McCain, the "Me Too!" Republican or John McCain, the "Johnny one note conservative," but if it wasn’t so sad that the ‘stupid party’ allowed Independents and Democrats to select their nominee, I’d laugh out loud.

How serious is McCain’s anger? Probably not as important as Obama’s questionable patriotism or Clinton’s lack of veracity, or their unified commitment to socialism that will surely lead to a depression. As one who has been at the receiving end of Senator McCain’s anger, I must chuckle.

No, I’m not too upset with McCain’s anger. That would be hypocritical of me since I have angry outbursts of my own (for which I am embarrassed and apologetic). But I am concerned by the Senator’s "one note conservative" track record.

Let’s see how the self-proclaimed "Reagan conservative" stands on the most important issues of the day:

* Tax cuts: Although he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice, he
now pledges allegiance to lower taxes.

* Immigration: He is an "open borders" advocate through
and through.

    * Global Warming: Although the scientific community is divided on
       the cause of any global warming (some even contend the planet
       may be cooling), McCain has a "me too" position on this issue.
       Forget about a thorough scientific investigation, "Dam the
       torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

    * Conservative judges: The McCain folks tell us not to worry, John
       has always voted for conservative judges. Well, I hate to be a
       skeptic, but there is a big difference between voting for
       conservative judges and nominating conservative judges. John
       Fund of The Wall Street Journal says he was at a meeting where
       McCain said he would not nominate a judge like Justice Sam Alito
       because "he wears his conservatism on his sleeve." If you don’t
       feel a little less confident about President McCain nominating
       conservative judges, I’d be surprised." Just ask yourself this
       question: "Who is more conservative, President George H.W. Bush
       or Senator John McCain?" Bush ’41 gave us Clarence Thomas, a
       Justice committed to the US Constitution, but he also gave us
       Justice David Souter, one of the worst members of Court. Now,
       how’s your confidence that John McCain will appoint
       conservative judges?

All of the above now brings us to "Johnny one note conservative," John McCain.

    * The War on Terrorism. This is it. Obama and Clinton will pull out,
       demeaning the sacrifices of our valiant fighting men and women.
       McCain will stand and fight.

Is this "one note" enough? Maybe.

It must be weighed against his "Democrat-like" positions on domestic issues. It must be considered against the devastation that Obama and Clinton will wreck on our land.

It may be enough.

It may be enough to ignore the fact that we will be turning the Republican Party over to the "Rockefeller wing" of the party and that the domestic agenda will be "socialism lite."

If John McCain wants to win he needs to send a very clear signal to the conservatives who make up the rank and file of the Republican Party by selecting a clear conservative as his running mate. Otherwise the GOP and the McCain presidency will lack the necessary grassroots energy and enthusiasm needed to propel it into the White House.

It will be interesting for sure.

Pebbles in Your Mouth?

BruceEberle — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:48:15 GMT

Pebbles in Your Mouth?

Recently, the US Supreme Court held oral arguments in regard to the so-called "millionaires" provision that limits personal expenditures of a candidate running for Congress to $350,000. In regard to the goal of achieving a "level playing field" in the campaign process, Justice Antonio Scalia sarcastically asked, "What are we to do next if one candidate is more articulate than another, require him to speak with pebbles in his mouth?" What a breath of fresh air.

I am so weary of governmental efforts to "level the playing field." I have lousy hand-eye coordination that kept me from being a competitive Little League player when I was twelve. Does that mean the Little League or the government should have put a patch over one eye of the other players? I was also too short to dunk a basketball. I guess they should have given me a special lower basket.

If there is one thing I hope I taught my children, it’s that life is not fair—at least not on this side of heaven. God has given us all different talents and abilities. We are exactly who He wanted us to be. It is in overcoming some of our limitations that we gain character.

I would love to hit the little white ball straight down the fairway, putt accurately, and shoot in the 70s. It has never happened and it never will happen.

I’d also love to kick government out of the "fairness" business. Whenever government intervenes, it usually rights one wrong (real or imagined) and creates others. The marketplace, as imperfect as it may be, is always better than government when it comes to fairness. Always!

And when it comes to elections, we’d all be better off shutting down the FEC with all its rules and regulations, and simply requiring full and complete disclosure of all contributions and expenditures on a 48 hour basis over the internet. In spite of what the politicians would lead you to believe, we really are smarter than they think we are. Today’s FEC is a creation that dramatically un-levels the playing field. The incumbents have all the advantages and that is exactly what the creators of the FEC had in mind. Congressmen and Senators get free franking privileges to their constituents, they get a multitude of free flights back to their districts and states, they get free publicity on the local television stations and local newspapers every time they come to town, and they use your tax dollars to build bridges, dams and highways, to enhance their status as bringing home the "pork" to your state or district.

You and I would be better served if all challengers were able to outspend the incumbents, and they would have a chance to do so were it not for the onerous FEC limitations. The playing field has not been leveled, it runs steeply up-hill for challengers thanks to those who created the Federal Election Commission with all its rules, regulations, and limitations. While elections may not always have been fair prior to the FEC, there’s no doubt it’s much less fair today thanks to government meddling.

Lawrence Reed said it best, "Free men are not equal and equal men are not free." Amen.

The Real Education Tragedy

BruceEberle — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:51:03 GMT

The Real Education Tragedy

There is a real education crisis in America, but because of the players involved, no one wants to face the hard facts. One of those hard facts is that our public schools in the poor areas of our nation are just plain lousy. The drop-out rate is horrendous and the quality of the education those who stay in school receive is sub par (and that’s being generous).

Those who do graduate from high school pay a huge price. When you don’t get a good, solid education, how in the world can you compete in a tough college environment? How can you compete in the workplace? It’s a rotten deal and these children deserve better.

So what’s the problem? Who or what is keeping these schools from being top-flight educational institutions at both the primary and secondary levels?

Well, it’s not money. Take the District of Columbia, for example. The District spends more per pupil than nearly every other state in the nation, but the schools are notoriously lousy. They are lousy in terms of facilities and lousy in terms of education. There is simply no excuse for lousy facilities or getting a lousy education when there is that much money being spent per student.

It’s not the students either. They’re not dumb. Yes, they could use more encouragement and support from their parents, but lots of students could use that.

The real problem is the politicians who are being held captive by the National Education Association, one of the most far-left unions in the United States. Most of the politicians, right and left, know that they could facilitate a better education for the poorest members of our society by embracing school vouchers.

The jury is not out. School vouchers work. It’s happening today in Wisconsin and in other isolated locations across the country. Thanks to school vouchers, thousands of students who live in the poorest areas of Wisconsin are going to great schools thanks to the school voucher system in place. Many of these schools are like St. Marcus, which not only provides a top-flight education, but also the kind of moral and ethical guidance that will help their students become solid members of society. It took a left-right coalition of truly caring political leaders to secure school vouchers in Wisconsin. Together they created a better system for the underprivileged students in their state.

So why isn’t this successful system spreading like wildfire across the nation? There is one reason, and only one reason—the opposition of the most powerful union in America—the National Education Association.

This union wields massive power and control over the policies of the Democratic Party, making the politicians kneel at their altar. While Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lament the plight of poor Americans, especially black Americans, the truth is that they are the ones primarily responsible for holding back poor Americans. They are restraining them from realizing the American dream because they are captives of the NEA.

Almost no one would disagree that the key to getting out of poverty is education. The fact is that quality education for a large portion of our society is within our grasp—almost. If only those who pride themselves as being champions of the poor would put their politics aside and bring quality education to the inner cities and poor rural areas through school vouchers.

This is a tragedy that need not happen. We have the solution at hand. All that is needed now is political courage.

Verkamp’s

BruceEberle — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:54:43 GMT

Verkamp’s

John Verkamp worked as a clerk at the Babbit’s General Store in Flagstaff, Arizona. It was hard to make a living and support a family as a clerk, but John Verkamp had an entrepreneurial spirit. In 1903 he decided to go to the Grand Canyon, about 70 miles north of Flagstaff, and go into business for himself. He knew that the Canyon was becoming quite a tourist destination, especially with the advent of the Santa Fe railroad spur to the Canyon and the construction of the El Tovar Hotel near the rim of the Canyon.

John quickly established a business relationship with the various Indian tribes in the vicinity and offered to sell their wares to Canyon tourists. He staked a tent not far from the Canyon rim and not too far from the El Tovar Hotel itself. It proved to be a profitable venture so he brought his growing family to the Canyon and constructed a wooden building to house his retail store and it was also where he and his family lived on the second floor.

"Verkamp’s, Inc." was in full operation when I first visited the Canyon around 1955 and during all of my seven return visits to the south rim, Verkamp’s continued to operate in the same facility. In fact, generation after generation of Verkamps continued to provide an outlet to the Indian tribes and developed a reputation with suppliers and buyers alike as an honest, straightforward, fair business venture. It was a family run business with each successive generations working behind the counters and learning all the aspects of the retail business.

The Verkamps did not get rich, but they reached a modicum of success as they continued to live above the store. John Verkamp’s risk-taking, hard work, and skill paid off providing his family and those to follow with good, honest work.

Verkamp’s has always carried high-quality products and provided pleasant, courteous service to their customers and their plan was to continue to providing that service, but Verkamp’s is closing. That’s what I learned when my wife and I recently visited the south rim of Grand Canyon National Park. Verkamp’s is closing not by choice, but because big, powerful, intrusive government has decided that they don’t want Verkamp’s (or any of the independent merchants) in the National Parks.

Verkamp’s, an honorable and sound business, is being forced out of business because it doesn’t fit into the plans of the Interior Department of the US Government. It seems that the bureaucrats want more control (when do they not?) and one way to get that control is to force Independents (as they are called) and In-Holders (those whose private property is located within a national park and predates creation of the park) out of our National Parks. In legal terms, this is "taking," in plain, raw terms it’s legalized theft.

The government’s aim is to have just one concessionaire in each national park thus giving the government more control and incidentally eliminating all competition. In economic terms it is government control of economic enterprises. It’s not socialism, which believes in government ownership of all economic enterprises. It’s fascism which by definition advocates government control of all economic enterprises.

In human terms it is just sad. The thought that a sole entrepreneur could risk all to make a living and succeed in taking care of his family only to be eliminated by a government bureaucrat who would never take such a personal risk is aggravating at best.

Government is supposed to protect the individual, not oppress him, yet that is exactly what the government has done and is doing in the case of Independents and In-Holders in our National Parks.

For shame, for shame! America needs more John Verkamp’s and fewer bureaucrats… but don’t hold your breath!

The Economy

BruceEberle — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:26:13 GMT

The Economy

According to a report I heard on WMAL radio, March 2008 saw the biggest one month upturn in the stock market in more than 50 years. The balance of trade with foreign countries is the best it has been in decades. Inflation is cruising along at a very agreeable pace. And interest rates are at an all-time low.

So what’s all the talk about a recession? A recession is, by the way, a technical term which (if I understand it correctly) refers to two consecutive quarters of a downturn in economic indicators.

The truth is that a recession will happen only if the American people lose confidence in our economy. If they become uncertain or unsure, they start cutting back financially and that can snowball into a genuine recession.

Sure there has been a housing crisis. Greedy lenders together with greedy and ignorant borrowers created a crisis of sorts. The lenders offered short-term sub prime loans and the borrowers made bad decisions to take those loans. And yes, housing prices have declined significantly. That’s bad for home owners (although it doesn’t affect their standard of living), but along with the current low interest rates, that’s good news for first time home buyers.

Of course the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream news media think that an economic downturn is good news. They, of course, also think that more casualties in Iraq is good news and that higher gasoline prices are good news. What a pickle to be possessed of a philosophy that concludes that anything bad for America and its citizens is good news. If the US does go into a recession they will surely be dancing in the street!

How hard it is on these folks when the stock market heads upward, inflation stays down, there are fewer casualties in Iraq, and there is news of a new oil find in North Dakota.

Sadly, it’s all politics. It is bad politics that places power and control above what is best for your country. What a dismal outlook those on the left have.

Will the economy suffer from a recession? Perhaps. Like life, the economy has its ups and downs. When you consider the fact that George Bush inherited an economy much worse than the one we have today (it was actually in the tank, even though you wouldn’t know it from press reports), today’s economy is amazingly robust. That’s true in spite of the fact that we had to recover from 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and finance a costly war.

The key was the Bush tax cuts which the Democrats promise to let expire. Moreover, they pledge to add additional taxes on top of that. If we avoid sliding into a recession in 2008, but go ahead and elect an Obama or a Clinton to the White House (along with a Democratic Congress), Katy Bar the door! If you liked the economy of Jimmy Carter you’ll love the economy of either Obama or Clinton. Stay tuned.

Booing the President

BruceEberle — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:01:37 GMT

Booing the President

Maybe I’m just old school, but it seems to me that there are lines that American citizens should not cross, and one of those lines is booing the President of the United States. Three years ago I attended opening day for the Washington Nationals Baseball Team. It was their very first game as the Washington Nationals and as a part of the celebration of this event; the President threw out the ceremonial first pitch. It’s an old, old tradition that began in 1910 when President William Howard Taft threw out the first pitch for the Washington Senators. From that day forward it became a tradition for the President of the United States to throw out the first pitch.

It is, in my mind, a very nice tradition and until recent years the President, whoever he was, Republican or Democrat, received a nice round of applause for getting the grand old game off to a start. That’s why I was disappointed in 2005 when President Bush threw out the first pitch. While most fans gave him a nice round of applause, the boo birds were there. In fact, the couple I took to the game couldn’t see the President because a couple of protestors held up signs of protest when the President stepped on the field.

More recently when I attended opening day at the new Nationals ball park, there was more booing when the President stepped on the field.

Good grief, as Charlie Brown would say. It’s a baseball game for goodness sake! Are we becoming a banana republic where everything must be political? No matter how much you disagree with the current President, be he Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, doesn’t he or she deserve your respect?

As Paul says in Romans 13:7 in regard to government, "Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

This doesn’t mean you have to surrender your freedom or you don’t have a right to disagree with the President on policies. I certainly disagree with the current President on a number of issues and I’m sure I’ll disagree with the next President on his or her policies. But I hope I will always give them respect and pray for their protection and wisdom in crisis.

Is America becoming such a coarse society that we no longer maintain a consensus of common decency and courtesy? As an American you have all sorts of freedoms. Nevertheless, there is a difference between what you can do (like booing the President) and what you should do.

Next year when I go to out to opening day for the Nationals I plan on applauding the President who throws out the first pitch whether her name is Hillary or his name is Barak or John. It’s just the right thing to do.

Ah! Baseball!

BruceEberle — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:52:36 GMT

Ah! Baseball!

It’s been a long, cold winter, but spring is upon us and with spring comes America’s first sports love—Baseball. Football season was fun and basketball and hockey continue, but now Baseball is back, and I’m thrilled. It’s nice to see 22 men battle to take the pigskin down the field and across the goal line, but for me, there’s nothing like baseball. And the steroid problem notwithstanding, we truly live in the golden age of the sport.

Baseball is not just the Boston Red Sox and the Yankees battling it out in the American League, or the Cardinals and the Cubs fighting over the Central Division in the senior league. It’s about the minor leagues which have never drawn larger crowds than they do today. (Several minor league teams draw more than a million in attendance each year, even though theirs is a truncated schedule.) It’s about eight and nine year olds hitting the ball off a tee and thirteen year olds playing on a full size field for the first time. It’s about Little League, Babe Ruth and Legion leagues. It’s about high school and college ball, as well as leagues for seniors. It’s about baseball’s offspring, softball for boys and girls, men and women of all ages.

Baseball is the sport for all ages when it comes to participation, when it comes to attending, and when it comes to watching year in and year out. The Grapefruit and Cactus Leagues, now coming to a close, draw tens of thousands of fans from across the nation in anticipation of the race for the World Series.

Americans just can’t get enough of baseball. Their children learn early how to hit a sphere with a round bat thrown at lightening speed. Then they go to their own softball or baseball game. After that they go home and watch baseball on TV. And then they go out to see their favorite professional team. It’s in the blood, it’s part of America as no other sport is or ever will be.

Physicists say that the hardest thing in any sport is hitting an 85 mile-per-hour curve ball and turning a double play. I’m no physicist, but there’s no doubt it’s a difficult game. I’ve explained the basics of football to someone from Europe, but when I tried to explain baseball, it wasn’t so easy. But once you understand it, there is no other sport in its league.

It’s a thrill to see the quarterback throw a winning touchdown pass with the clock running out, but for me it doesn’t compare with the drama I witnessed when the Cardinals battled the Mets for the NLCS Championship in 2006. It was the 7th and deciding game. A rookie fill-in closer, Adam Wainwright, was on the mound. He had gotten two outs, but allowed two men on base. The Cardinals long time nemesis, Carlos Beltran, was at the plate with two outs and two strikes. A hit would win the game and send the Mets to the Series. An out would send the Cards to the Series. Ah. Baseball!

Happy Easter 2008

BruceEberle — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:24:40 GMT

Happy Easter 2008

I recently wrote this Easter message for everyone at my company and wanted to share it with you...

I want to wish each and every one of you a very happy, joyous Easter celebration. For more than 30 years I have been sending around my thoughts as a Christian at Easter time. It's a privilege to do so again this year.

Christians all across the globe celebrate Easter because it is the reason for their faith. It is what gives them hope that their life doesn't end when this earthly life is over, but really begins when they join Jesus in Heaven.

Kathi and I have always found that there is an incredible joy you can almost feel when you are in church on Easter Sunday. This is what being a Christian is all about.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me."

When Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter gave that wonderful testimony, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."

Christianity is really unique among the world's religions. All other religions believe that we earn our way into Nirvana, Shangri-La, Heaven, etc. Christianity, on the other hand, believes that we get to Heaven only through God's grace. In other words, Heaven is a gift that is ours if we simply trust in Jesus as our Savior.

While Isaiah, Jeremiah, David and Zechariah described the life and death of Jesus in incredible detail hundreds of years before He lived, being a Christian is a matter of faith.

I believe that although I am a dreadful sinner, I will spend eternity in Heaven with Jesus, not because of anything I have done, but because of what Jesus has done for me.

He lived the perfect life I cannot live. He took all my sins on Himself and then died and rose again giving me the promise of life eternal.

I wish you the joy and happiness of Easter. May it fill your heart and lift you up.

Have a wonderful Easter celebration.

The Good Life

BruceEberle — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:57:07 GMT

The Good Life

A year or so ago I purchased The Good Life by Charles Colson (Tyndale House Publishers), which was released in 2003. Colson is one of my very favorite writers. His writing is incredibly clear and concise and he is a wonderful story teller. I’m always confident that when I pick up a book he has written that I won’t be disappointed.

The Good Life is a great read. Colson conducts an exploration into what it means to live the good life. He begins with a retelling of the opening of the movie Saving Private Ryan. An old man hurries to see the grave of the officer who led the detail assigned to save him. The book continues with other moving stories that flow one after another, all aimed at identifying what it means to live the good life. Some stories are about lives wasted and others about lives well spent.

This is really a must read book. I’m not going to spoil it by going into lots of detail or the conclusions Colson reaches. I’ll let you do that for yourself.

I promise you two things—you will enjoy the book and it will make you take another look at your life to evaluate if you are living the good life.

Ugh!

BruceEberle — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:01:18 GMT

Ugh!

There is much to like about Barack Obama—he’s young, energetic, optimistic, and a great orator. Unfortunately his inexperience, along with his left-leaning tilt on critical foreign policy and economic matters, do not make him a good choice for President of the United States. An Obama Administration could lead to national security disasters and send the economy into a tail-spin.

And then there’s John McCain. Talk about the lesser of evils. The Senator is not a conservative by any description. Yes, he believes in a strong national defense and he has consistently voted pro-life, but he has a dismal record when it comes to limited Constitutional government, low tax rates, and national sovereignty. Being a conservative starts with reducing the size of government, but John McCain was the co-author of McCain-Feingold which dramatically expanded the Federal Election Commission and gave more power to the mainstream media and less to the average citizen. He voted twice against the Bush tax cuts. He teamed up with Ted Kennedy in co-sponsoring a bill that would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. On top of all this, he was the leader of the so-called "Gang of 14" that effectively blocked the nomination of conservative judges through their unwillingness to enforce a Constitutional approval process.

So these are our choices. Yuck!

McCain had me slightly leaning his way after his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), but then I heard the real story on his rating by the American Conservative Union (ACU). The McCain handlers had repeatedly put forward the story that he had an 82% conservative rating. That didn’t sound too bad.

Unfortunately, it was a deception orchestrated by people who should know better. It turns out that while his ACU rating over the past 20+ years in Congress is indeed 82%, his conservative rating over the last 8 years in Congress is less than 60%! That’s dismal. In fact, it’s less than the 2006 ACU rating of Democrat Ben Nelson of Colorado, and only slightly better than the 2006 rating of very liberal Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

So what is a conservative to do?

The ball is in Senator John McCain’s court. He can still get the votes of conservatives PROVIDING he picks a solid conservative as his running mate. If he picks a philosophical soul mate, forget it!

The GOP Candidate Selection Process is Broken

BruceEberle — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:08:43 GMT

The GOP Candidate Selection Process is Broken

Well, John McCain is the de facto Republican nominee for President of the United States, perhaps the first Republican nominee for President that is not the clear choice of the majority of Republicans in the United States. The result is that Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, are very unhappy with their nominee.

It was an almost bizarre selection process beginning with a caucus state, Iowa, that almost never votes for the Republican candidate for President in the general election. From there, the process moved on to New Hampshire where McCain won a plurality on the basis of support from Independents, while losing the Republican vote.

Based on late primaries after all the serious candidates have dropped out, McCain may indeed wind up with a majority of Republican votes, but the fact is he won the nomination only because of a deeply flawed nomination process.

The Republican Party needs to dramatically overhaul the selection process so that Republicans, not Independents, not Democrats, or any other group selects their nominee. Republicans need to remember that they are a private party and those who are active in the party should be the ones who select their nominees at the local, state and national level.

McCain may win, but the likelihood is that like Tom Dewey, Richard Nixon (1960), Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush, his liberal approach will go down in flames in November. That’s the reality of Republican politics—Moderate (read liberal) Republicans who are a "me too" shadow of their Democratic opponents lose. In contrast, those who firmly advocate and cling to conservative principles—like Ronald Reagan—win.

When the GOP allows the selection process to go forward in a way in which candidates who are the minority choice of the Republicans become the nominee, they are courting disaster. It’s time for a return to the tried-and-true convention process where Republican Party loyalists (in this private organization) select nominees who are conservative in principle and winners in November.

A Good First Step

BruceEberle — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:38:18 GMT

A Good First Step

John McCain’s speech to CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) was a good first step in his effort to win back conservative support. Even though he "stacked" the CPAC audience with supporters, conservatives are now clearly willing to listen to what he has to say.

There’s no mistake about it, John McCain is no conservative. Just calling yourself a conservative or saying over and over that you were a "foot soldier for Ronald Reagan" doesn’t make you a conservative.

John’s leadership of the effort to expand the bureaucracy through McCain-Feingold clearly shows that he is not a legitimate heir of either Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. The man does not understand how a free society works.

His other liberal efforts including the McCain-Kennedy bill to grant amnesty to illegals, his brief flirtation with the idea of running with John Kerry, his repeated votes against tax cuts, and his "Gang of 14" blockage of getting good, constitutional judges approved does not indicate any form of a grounding in conservative principles.

Nevertheless, conservatives can see the wisdom of sticking with moderates under certain circumstances. They took a step backward and supported Nixon in 1968, they supported Ford in 1976, and they supported Bush (41) in 1988. Being patriots first, conservatives saw these candidates as being better than their opponents—and they were.

John McCain can have conservative support for his campaign, but he does not have it yet. There is time. He needs to reiterate his commitment to making the Bush tax cuts permanent, securing the border, appointing judges who will uphold the Constitution and other conservative initiatives.

But even more than this, John McCain must select a young, forthrightly conservative running mate if he wants conservative support. No off-again, on-again conservative will suffice. His running mate must be an articulate, firmly grounded, young conservative. Short of such a selection, the John McCain campaign is doomed to failure as have many other moderate Republican candidates.

John McCain’s selection of a running mate will be the moment of truth. Who he chooses will determine whether his campaign fails or succeeds. He holds his destiny in his hands.

My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir

BruceEberle — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:46:01 GMT

My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir

When Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, was recently interviewed he was asked how he prepared to render a decision on any case before him. He replied with an explanation that should serve as a model for any judge. Basically, he said that he begins by trying to clear his mind of any preconceived notions or prejudices that might lead him to consider the case with an outcome in mind. Then, he proceeds to review the appropriate portions of the United States Constitution that might be applied to the case. After that, he has research completed on contemporaneous documents that were written by the writers of the Constitution seeking further illumination. And, of course, he reviews previous decisions that may have been similar to the case under consideration.

While I have paraphrased his response, what a beautiful, logical, simple, and fair approach to deciding cases before him! Is this not the very essence of what we expect from a judge at any level? If every judge took this response, it wouldn’t matter if they were conservative, liberal or whatever, and justice would be done.

Alas, that’s not the case, but at least we have a man of noble character on the US Supreme Court in the person of Clarence Thomas. And his recent book which I just finished is a beautiful and touching tribute to his grandfather, Myers Anderson, who taught him that it was more important to have good character, to work hard and honestly, and to be forgiving, than it was to succumb to lesser instincts.

The book is called a memoir, and it is, but it is also a testimony to the character and faith of a man who many think could be justified in being angry and getting even. But, "My Grandfather’s Son" is not that kind of book. It’s a book about his love for his family, his love for his country, and his Christian faith. Clarence’s life, like all lives, has been filled with challenges and disappointments, but few have endured the bitter hatred and vicious lies he faced with such patience.

Yes, Justice Thomas deals with his confirmation hearings—a true black mark on the record of the United States Senate. He provides intimate insights into the almost overwhelming opposition he faced. And when his opponents, especially Senators Biden and Metzenbaum, dipped into the bottom of the barrel leveling charges of sexual harassment they assuredly knew to be false, Clarence Thomas did not break. It was unbelievable behavior by men who knew better, but lacked the intellectual honesty to deal fairly and truthfully.

But, let Justice Thomas tell the tale and much more. It is a good book and one that should be read by every American. Clarence Thomas provides a role model that would serve any young man well. I commend it to you.