MSNBC: Africa IS in Fact a Continent

MSNBC and FOX News recently retracted the "news" story about Governor Palin not knowing that Africa was a continent. Apparently, it was an internet hoax. Good thing they caught that before the election. We wouldn't want people to get the impression that the woman is dumber than a box of rocks and totally unquallified to be president if God forbid something should happen to her elderly running-mate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

God's Politics, Part Two: The "A" Word

During an interview with Pastor Rick Warren on August 16, 2008, Senator Barack Obama was asked what he felt was America’s greatest moral failure. His response was,

“I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

Obama went on to explain that by “least of these” he meant the poor, minorities, and women. However, the Senator conspicuously left out one important group- unborn children. If “least of these” does not include human life in its most fragile and vulnerable state, then the phrase is meaningless.

Much debate has taken place in the three decades since the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Catholics and Evangelical Christians have sought to keep the issue at the forefront. In fact, abortion may be responsible for the very invention of the term, “single-issue voter.” Nevertheless, the fact remains that there have been over 48 million legal abortions in the United States since 1973. Every year, nearly a million more are added to the list and unless there are major changes to the court, it will continue.

The candidates have made their positions clear. Compare their responses to the question posed to each of them by Rick Warren at the August 16th Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency…

Warren: “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?”

Obama: “Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade…I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors, or their spouses, or their doctors [and] their family members. And, so for me, the goal right now should be- and this is where I think we can find common ground…is: how do we reduce the number of abortions?”

McCain: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, [and] in the Senate. And as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life President, and this Presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment; that’s my commitment to you.”

The difference is startling. McCain believes that unborn children are human beings and Obama believes that saying so is “above his paygrade.” He goes on to say that we should seek to reduce the number of abortions. I wonder if he would have applied this same logic to the Fugitive Slave Law or the Dred Scott decision? Would he have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it took "choice" out of the hands of the individual? I think not. To say that ending the life of an unborn child should be the decision of the mother is like saying the decision to own a slave should be left to the slaveowner.

A pro-Obama friend of mine recently said to me, “History has shown that neither a Republican nor Democratic president has solved it [abortion] yet so why should we base our vote on just one issue?” The reality is, Roe v. Wade DID solve the issue- in favor of abortion! If this ruling is ever going to be overturned, presidents must appoint pro-life judges. President Bush appointed two justices and experts are predicting that the next president will appoint two to three more. Read what the candidates said about judicial nominees…

Warren: “Which existing Supreme Court Justices would you not have nominated?”

Obama: I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he...I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker, at the time, for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.
I would not nominate Justice Scalia- although I don’t think there’s any doubt about his intellectual brilliance- because he and I just disagree…”

In other words, his objection to Scalia is not on grounds of qualification. It is strictly on the grounds that Scalia does not believe the constitution should be reinterpreted to suit our fancy. Incidentally, Scalia and Thomas are the two most pro-life justices on the court. Their “strict-constructionist” judicial philosophy finds no justification in the constitution for the Roe v. Wade decision. Which brings us to McCain’s response…

McCain: “With all due respect, [I would not have nominated] Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stevens…This nomination [to the Supreme Court] should be based on the criteria of [a] proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America, and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench.”

McCain is saying that he will appoint “strict-constructionist” judges who would make possible the reevaluation of Roe v. Wade. The pro-abortion lobby understands this very well. Their radio ad campaign made it very clear how “dangerous” they believe a President McCain would be to their ideals. As Christians, this is not an issue we can debate. The belief that life is precious and that its origin and termination must both be left in God's hands is foundational to our faith.

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Psalm 139:13-16

God's Politics, Part One: Economics (Cont.)

So, what bearing does my previous post have on the current election? The terms “socialist” and “Marxist” are being thrown around quite a bit. Regardless of what you choose to label it, Senator Obama’s tax plan proposes to raise the tax rate on people he deems “rich.” At the same time, the Earned Income Tax Credit allows millions of Americans who do not pay taxes to receive checks from the government. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 67 million adult Americans (33%) do not pay any federal income taxes. No matter how you slice it, this is government redistribution of wealth. As Christians, we may be tempted to believe that this is a just and compassionate approach. But, is that truly the case?

Here are some tax statistics from the bipartisan Tax Policy Center. Did you know that 70% of the tax burden is currently carried by the top 20% of taxpayers? Were you aware that the top 10% of American earners pay more than 55%? Senator Obama has stated repeatedly and unapologetically that he will raise taxes on the top 5%. He claims that these folks have had a “free ride” under President Bush. So, how much of the burden are they carrying? Would you believe 44%? Hardly seems like a free ride to me. It’s not about favoring “the rich.” It’s about not further punishing the people who are already paying the vast majority of the bill.

Senator McCain stated it best in a campaign speech he gave this morning. He said, “Senator Obama’s running to spread the wealth. I’m running to create more wealth.” Exactly. The Christian conception of the dignity of hard work and the rightness of enjoying its fruits have led to enormous wealth creation. It defies common sense and any reasonable conception of fairness and decency to punish individual wealth creation and financial success which has resulted in enormous benefits to society as a whole. Our standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in the world and it is a direct result of the exceptional political and economic freedom we enjoy. Regardless of a person’s socioeconomic status, he or she is far better off in the United States than almost any other place in the world.

Furthermore, how can the Body of Christ benefit from sending more dollars to Washington to be distributed by bureaucrats on programs that may or may not align with Christian principles? Wouldn’t the Lord be more pleased if His people were able to keep more of what they earn so they can use their resources as He directs them to expand the Kingdom of God? Admittedly, part of the church’s mission is to feed the poor and care for the needy, but that should not override the primary mission which is to share the gospel.

One last note. It has become fashionable in some Christian circles to characterize the rich as “greedy.” Indeed, many rich people may, in fact, be greedy. If that is the case, God will judge their hearts accordingly. However, it is important to note that greed is not defined merely by the possession of great wealth. Greed is the unhealthy and unquenchable desire for “more” at the expense of others. The tenth commandment says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." The desire of a person to keep what they have rightfully earned is not greed. The desire to get a piece of someone else’s wealth is.

God’s Politics, Part One: Economics

Many of you have written to ask me to be more specific in addressing the current political issues from a biblical point of view. It was always my intention to do so and today’s entry seeks to begin that endeavor. However, I must preface my thoughts by saying that I do NOT believe that I speak for God. I humbly acknowledge that I am a very imperfect human being who is still learning and growing. Having said that, I do want to share my perspective.

I begin with economics. It has been the major theme dominating the current campaign. With the economy on the brink of recession, it seems that capitalism itself is on trial. Does the bible have anything to say about it? Does it endorse any specific economic system? What about the government’s role in helping the poor?

The description of life in the first century church found in the book of Acts is of a community who “had everything in common” and “gave to anyone as he had need.” It is a beautiful picture of the body of Christ functioning rightly. Acts 4:32-35 says,

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had…There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”

This passage is often used to support the Marxist idea of wealth redistribution. It is argued that the early church provides the most appropriate model for the Christian understanding of economic justice.

There are several flaws in this line of reasoning. First, the economic realities of the early church were quite different than twenty-first century America. They did not enjoy political and economic freedom as we do. These were Jews living under the harsh rule of the Romans. Most were not Roman citizens and as such did not enjoy equal political status nor did they enjoy equal economic opportunities. Additionally, these “Christian” Jews were under severe persecution by the Jewish authorities. Sharing, for them, was a matter of survival.

Second, the Acts 4 model describes a voluntary community sharing with one another out of their own goodwill and generosity. This was not the result of coercion or imposition by an authority. Their love for Christ and for one another compelled them to give. They did so not by sending everything they had to Rome so that the government could decide who needed it the most, but rather by judging for themselves how best to help one another. This is a mandate the church must never neglect.

Finally, this was not the permanent condition of the Christian community. As the church grew and survived early persecution, it rapidly moved away from this model. Later in Acts, the Apostle Paul mentions his own trade as a tentmaker. He specifically refers in multiple passages to both the Corinthian and Thessalonian churches that he worked night and day so that he would not be a financial burden to them. In II Thessalonians 3:7-9, Paul says,

“For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow.”

Paul here, endorsed the idea that individuals have the right to be compensated for providing goods and services. He also acknowledged his own responsibility to pay for the provision of his own needs. Clearly, the church had moved beyond the communal arrangement they had initially embraced.

It’s 1:30am. I’m going to bed. More to follow…

God's Politics

Following the re-election of George W. Bush in November 2004, media reports focused on the enormous support he received from evangelical Christians. While not all Christians voted for the President, the vast majority did. In fact, for the past thirty years, evangelical Christians have been voting fairly monolithically, influenced greatly by organizations like Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.

Looking toward the election of 2008, liberals like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo recognized the growing unpopularity of President Bush and the war in Iraq as their opportunity to effectively challenge the traditional thinking about Christianity and politics. They sought to change the perception that it was “Christians vs. Democrats.” They began to court evangelicals with a new message that emphasized Jesus’ commands to feed the hungry, help the poor, as well as His call to be peacemakers.

Which brings us to the current presidential election. Evangelical Christians are deeply divided. Both candidates claim to be born-again Christians. Each candidate appeals to elements of Christ’s teaching to support their policies. No longer is it assumed that Christians must vote for the Republican. Our vision of Christian politics has been rightfully expanded beyond the narrow definitions of the Religious Right. So, how are we as Christians supposed to decide?

During the Civil War, President Lincoln overheard someone remark that he hoped that God was on the side of the Union. Lincoln's response was profound. He said,

"I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side."

I believe this is precisely the answer. Rather than asking whether God is for Barack Obama or John McCain, the question we should ask is, “Which candidate’s vision and policies line up best with God’s as outlined in His word?” When evaluated on that basis, I believe the choice is very clear.

To be continued…

Liberal Tolerance

Liberals believe all ideas must be tolerated and respected- except for conservative ones...

An Informed Electorate

I'm not a fan of Howard Stern, but this really hits the nail on the head...

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

I thought ideas still mattered. I guess I was wrong.

The Message is the Campaign

In order to get elected, a candidate must have a message- a clear concise message that resonates with a majority of the population. Campaigns are long drawn-out processes where an unending list of issues are debated, positions are formulated, and records are examined. Nevertheless, it always comes back to the message.

Lincoln's message was simple. "I'll preserve the Union." FDR said, "I'll give you a new deal." Reagan- "I'll cut taxes and defeat Communism." Regardless of whether or not it should be, Americans choose presidents based on which candidate has the most compelling message that resonates. It's not so much about what IS right. It's more about what FEELS right. This year is no exception.

Senator Obama's message is clear and easy to explain. It goes something like this. "Over the past eight years, President Bush has ruined our economy, fed the rich at the expense of the poor, started an unnessesary war in Iraq, and earned the disdain of the rest of the world." Like it or not, this is a message that people can understand and unfortunately many identify with it.

Senator McCain, in contrast, is struggling to find a compelling message. With the exception of Iraq, McCain's message is really not that different than his opponent. He seems to be trying to "out-Obama" Obama. Take the mortgage crisis as an example. Obama says that it is the result of "corporate greed." McCain responds in echo, "Wall Street corruption!" Obama says that we are destroying our environment. McCain responds, "Commision on Global Warming!" Obama says, "No foreign oil in ten years." McCain says, "Barack I can name that tune in eight!" (with some stab about Obama's lack of support for clean coal or nuclear.)

Make no mistake, I will be voting for John McCain next month. But, I will be doing so not because I am inspired by his message, but because I believe that Obama's policies will result in disaster for the country. If McCain wants to win in November, he needs to find his message. Being the kinder, gentler, older, more-experienced version of Obama isn't working.

Jesus is a Friend of Mine

To all my "emergent church" friends:

Here is what you will probably look like in twenty years...

Teddy and Michelle

I'm confused.

This week, the Democratic National Convention is in Denver. So far, it has been a parade of contradictions. First, we are told that we should support Barack Obama because he is a middle-of-the-road candidate who seeks to unite the country and seek common ground with Republicans. He is a Washington outsider who offers the "hope" of a new kind of politics. And yet, one of the first events of the convention was a video tribute to one of the most liberal politicians of the twentieth century, Edward Kennedy. Teddy has been the face of big-government liberalism for the past forty years, not exactly the centrist image the Obama campaign typically seeks to portray.

Second, we are told to support Barack Obama because he is a champion for "the least among us." We are told that there are millions of Americans who are victims of "country club economics" of President Bush and the Republicans. Apparently, if you are poor and disadvantaged, you need Obama and the Democrats to get elected so that you have a chance to make something of your life. Yet, speaker after speaker came to the podium to proudly announce how he or she had come from a poor family, put himself through college, and worked hard to achieve success. Isn't that what conservatives preach? If success in the America Obama wants to change is for the rich only, how did these people make it?

Third, we are told that America is still racist and sexist. Yet the keynote speech Monday night was given by Michelle Obama (an African-American female) who told her story of how she was raised on Chicago's south side by a poor blue-collar family, yet went on to obtain a law degree from Harvard University and pursue a very successful legal career. (She failed to include the fact that she and Barack managed to pull down over $4 million dollars last year.) Doesn't that beg the question? If America is so racist and sexist, how does this happen?

I told you I was confused. If you're not, let me know. I have some beachfront property in Florida I'd be glad to sell you.

Johnny

"You know, Johnny was in the war."

I heard that phrase many times as a child, but the older I get, the more it means to me. Don't misunderstand, I was a very patriotic kid. I respected my elders, especially those who served their country. I just hadn't lived enough life to really comprehend it.

If you visit the little church in which I was raised, you will meet a man named Johnny. He and his wife Leona are there every week in spite of persistent health issues.

In late 1944, Johnny found himself in a remote forest near the border of Belgium and Germany. He was just a kid, so far from home, still morning the death of his twin brother who had died a few months earlier in France when Adolph Hitler sent his 277th Volksgrenadier Division into the American lines in a last-ditch effort to save his empire.

Johnny was a foot soldier with the 1st Battalion of the 393rd Regiment of the 99th U.S. Infantry Division charged with manning the front line near the German Western Wall. The German attack quickly overwhelmed the American position. Johnny said, "They broke through on our right and on our left. We were surrounded." He and his fellow soldiers spent three terrifying nights behind enemy lines, freezing in the snow and ice.

I recently had the privilege of listening to Johnny share some of his memories of those fearful days. "Thank you" is all I could muster and it didn't begin to convey my gratutude. As he was leaving, he said something I will never stop repeating. He said, "You know, freedom isn't free and the ones who pay for it don't have the priviledge of being around to enjoy it."

Hope

Each day, I pass the Indianapolis campaign HQ of Barack Hussein Obama on my way home from work. One cannot help but observe an interesting poster hanging in the window. It is a sketched image of Obama with one word underneath...Hope. Really? Does this man really believe that he, a mere mortal, embodies hope itself?

Now it is one thing to suggest that a particularly inspirational leader may help people discover hope or find reason to hope. But Obama is suggesting that he IS hope, and that's quite another thing. History is full of people who have made this claim. In every case but one, the results have been disasterous. Let me recount a few.

I'll skip Alexander the Great, Herod, Caesar Augustus, Nero, Attila the Hun, Ivan the Terrible, and Napoleon. I'll start with the more modern incarnations.

First, we have a man named Vladamir Lenin. The Russian peasants had suffered greatly at the hands of the Czar and the Russian nobility. Along came Lenin promising hope through revolution of the masses against the elite. The Bolshevik Revolution introduced communism to Russia. Rather then delivering the hope it promised, communism produced more oppression, suffering, and untold misery than the Czar ever dreamed of.

Next, we move to Germany in the 1930's. The Allies had forced Germany to pay heavy war reparations which along with a worldwide economic depression led to the total collapse of Germany. Adolph Hitler was their Savior. He did not merely offer to show Germany the way out of their mess, he claimed to BE their hope. In their despair, the poeple made him their God. As a result, millions of men, women, and children died at the hands of the Nazis.

I could talk about Josef Stalin, Hirohito, Abdul Gamal Nasser, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Ho Che Min, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Koumeni, Slobodan Milosovic, and Osama bin Laden, but you get the idea.

The truth is that only one human being has ever been able to claim to be hope incarnate without being an imposter. That's because he was not only a human being, but he was God in the flesh. Jesus of Nazareth did not offer hope in the form of material prosperity, enlightenment or revolution. He shunned those things even when they were offered to him. Rather, he offered hope in the form of himself...on the cross. He rose from death so that we may have hope of spending eternity in right relationship with the God who created us.

I don't know who is going to win the presidential election this year, but as I see the crowds in Berlin chanting and swooning over the Senator from Illinois, I can't help but feel a cold chill running down my spine. The bottom line is, regardless of whether or not Barack Obama would be a good choice to lead the United States, he most certainly is not the embodiment of hope. That position has already been filled.

Dirty Harry

If you have seen any of the Dirty Harry movies, you know that Clint Eastwood's character, Harry Callahan, is not exactly into political correctness. He plays a San Francisco police detective who may not always follow the rules, but he always gets his man- usually with his 357 Magnum.

Eastwood has enjoyed a recent resurgence in his already stellar career with the release of his World War II films, Letters From Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers. Apparently, Spike Lee has been critical of Eastwood for not including enough African-American actors. Eastwood's response..."Shut your face."

Priceless.

Operation Chaos

Much has been said lately about Republicans who are deciding to vote in Democratic primary elections in order to keep the Democratic presidential race between Clinton and Obama alive. Rush Limbaugh has advised his listeners to do just that in what he calls "Operation Chaos."

As I was listening to Senator McCain this morning, I was reminded that "Operation Chaos" actually started long before the Clinton/Obama catfight heated up. It started when President Bush chose not to "anoint" a successor. In leaving the field wide open, Bush prepared the way for the various Conservative factions of the Republican Party to back different people. Social Conservatives tended to back Huckabee. Economic Conservatives tended to back Mitt Romney. Strong-Defense Conservatives tended to back Rudy Giuliani. This paved the way for a small number of political "moderates" in the early Republican primaries in liberal states like New Hampshire to highjack the nomination of our party's candidate and give us John McCain. By the time we voted in Indiana, the damage was irreversible.

I continue to listen to Senator McCain. I want to believe that his vision for our country is better than the others. Unfortunately, he continues to disappoint. I have stated before and I will state again, November 5th, 2008 will be a national day of mourning for Conservatives, no matter who wins.

An Inconvenient Morality

Last week, someone walked into a bank in Indianapolis and shot one of the tellers, a woman who was pregnant with twins. That's right, the guy shot a pregnant woman. A few days later, the tragic news came that the twins had died. Every decent human being who heard this story was outraged. And rightly so.

However, I was especially struck by the moral outrage expressed by people who under other circumstances might have celebrated the ending of these unborn lives. For example, what if the mother, rather than the shooter, had decided to end these lives? Would there be such universal condemnation? I think the contentiousness of the current abortion debate tells us the unfortunate answer.

Sadly, many believe that these precious little ones only had value as human beings because they were wanted, planned, desired, dare I say...convenient. What kind of twisted thinking has led our society to this conclusion? I suppose that if you believe that we are merely highly-evolved lumps of matter, rather than created by God for a purpose, then the logical conclusion is that we should be able to do away with anything that interferes with our freedom, even if that means taking a life.

Doesn't it make more sense to recognize the universal value of all human life, regardless of the independent value we may or may attach to it? This is the conclusion many of us have reached. We mourn and express our anger at the murder of these unborn children of the teller not only because she lost something that was precious to her, but because someone ended two lives that were precious to the God who created them. Since He made them, only He has the right to decide when they should be taken from this world.

The universal condemnation of the bank shooter merely confirms a truth that our post-modern Oprah society does not like to acknowledge. There is an objective standard of right and wrong and the shooting of this mother and her unborn twins transgressed that standard. To deny this is to offer a false morality that is selective, arbitrary, and subject to popular opinion. In short, it is a morality based on what is convenient, not what is true.

Al Qaeda or Al Gore

I just read an interesting tidbit from the Associated Press. Apparently, Al Qaeda has embraced the "global warming" fad.

That's right, Osama Bin Laden's #2 man, Al-Zawahri, "spoke on a wide range of issues, even global warming, which he said reflected ‘how criminal, brutal and greedy the Western Crusader world is, with America at the top.’ He predicted that global warming would "make the world more sympathetic to and understanding of the Muslims' jihad against the aggressor America."

There you have it. Another Al Qaeda endorsement of the left-wing liberal view of the world. America is evil (wars of aggression, torture, racism, ruining the planet, etc.) and therefore must be destroyed. Author, Dinesh D'Souza suggests this connection in his new book, "The Enemy at Home." He says that the Left is largely responsible for the anti-western ideas that feed organizations like Al Qaeda in the Islamic world and that culminated in 9/11.

Back to the AP article, was that Al Qaeda or Al Gore? I'm confused.

Economics 101

Apparently, in order to run for President of the United States, you have to trust in the complete ignorance of the American people of the basic economic principles of capitalism. This is not difficult given the criminally inadequate public education system which allows most citizens to remain blissfully ignorant. For those of you who care but slept through high school, let me offer you a brief refresher-course.

First, the idea that you can raise taxes on “the rich” and it won’t effect the rest of us is a myth. When you raise taxes on “rich” people, they have less money to buy stuff (cars, refrigerators, jewelry, boats, clothes, shoes, eating in restaurants, etc.) At this point, you might say, "Gee that's too bad for them. They could survive with one fewer trip to Ruth's Chris this week." Here's the problem. When people buy less stuff, companies that make it will not need to make as much. If they don't need to make as much, they don't need to employ as many people to make it and people will lose their jobs.

Second, the idea that you can raise taxes on “evil corporations” and it won't effect the rest of us is also a myth. Taxes on corporations are factored into the price of the goods and services that they produce. Corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer (me and you) which means the price of everything goes up.

Finally, in a capitalistic democracy, government does not set the price of goods and services. For those of you who want to blame George W. Bush for everything, that includes the price of oil. Nor do "special interest groups" Senator Obama. So who does? That would be called "the market." If the price of a good or service is too high, no one will buy it. If the price of a good or service is too low, the producer will be unwilling to produce it and sell it. The point where those two factors meet is called the fair market price.

For more on this stimulating topic, see Dr. Barry Richie or read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I recommend the former.

Back on Track

Yesterday, my grandfather drew my attention to an ad for gubernatorial candidate, Jill Long Thompson. Toward the end of the ad, she says, "Let's put Indiana back on track." I pondered that for a moment.

When our current governor, Mitch Daniels, took over in 2004, the state had been under Democratic leadership for sixteen years. The state was bankrupt. The governor and the state legislature warned that huge tax increases were eminent. They had even stopped funding the state's teachers' pension fund. Property tax assessment was such a mess that the Indiana Supreme Court ruled it unfair and unconstitutional. Crime was at an all-time high. Businesses were fleeing the state in droves. In spite of the fact that our universities were attracting and educating some of the brightest minds in the country, most were choosing not to stay in Indiana. By almost every measure, Indiana was a mess!

Fast-forward to 2008. The state has a budget surplus (achieved without raising taxes), thousands of new jobs have come to Indiana, and property tax reform has been passed by the state legislature. In addition, Governor Daniels updated our roads and highways, convinced the state to observe daylight saving time with the rest of the United States, and reformed the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to make it more efficient and more "customer-friendly."

If Indiana elects Ms. Thompson to put us back on the Bayh/O'Bannon/Kernan track, I think I'll wait for the next train.

Money is the "Trump" Card

Money trumps character. That was the message "The Don" sent to the world last night on the season finale of "Celebrity Apprentice" (shameless plug for WTHR/NBC). Piers Morgan was nasty, dishonest, and impossible to work with throughout the entire season- not exactly the best attributes for attracting and keeping customers in the business world. And yet, he raised a lot of money for charity. Contrast that with Trace Atkins. He was a solid leader, full of creative ideas, respectful, and refused to play the high school games the others were engaging in. Which business philosophy did Trump reward? You guessed it. Piers raised more money. Piers wins.

"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" Matthew 16:26

Conscience of a Conservative

It's official...I don't care who wins the presidential election. There, I said it. Anyone who knows me understands how difficult that is for me to accept.

Yesterday, I watched Senator McCain give a foreign policy speech that scared me more than the thought of running into Amanda Overmeyer at the Arni's in Frankfort. Allow me to recount the highlights (or lowlights depending of your point of view).

First, all foreign policy decisions will be subject to the approval of the French, the Germans, and the United Nations. Second, the United States needs to apologize for being strong and prosperous. It's just not fair. Third, global climate change is our fault and we need to ruin our economy to stop it. Fourth, we need to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and stop being mean to terrorists. It's just plain mean. Fifth, we need to unilaterally disarm our nuclear arsenal. This makes about as much sense as Wyatt Earp trying to clean up Tombstone by setting a good example for the outlaws and laying down his gun first. Finally, McCain said that Mexicans are "God's children too." I did not know this before the speech. I will be sure to inform the IRS that I too am a child of God when I inform them that I will no longer be paying taxes.

Can anyone say, "general feeling of malaise?" Time to bring back the misery factor and look forward to "Morning in America- Version 2012."