An Urgent Message on Health Care

Example of a friendly conversation about politics

I thought I’d share a conversation I had recently with an old friend on facebook. I’ll call him “John”.

Me:

You said: "Republican, Democrat ... you can be a chimp for all I care .. just be able to LEAD a country!"

It sounds like you voted for McCain. Because we all know (at least those who voted for McCain) that Obama doesn't have the experience to lead. ...which we are now finding out the hard way. (hope this doesn't offend you. : )

John:

I did vote for McCain, and no you didn’t offend me. Exactly ... Obama doesn’t have a clue. and I meant what I said. I don’t care about political parties. I think we should do away with them all together. We need to ONE in order to move forward and make progress. This bickering back and forth has gotten us nowhere. Meanwhile, we are just treading water as more and more illegal immigrants and terrorists enter our country, and we continue to spend over 300 BILLION $ a year to support them! WTF is up with that?!!! We are a mess and I’m really not that political in nature, until just recently when I starting being effected directly. It’s sad to see how corrupt and what a mess our political system is.

Me:

I’m glad, John, that you can discern Obama’s inability to lead our country correctly. I would encourage you, though, to reevaluate your advocacy of doing away with political parties. Politics with no partisanship means we are left with two (if I’m not mistaken) options: either we have no politics at all – which is called anarchy; or we have a one party system – which is called communism. (And I doubt that you are an anarchist or a communist.) Despite what we hear in the mainstream media (MSM), partisanship is actually a good thing. For instance, it prevents a radical president from enacting radical laws by having the opposition party (and others who are not radical) in the legislature stop him by filibustering or other obstructionist means. The MSM is trying to help him anyway. That’s why you hear of the press complaining of “gridlock” right now. Their guy is in the White House, and they don’t want less liberal and more conservative legislators stopping his agenda. So they simply blame the Republicans for the problem. What’s new? You would never hear of “gridlock” when Congress is more liberal and the White House is more conservative. The interesting thing is, it’s not actually the Republicans that represent the main opposition to Obama – its Democrats! – non-leftists, non-radical “blue dog” Democrats, to be exact. We see this, for instance, with the Stupak amendment in the House on health care. The American people, both Democrats and Republicans, don’t want the American taxpayer funding abortions. The Republicans are too small of a minority to prevent an Obama health care system that includes taxpayer-funding of abortions. It’s actually Obama’s less liberal, more conservative *fellow-Democrats* that are the ones who are successfully slowing down the Obama Express. But you’re not going to hear about that much in the MSM (minus maybe FOX).

I agree our political system is not perfect, but history shows that our partisan politics form of government has been the most workable system in this current broken age east of Eden. While speaking on the subject of democracies (as opposed to say communism), Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

While our political system is not perfect, I believe the bigger problem is that our societal systems are systematically being subverted, and in many cases, *have been* subverted, by historically non-American and untenable worldviews: our economic system of capitalism is being replaced with socialism; our legal system of constitutional law is being replaced with activist adjudication; our country’s moral compass (philosophy/ethics) of moral objectivism, *has* been replaced with moral relativism; our political system of a representative republic/democracy may eventually be replaced by a ONE-party system of communism.

I’m glad, John, you’ve gotten more politically active and informed. I would just encourage you to continue on that trek armed with good information and analysis. (BTW, John, have you ever heard of townhall.com? It's a good place to go to get informed.) Indeed, as you said, politics does matter, because it always affects us – whether directly or indirectly, whether we are aware of it or not.

This year is critical for the American people to really learn what’s up, and then vote correctly. As Biden admitted recently, this year’s congregational elections will be the last chance the American people have to stop the Obama Express from becoming a full and irreversible reality.

"When the people fear government, that's tyranny; when the government fears the people, that's liberty." – Thomas Jefferson

Change Begins Taking Shape

As change begins to occur under the new administration – some in pretty substantial ways, I’m sure it will not be as most sincere and well-intentioned Obama supporters expected, nor wanted. Obama may be good with words; but it is true: actions speak louder than words.

Matt Barber adds in a OneNewsNow column:

Obama said in an August 19, 2008 speech: "Change doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." Well, radical change in the form of Barack Obama has certainly come to Washington. Not just in terms of the man's skin color – which is historic and most encouraging – but in terms of his exceptionally extreme and demonstrably dangerous liberal policies (not so encouraging).

So it would seem that change does in fact "come from Washington." Change more radical than our nation has ever seen. Change our founders could have never imagined.

People of faith, conservatives, and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats – it's going to be a bumpy four years.

Read More:

• Obama rescinds Mexico City Policy link

• What is the Mexico City Policy? link
  

Religion in the Political Arena: a Good Thing, Mostly

“Religion has always played a political role in America. The politicization of modern American religion began in the special circumstances of the 1950s, when the dynamics of the Cold War led many white Protestants and quite a few Catholics to become ardent supporters of the American status quo. But the most influential political movement with religious support was the Civil Rights Movement. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), the most visible spokesman of that movement, drew his power, insights, rhetoric, and images from his black Baptist heritage combined with an appeal to the unrealized potential of American ideals. King’s ability to draw on sophisticated philosophy, the pacifist social theory of Mahatma Gandhi, a deep familiarity with Scripture, and the preaching traditions of African American churches made him an extraordinarily powerful force...The strongest supporters for the civil rights goals for which King strove were the black churches, which eventually also recruited a few notable allies from Catholic and mainline Protestant churches.”

--Mark Noll, The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity

Many today decry the influence of religion in politics and the public sphere. “There’s a separation of church and state in this country, don’t you understand?!” they cry. They think stances like the pro-life view or traditional marriage view smack of religion and therefore should be off the debate table in politics. For example, as I posted on a few weeks ago, some are arguing that the Mormon church should have its tax exempt status revoked because it financially supported the “Yes on Prop 8” campaign. Though he’s probably no separation devotee, even Cal Thomas poo-poos the political action of religious adherents (Ed has a post on Thomas here). Some even go so far as to want religious points of view out of the public market place of ideas entirely. They forget that religious influence has always been legal under the constitution. Establishment is what violates the First Amendment. There's a big difference between the two.

If that’s you, I really hope you read that quote nice and slow, taking it all in. Do you apply your criteria consistently? You’d better thank your lucky stars that religion has played a role in America, for it (specifically, the Christian religion) has been the impetus for many of our greatest political and societal gains in the past. For instance, if you remove the polemics of William Wilberforce from British Parliament, abolition would have come about much, much slower on the continent. If you remove the influence and participation of the black churches during the Civil Rights Movement, that force would not have wielded the tremendous power it did. Do the “separation” fans really want the church out of the state in the way they define that often vague doctrine?

Though no doubt religious people have done great damage at times in the political arena, they have done much good as well. This should give the “separation” fans pause in advancing their arguments.

hmmm...

Sister Toldjah brings up a good question about Barry's choice of H. Clinton for Secretary of State.

Will it be the same 'ol dog and pony show? Time will tell.

Cal Thomas: Missing the Mark

Ed has recently written a critique of Cal Thomas' recent column in which Thomas basically told conservative evangelicals to "chill out" in the politics department.

Ed had some good points. I'd like to add my own.

First, Thomas says, "Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren't anywhere near as successful as those that focus on changing hearts."

I don't see why it has to be either/or. Why not both/and?

Secondly, he says, "Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative evangelical image has failed."

Failed? Says who? No doubt, conservatives haven't seen as much progress as we'd like (sometimes, that was because we gave up too early and/or let up at key points in the game...but I digress.), but progress has been made. For example, pro-life policies in legislation has curbed abortion and made it easier to pass further pro-life legislation (see Joseph Wright's response here and New's counter to that rebuttal here.)


Third, Thomas states, "Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?"

This is kinda simple minded. I teach for a living, and I see the effect of liberal policies and teaching on the young every day. There is a reason why Obie Baracked the vote amongst the whipper-snappers.

Also, Thomas had better thank his lucky stars that evangelicals have been politically active in the past. From William Wilberforce, to countless American slave abolitionists to Martin Luther King, Jr, many, many advances in both politics and society have been made by politically active evangelicals. I doubt he would poo-poo evangelical political engagement if the issue was, say, slavery, or desegregation.

It's popular and easy to wave his hand at conservative politics now.

I like Cal Thomas...I really do. He points to a legitimate frustration, and perhaps there are a few nuggets of wisdom we evangelicals can get from his column. It's a helpful reminder, for instance, that we ought not put our ultimate hope in politics. Jesus saves, Newt doesn't. But overall, I think he missed the mark on this one.

but its a religious argument!!

I was at a teacher training the other day, and I overheard some teachers talking about the Mormon church supporting Prop 8. They were howling about the Mormon's support and saying that they should have their tax exempt status revoked.
"It's separation of church and state," they said.

I didn't enter into the conversation. I stayed waaaay clear. Frankly, I was kinda tired about talking about it and hearing about it. Or maybe it was just cowardice on my part.

At any rate, afterwards I was thinking about a few questions.

What's the big deal with religious people or a religious group supporting a certain policy? Why think that's a violation of the "separation of church and state?" I want to ask these folks: "what, do you think the Mormons (or any other religious group) shouldn't have a vote, or should they not have a voice?"

And, really, what's "separation of church and state" supposed to mean anyway? Where is that in the constitution (hint: nowhere.)?

What's the First Amendment say? "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I stress the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part.

Anyway, why think that "separation of church and state" is what the Founders had in mind when they penned the First Amendment?

What religion does Proposition 8 establish? Jews, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and the members of many other religions agree with the Proposition. While many of the motivations to support it might be religious, the arguments themselves are such that people of many faiths (or no faiths) can agree with them. If the arguments don't establish a specific religion, then they don't violate the establishment clause.

Also, consider that many people *oppose* Proposition 8 due to religious motivations.

This is the case with almost *any* policy position in which people try to marginalize a certain viewpoint for being religious: the death penalty (Mother Theresa opposed it because "Jesus would forgive."), an Obama presidency (many evangelicals, like Donald Miller supported him), and many of Obama's economic policies. If my conservative viewpoint is out of bounds for being "religious," then so are the opposing points of view.

Bottom line: This screaming about "religion in politics" is a bunch of bunk. Its all just to marginalize a viewpoint they don't hold. Don't fall for it.

Congratulations, Mr. President-Elect

Congratulations to president-elect Barack Obama.

Though I have opposed him vigorously, and will continue to do so when I think he is leading this country down the wrong road, I respect him as my country's future leader. I hope the best for him, and will be praying often for his safety and leadership. My prayer will also be that he is given wisdom and courage in our current, somewhat turbulent age.

He's a very brilliant, very talented man. History is fraught with examples of inexperienced and untested men that turned out to be pleasant surprises. Perhaps Barack Obama will join the ranks of this esteemed group.

At any rate, the next 4-8 years should be pretty interesting.

Vote!

Well, election day is here. No matter what happens, we can at least be relieved that the political ads and phone calls are over, right?

Seriously, though, I hope you all have or will get out and vote. Don't be discouraged by polls that count out one candidate or try to make you think your vote won't matter.

When you're watching the returns tonight on TV, keep in mind that most of the news organizations will use exit polls to call states for one candidate even if hardly any votes are counted (and, in my opinion, they will be more likely to make premature calls for Obama since they are doing everything they can to drag him over the finish line). Since that is the case, this is important news:

Rasmussen asked voters how likely they were to answer exit pollster's questions. The results indicate more willingness on the part of Democrats to talk to the pollsters.

Reviewing Fox News/Rasmussen Reports data from key battleground states raises a couple red flags about the use of early exit polling data to predict a winner. Understanding this data from polling conducted last Sunday night may save some a repeat of 2004’s heartache.

The bottom line is that in every state we polled--Colorado, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia-- Democrats are a lot more eager to take exit polls than Republicans.

In five of the six states, a majority of Democrats say they would be Very Likely to participate in the exit polling process. At the same time, in five of the six states, fewer than 40% of Republicans would be willing to do the same.

In every state, Republicans are at least twice as likely as Democrats to say that they are not at all willing to take an exit poll.

Unaffiliated voters tend to align more closely to Republicans in all six states in both willingness and unwillingness to participate in exit polls.

This is even more important for west coast readers--don't let early returns in the east keep you away from the polls. You need to go vote for state and local issues, even if the presidential race seems like it might already be decided. And given that the exit polls are pretty suspect, you shouldn't assume the presidential race is already decided just because the news organizations said so.

Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

Reflections

Over the last few months (especially the last 2 weeks), I've done a lot of thinking about the current political scene. There are a loooot of complex, confusing issues out there. The economic crisis, for example, is one of them. All three popular answers that have been given (dems--deregulation. Repubs--government control mandating foolish loaning stretegies. Both--greed) strike me as true *in certain places and certain ways,* though some certainly overstate their case.

There are a lot of issues out there that I can discuss with you, and we can disagree vigorously on them, but at the end of the day, we can still call each other brothers and sisters and go have a drink together.


I've come back to one issue time and time again, though: pro-lifers, Catholics, and Evangelicals supporting Obama. I've shown my cards quite explicitly on what I think about that. What keeps vexing me, though, is why the pro-life, pro-Obama line of thinking is so popular, especially among young voters.

There's a couple of reasons why I think there was an upswell of that kind of thinking this election:

1) Political fatigue. Many are disappointed with traditional politics, especially of the Republican party. Neither candidate seems wholly satisfactory, and perhaps a lot of pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals can't find a home with either party.

2) As to the young, abortion has been identified as the fight of our parents, and we'd rather not engage in the same fight they did. Its just uncool.

3) You've really thought the issue through and you side with Obama. You've seen the information and arguments that I present, and you are unmoved.

Let me work backwards. First, if you are in group 3, you know where I stand on that. I think you're delusional. I have no more to say to you.

If you are in group two: the good, the true, and the beautiful knows no generational bounds. Just because it was your parents' fight doesn't mean its not a worthy fight for you. Perhaps they *were* right on *some* things, despite what MTV has taught us.

In short; don't be blown about by the winds of popularity. Jesus didn't give a hoot, and neither should you. Let truth and courage be your compass.

If you are in the first group, I sympathize with you. I can see why you feel that way. I agree with you that politics can be and is a somewhat silly enterprise.

But let me offer an encouragement; don't throw in the towel. Don't let the best become the enemy of the good. Just because we haven't scored a total knockout doesn't mean we aren't fighting well.

Plus, sometimes you gotta hang in there and hold the hammer down, b.c the stakes are awfully high. One of the many things I've learned the past few weeks is that many significant pro-life gains *have* been made by pro-lifers in legislation. These bills and such have chipped away at Roe, and have reduced abortions significantly. To let our hands down during this round of the match, to let our feet go flat this late in the fight endangers those significant gains. In a boxing match it doesn't matter how many punches you landed in earlier rounds; if you let your guard down and take a ringer on the chin, the fight is over, even if its the last minute of the twelfth round...you lost.

Heck, even if those gains hadn't been made, the pro-life fight is still a worthy fight, just as a matter of principle. It should always be issue #1, just like slavery was issue #1 in many people's minds in its day.
In all likelihood, on Wednesday, November 5, Barack Obama will be president-elect. Mark my words, pro-lifers, especially those who supported Obama this election: you will need lots more stamina to stay faithful the next four years. You must prepare, as Shakespeare said, to "screw your courage to the sticking place." Stand up, regain your nerve, and carry on.

Our very souls are at stake.

"What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"

He's the wisest man that ever lived for a reason, folks.

Bordner's Last Stand

This is my last stand, people. Rather than re-create everything here (which took quite a while), I'll just link you to it. Lazy, yes, but whatever.

I kinda got carried away last night. A 5 minute internet check turned into a 2 hour blogfest. GAH! Addictive personality.

The gloves come off in this post. I get harsh. I think I need to.

A lot of the information is concurrent with Robert George's piece, which is linked to below. I just give some more sources and I put my own flourish on it.

One Vote

Obama's Abortion Extremism

by Robert George
Member of the President's Council on Bioethics
Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University

read article

listen to article being passionately read

Louis Farrakhan Declares Barack Obama The Messiah

Here’s a long version of his sermon

Joe Biden: "Mark My Words" . . . if Obama wins

Obama to Joe the Plumber: "spread the wealth around"

Charles Krauthammer: The case for McCain

Here’s a great piece by Charles Krauthammer explaining why John McCain is the wise choice to lead our country through dangerous times.

Why I'm Voting Yes on Proposition 8

I realize that the post on Prop 8 might leave some of you wondering: so, Rich, why are you for Prop 8?

(For all you non-Californians, earlier this year the Sup. Court of CA overturned an earlier vote of the people to define marriage between a man and a woman. Prop 8 seeks to overturn the court's ruling and set the traditional definition in law.)

Briefly:

The primary reason is that modern Western culture is the first tore-define marriage. Of course, this doesn't mean we stay with the 'status quo,' but it does tell us who has to do the arguing. Since its been defined as between a man and a woman since pretty much the beginning (even the ancient Romans, though they were tolerant of the practice of homosexuality, viewed marriage as between a man and a woman), the burden of proof lies with the ones who want to change the definition. The arguments advanced for homosexual marriage aren't even close to convincing.

Here's one of the principal reasons I hear being used: marriage is about love, so you should be able to marry anyone you love. We shouldn't be denied the freedom to love who we want.

Aside from the obvious rejoinder that no one is preventing anyone from loving (sexual love included) anyone else (in other words, you can already love who you want w.o restriction), if I love my sister like that, should I be able to marry her? What about a 15 year old? If not, why not?

If two men should be able to get married, why not three? What's so scary about that number?

The bottom line with the questions is that few want to go that far, yet any reasons used to 'deny rights (this phrase is a bit of a misnomer)'to those partnerships turns out to be discriminatory according to the definition of those who use the 'love' argument.

Love is a great thing, but its neither necessary nor sufficient grounds for a definition of marriage.

Secondly, the 'no' campaign puts this in terms of rights. The 'yes' campaign is supposedly 'denying rights' to homosexuals. This argument is specious. For the details, go here.

Really, this debate is about two things: the definition of marriage,and approval. Making gay marriage legal would be tantamount to saying that the term 'marriage' is a social construction and can be changed if society says so. In addition to this opening a pandora's box of slippery slopes (polygamy, anyone?), I see no reason to agree to this view.

Even though the outer rim of marriage has changed through history(interracial marriage, etc) doesn't mean the core has changed: marriage has always been between a man and woman, and it has always been about raising children. The article I linked to above gets more into this.

Proponents of gay marriage are seeking approval of their relationships,and making gay marriage legal will essentially grant that approval. The government (and, by extension, taxpayers) would be giving a tacit nod towards those relationships. I see no reason whatsoever to think that such approval is a right. A desire, maybe. Right? No.

Saying something is a 'right' means that the person/group possessing the right has a just claim to something. Does it make sense to say that homosexuals have a just claim to society's approval of their relationships?

Even if you think homosexuality is ok, this is a bit of a stretch.

The Koukl article in the link fills in the needed philosophical details...go read it.

California Teachers Say "no" on 8?

Evidently, since I'm a teacher, this ad says I'm against Proposition 8:



Well, no one consulted me! No one consulted countless other CA teachers too.

Here is a letter to the editor that I wrote in to the LA Times and OC Register on the "no on Proposition 8" campaign:

As a high school teacher, I don't appreciate that the "No on 8" campaign uses my name to advance their cause. In radio and television ads, they state, "teachers say 'no' on proposition 8." Who determined that this supposedly monolithic group is against proposition 8? A great many teachers are for it. CTA and the "no" campaign didn't consult me before lending my name to their cause!

I am also incensed that CTA is using my money to support highly controversial political campaigns. Rather than focusing on the many school funding issues on the ballot, they have contributed over 1 million dollars to the "no on 8" campaign. Can't my hard earned money be used more wisely?

In addition to all this, CTA and "no on 8" are not being wholly honest. Certain groups claim that teaching about gay marriage won't be mandated in CA public schools. When gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, these same groups fought to make it mandated there. For instance, in an amicus curiae brief in Parker v. Hurley, The Anti-Defamation League stated: "Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." And later: "In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.”

Both I and many other public school teachers don't appreciate our money and name being used in this way. We will vote yes on Proposition 8.

**I'll tackle this ad in greater depth in the next few days.