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.