Victor Davis Hanson Column

Obama: The Great Divider?

By Victor Davis Hanson

I confess I did not believe Barack Obama entirely during the campaign when he bragged on working across the aisle and championing bipartisanship.

You see, as in the case of any other politician, one must look to what he does--and has done--not what he says for election advantage.

And in the case of Sen. Obama, in his nascent career in the Senate, he had already compiled the most partisan record of any Democratic Senator. He had attended religiously one of the most racially divisive and extremist churches in the country. His Chicago friends were not moderates. His campaigns for state legislature, the House and the Senate were hard-ball, no-prisoner affairs of personal destruction, even by Chicago standards. Campaign references to reparations, gun- and bible-clingers, and Rev. Wright's wisdom were not words of healing.

In short, while the rhetoric was often inspirational, I found no real reason then--or now--to believe that Barack Obama wishes to be a uniter. And nothing in his first five weeks of governance has disabused me of that first tough impression.

Nevertheless, here are five modest recommendations that he might adopt if he were really interested in bringing the country together.

1) Forget talk radio. During the campaign, President Obama, you went after Sean Hannity on numerous occasions--which are recycled ad nauseam almost daily as sound-bites on his radio program. Once in office, both you and your staff have zeroed in on Rush Limbaugh by name. But Presidential candidates and elected Presidents must seem above the fray, and not descend into tit-for-tat with media celebrities. There is a reason why even your closest associates have ceased calling you Barack and now quite properly address you as "Mr. President"--and it is not due to your persistence in demonizing talk radio.

Did George Bush go after Bill Maher or Air America or Keith Olbermann when almost daily they slandered his character? Did he serially evoke Michael Moore? To have done so by name, would have demeaned his office. Worry about refuting conservative ideas, and governing the country, rather than dueling over the airways with those who get paid for only that. The country wanted a Lincoln, not another Nixon going after Dan Rather at a press conference. So far your administration resembles the latter, not the former.

2) Forget about George Bush. We got the message already that he is near satanic, you angelic. Yet even in your inauguration speech, you could not leave well enough alone, and so once again went after a predecessor who won two elections, and so far has been circumspect in his criticism of your own brief tenure. Even ex-Presidents--cf. Jimmy Carter's self-serving ankle-biting and Bill Clinton contorted snipes--reduce the office when they engage in schoolyard "they did it, not me" finger-pointing.

Again, in your first address to the nation, you went out swinging: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." But President Bush never set up such a Manichean either/or situation, as you yourself must accept, when you embraced his protocols on FISA, the Patriotic Act, the Bush-Petraeus Iraq withdrawal plan, and kept rendition, and so far have not quite closed Guantanamo.

And there was more still in that address: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. . .Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."

But Mr. President, deficits arose from out-of-control spending, inasmuch as the Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue. It is fair to fault the past eight years of profligate spending, but when you engage in such demagoguery, the American people can detect your subtext: "I won't criticize Bush's spending because I found it not enough and will trump it; I will criticize his tax cuts, since I want to make the wealthier pay for my even greater borrowing."

Cutting taxes on everyone who pays them is not transferring wealth, unless you believe that one's own income belongs to the government in the first place. Under Bush, nearly 50% of the tax filers for the first time paid no income tax at all--hardly a transfer of wealth.

As far as "gutting" regulations go, I don't think you wish to go there--given the careers of Franklin Rains, a disgraced Jim Johnson (of your recent hire), Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, who not only really did gut regulations that were at the center of the financial meltdown, but profited from such complicit laxity.

3) Drop the messianic style. The campaign is over. The Victory Column and Parthenon facades belong to last summer. Remember, it's hard finding elites to serve in government that are not tainted. You yourself discovered that depressing fact when you nominated tax-dodgers and lobbyists to your own cabinet. Not only did you have far more trouble on such ethical fronts than did Bush in his first month of nominations, but you suffered the additional wage of hypocrisy after adopting the prophetic rhetoric about your own virtue. 2012 will come soon enough without vero possumus at every turn.

4) Enough of the evil "rich." We've heard now about the proverbial jets, parties, and 'they want us to eat cake' rhetoric that is approaching the sloganeering of the French Revolution. No one likes a Bernie Madoff, or supports AIG and Citicorp execs wanting federal subsidies to cover their lavish lifestyles.

But a little humility is in order: the problem is not just Richard Fuld at a bankrupt Lehman Brothers, but also Clintonites like Robert Rubin at Citicorp, and liberals at Freddie and Fannie who took millions while destroying the financial integrity of hallowed institutions.

A William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, or John Murtha is an advertisement for ethical impropriety. Nancy Pelosi's private jet is as worrisome as those of the Big Three auto execs now on public assistance; both Ms. Pelosi and the car CEOs get federal monies and preside over bankrupt entities--and fly in class.

You are our President; so, please, begin seeing greed as an equal opportunity vice that infects liberal and conservatives alike--and anyone else with all too human frailties. If anything, the liberal egalitarian suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy for engaging in Rangelesque schemes or Robert Rubin 'me-first' bonuses--in the same manner conservatives do when caught with women or drugs after boasting of the need for old-time morality.

5) Stop the dissimulation. Your plan might work for a while given the incineration of trillions in stock and home equity and the need for replacement cash, but its revenue-raising component is not just aimed at the miniscule number of "rich", which you imply to the American people are flying the skies of America in private jets while being unpatriotic in avoiding taxes and violating regulations.

In fact, for your plan to succeed, you must go after the upper, upper middle-class, those making between $250,000 and $600,000 who are restaurant owners, home builders, labor contactors, architects, surgeons, engineers, hospital executives, college administrators, Ivy-League law professors, and many dentists.

These households are wealthy, yes; but they don't own or even fly on $50 million private jets or host private Super Bowl parties. Their income is all reported, and with such good salaries come high insurance and, in the case of business, constant reinvestment and expensive inventories. They are not greedy, but the bulwark of the United States' productive classes who in aggregate pay over 40% of the collective income taxes, and provide most of the jobs in the country. Under your plan many in these high-tax states will pay nearly 70% of their incomes in FICA, Medicare, federal income, and state income taxes. Why gratuitously mislead the American people that those for whom you will lift FICA ceilings or up their IRS bites to 40% are in any way synonymous with the super-rich? Remember the very, very wealthy voted overwhelmingly in your favor precisely because their riches gave them immunity from high taxes, and in many cases they were far removed from the everyday risk and worry of owning a hardware store or trying to keep together a family-owned construction firm. George Clooney is a world away from a paving contractor, just as making $400,000 a year on call 24/7 is not quite making $40 million investing or $2 million for a cameo.

So please no more intellectual dishonesty, Mr. President. Those in great numbers who will pay your higher taxes are not really the rarer Warren Buffets, Bill Gateses, Diane Feinsteins, Teresa Heinz Kerrys, Sean Penns, George Soroses, Oprah Winfreys, or Tiger Woodses, whose mega-wealth really does result in private jet rides, and yet exempts them from worries that increased taxes might wreck their small businesses.

A final note. You are engaged on a vast revolutionary agenda, one that if successful will create a high-tax, big government, large entitlement, UN-centered, and European-emulating country, far different from America of the past. Given your political skills and the current economic crisis, you, as FDR once did, may well pull it off.

Such radical transformation ipso facto creates winners and losers and means radical readjustments that stir passions. But the challenge of a President is to show empathy for those you must target, and some sensitivity to counter-arguments made from good intentions and sound logic.

Instead, you are beginning to create an 'us/them' climate of increasing passionate intensity, and unleashing zeal that cannot be healthy for the country. So far your soaring rhetoric, untraditional background, and the good will of the American people have mitigated such extremism as your Attorney General calling the nation collective "cowards" or your own serial invective against "the rich," "bankers" and Rush Limbaugh.

But there will come a time, when you will rue the politics of class warfare and the rhetoric of the demagogue--and may find the very intensities that you are unleashing for political advantage now, later on will be precisely those that you most regret that even you cannot control.

So a little less 'Bush did it' or Rush this and Sean that, and a little more of the need of all Americans to debate in calm and respect dissension in these times of uncertainty in which no one has all the answers.

Bipartisanship

What is bipartisanship? This questions came to the forefront of my mind during the recent House debate of the stimulus package. Is it really being partisan if the proposed legislation is the antithesis of one's beliefs? Is the spirit of bipartisanship the equivalent of rolling over for the majority party or is it being cordial and agreeing to disagree? I would say that it is the latter. Working together is important, but if the intended goals of party A is not in the interest of the intended goals of party B, why should party B acquiesce? Opposition members are not being obstructionists by not voting for legislation that can be overwhelmingly passed. Pres. Obama reaching out to the GOP conference is wonderful, but the outreach can be embraced while the party simultaneously votes against Obama's plan.

The spirit of bipartisanship that Pres. Obama is trying to usher in is admirable, but if the definition of bipartisanship is to merely roll over than call me partisan. Why can't we agree to disagree? That is the spirit that we need in the country, not hotheaded anger against opposite ideology. Working together to accomplish a better future while simultaneously realizing that there are some issues that will never bear witness to both sides coming together.

A Conservative Perspective on Pres. Obama

As I sit here on the dawn of the Obama administration, I must clarify one important issue for my conservative friends. The inauguration of Barack Obama is not the end of conservatism, far from it! Conservatism as a political movement will regroup and march forward into the annals of time and ideas. Conservatism, as a traditional philosophy, has been underlined and emphasized by the election of Pres. Obama. Now please let me explain.

Traditional conservatism meant that the adherent ought to hold onto something, a conserving of the past if you will. It is a philosophically rooted within the writings of Edmund Burke and furthered through people like William Buckley and other contemporaries. Although many view it with a vague notion as "anti-progress" (which is certainly the case with many nostalgia laden individuals), conservatism seeks to stop people in their tracks and think about this "progress" that people proclaim. Drawing from the past, they institute a core system of beliefs into current policies, this system is called First Principles. These principles are ideals and should be lived up to and we should strive for them every generation. For Americans, the unique declaration that boldly proclaimed that "all men are created equal" speaks resoundingly in the face of injustice and hatred. Although the nation did not live up to its ideals, the unjust nature of the government needed to be aligned with the first principles.

America has had a mixed history, mired by the blatant ignorance of the truth laid down through natural law. The truth that were self evident needed to be rediscovered and obeyed through the trials of bloodstained lands of Antietam and Atlanta. The truths needed to be proclaimed through the teaching of preachers and the example of civilly disobedient citizens. As St. Augustine reminded us that an unjust law is no law at all, many parts of our history had perversions of the truth that all men are created equal. We are fashioned in the image of God and that similar nature warrants equality. To be opposed to this is to be in flagrant violation of natural and fundamental law. Without this sure foundation, the notion of equality is left in a precarious state, left to the whims of the majority.

President Obama, in a way, captures this ideal. He is a strong symbol that clearly shows the ideals of the founding are true. All men can become presidents and leaders. All women can make a difference in this great nation, even amidst bigotry, whether soft or institutionalized. Pres. Obama's story is uniquely American. Throughhardwork , persistence and personal application, anyone can make it, that is the fruit of traditional conservatism. Perfect equality will never be realized in a fallen world, but that should not stop us from trying. Together, we can rise up and make this a better place. Come, we have much work to do.

Post-Election Thoughts

Religion and politics are two things that people should not talk about with strangers. I do not have that option, because politics is something that I do and religion is something that I love. Although I do not have the luxury of remaining in an aloof state, it is important for anyone who dabbles in either area to learn to compartmentalize certain aspects of those passionate subjects. In an environment that is filled with partisanship and rampant opinions, it is important to not become consumed by something, especially politics. Political junkies must live a balanced, whole life. Even when your particular team loses an election you have to make yourself not feel distraught. Of course you should not bury the emotion completely, but you should not let it drive your life. A balanced life is something that every political activist and thinker must develop, and is something that I constantly must remember.

Dennis Prager, an intellectual mentor of mine, mentioned a quote that has greatly impacted his life. The rabbinic statement goes: "It's not up to you to complete the task, but you're not free to desist of trying." It is not up to an individual to make the world a perfect place, but that excuse does not give us the right to stop trying. In every instance, Utopians always make the world an evil one, because it is not up to us to make things possible and to obtain a just society. Whether in Revolutionary France or in communist countries throughout the world, the desires for imposing economic equality always have turned foul. Even within religious circles, we must realize that perfection will not come about in this age, because our nature will not change. The three monotheistic religions all believe in coming perfection. Jews believe in a coming Messiah, Christians believe in the Second Coming of their Christ and Muslims believe in the fulfillment of their scriptures. The broken nature of mankind will always be present and it is important for every person to realize that. Moses did not get into the "promised land" and neither shall we.

Utopia literally means nowhere. Those who want to make the promised land reality on earth inadvertently create hell on earth. We must remember that we cannot transform earth, but that does not mean that we must stop trying. We cannot foster a mentality that does not help the weak simply because "the poor will be with you always." We cannot live for the present, instead we must try within reason to make things better on earth. In a theological perspective, we must work for the Kingdom of God with the comprehension that perfection will never occur. In short, we should always work towards a better world.

We also must realize that "this too shall pass." A certain political party or ideology will not obtain power and perpetually keep it. You accept the loss and you continue to fight for your values. The Republican Party was resoundingly rejected at the ballot boxes and that rejection should prompt people within the party to think about what that means for them. It is important for a minority party to ask the powerful question of "where did we go wrong?" Was it in your tone, the denouncing of everyone else as elitist or un-American? Was it the concept of limited government turned expansive government that propelled the GOP into an abyss? The party must then direct their course towards becoming a purer conservative party, move towards the center as a Progressive Republican Party or take a dramatically different course. (Simply resurrecting Ronald Reagan will not solve the problem, as I said in a previous post) Ideas have consequences and they should be measured and debated.

Aristotle was correct when he once noted that man by nature is a political animal. That same political drive, however, should not destroy our broader being. Enjoy life! There's more to life than politics. We need to compartmentalize our political frustrations and not allow it to overflow into our other interests. It goes with the broader maxim that we should not be held hostage to emotion, instead we need to learn to be content. We need to learn to be happy and practice that ability. Learning to live with passion and purpose is essential; after all, politics is only one piece of that life. We must become whole people and learn to act accordingly. We must redeem the time and work to bring justice to the world.

Why Proposition 8 Matters

Proposition 8 has provoked extreme emotions on both sides of the issue. It is generally shaped as being about tolerance and equality on one side or about morality and tradition on the other. While they are polar opposites, it is important to realize that both sides have boasted faulty arguments. There are agents of intolerance within both camps, whether intolerant of free speech or hateful of a different lifestyle. The most important thing within a pluralistic society is the ability to construct sound arguments and not get caught up in overwhelming emotions. Please hear me out and let me explain why I endorse Proposition 8.

It is very important to outline what is marriage and what is the role that it plays in society. Marriage is typically outlined by society and it is shaped by the culture, whether through religious or legal customs. Historically, cultures have outlined that marriage is between people of the opposite sex- regardless of an Eastern or Western philosophy. However now, this is seen as both hateful and bigoted. The archaic understanding of marriage should be modified, after all racial matters were decided through government intervention. Although the racial legacy of the USA has been tainted with slavery and hostile welcoming of immigrant groups, the California court's decision in the beginning of this year cannot be equated with the rejection of interracial marriage. The racial tension and restrictions were morally deplorable and were against legitimate moral teachings. The current debate cannot be honestly tied to the past struggles on moral grounds for clarity's sake. Although marriage between two people of different faiths have been banned periodically throughout history, that ban has not been on racial grounds. Since people of different ethnic groups could convert, interracial marriage was not condemned within religious texts. Certainly the question of American bans on interracial dating and marriage within ultra-conservative groups is often raised as a parallel. In order to rebut this erroneous claim I will turn to a quote from columnist and thinker Dennis Prager,

"American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side."

Certainly my libertarian friends will object with the limited concept of imposing morality on other people. I want to be perfectly clear that it is really impossible to not impose your worldview on other people. Even the belief that all beliefs should be tolerated and debated is imposing one's belief on someone else. In other words, there is no such thing as objectivity or universal acceptance. Some compassionate people might say that the rejection of this proposition would be a reinstatement of human rights. After all, Thomas Jefferson once penned, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Human rights are applicable to all people, and through the vigilance of the state, people should be protected. Although perfect equality will not happen due to the natural condition of humanity, it does not mean that we should not strive for legal equality. Homosexual and heterosexual couples should receive and continue to receive equal legal rights. The legal benefits between my wife and I should be granted for two partners through civil unions. There are rights that can be given but do not call it marriage. Prejudice should be fought against and tolerance of other lifestyles should be sought, but an abandonment of all societal ties for the sake of 'progress' must not be attempted.

One of the classic arguments in support of same-sex marriage that must be addressed is that we must support same-sex marriage because a heterosexual marriage will not be impacted by a homosexual marriage. Congratulations on making a non sequitur. It is completely irrelevant to the debate, no one ever said that it would. Even in my conversations with the most conservative of Evangelicals this topic does not come up. We are not discussing individual marriages, instead we are talking about foundations of society. The elimination of the mores that bind us to our foundation is precarious and that is what this debate is about. Of course, advocating for marriage between a man and a woman is now the equivalent of being a sexist or racist. And soon, I am certain, it will be a hate crime. Even though one might have all the love and respect for someone of a different sexual orientation, the sentiments that only a man and a woman should marry is hateful. The playing of the hate card is intellectually dishonest and blackmail. If everyone else is labeled hateful by you if they oppose a measure, than you are promulgating hate.

Marriage is at the very foundation of civilization. Society lives and dies through the ability to sustain its culture and grow as a people by reproducing. Three traditional views on marriage is that marriage a social contract, sacrament and/or a legal binding. According to my Protestant worldview (with a bit of Catholic influences), the issue leans more towards all of the above. Marriage redeems society and should be a blessing unto it, through the dynamic of two different people coming together-- building society through stability and furthering society in childbearing. This (potential) ability is what sets marriage apart from other relationships. If it is a purely legal matter, than allow the society to legitimately decide the definition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Marriage has been chosen from within society and is bestowed on whom it chooses.

Words are incredibly important. The description of a piece of legislation as either a bailout or an economic stabilization plan could cause significantly different public reaction. With this constitutional amendment the phrasing could make all the difference. The proposition originally read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The changed wording should melt even the hardest of hearts. Attorney General Brown changed the phrasing to manipulate popular sentiment, framing those who oppose gay marriage (even those who have no animosity towards gays) as bigots. Just as O'Brien would famously ask Winston in George Orwell's 1984, many now ask "How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?" Even if you reply four they will force you to say five. Why? Because up is down and down is up. There is no Truth, morality is dead. After all, we are simply a nation of sheep.


Marriage has always been defined by society, secular or sacred. If society chooses to allow same-sex marriage, then so be it. It should be defined through the ballot box, not through judicial and dishonest actions.


-----------------------------
For more, please see:

Opposition to California Proposition 8: Hate in the Name of Love

by Dennis Prager

California's Decision will radically change society
by Dennis Prager

The Meaning of Marriage
by John Witte, Jr. in First Things

Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage

by R. Scott Clark

Nostalgia and Ideals

The issue of Ronald Reagan and his role in the Republican Party has made me think deeply about my affiliation and philsophy. My conclusion is that we must not be nostalgic, instead we must reinvigorate the narrative of the party. As a Republican, I believe we must retrace our roots and become a 21st Century party, not a retro 1980's one. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels brought about several hushed gasps and raised eyebrows as he lectured a crowd that it was “time to let Ronald Reagan go.” During the GOP primary season Go. Daniels said:

“Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.

It is in my opinion that we must look to the past to move forward. To be conservative is to be cautious and draw from the examples that have gone before us, but we must resist the urge of nostalgia. We should not retreat to a nostalgic era for the love of a particular president (Reagan or Kennedy) or thinker, instead we must have progress. Looking back to the past and remaining conscientious of where we came from is important, but then we must press forward. While we are rooted in our past, we must grow positively as a nation and society. It was incredibly refreshing when I read this column by the Wall Street Journal about Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Part of the article stated:

While Mr. Pawlenty tiptoes around the Bush political legacy, he allows that the party's years in power left it with a "name brand a little damaged and out of fresh ideas." Merely retreating to Reagan nostalgia won't do. "I love Ronald Reagan," says Mr. Pawlenty, who at age 47 came of age during the Reagan years. "But we have to recognize that to voters younger than me he is an historical figure."

I ask him later what lessons he imbibed from Reagan. "He was proudly conservative," he replies, "but we sometimes forget he got things done as governor and president that represented compromises. If today you went to someone and outlined Reagan's record without using his name some conservatives would want to throw him out of the party. But he never wavered on core principles and he made the country a better and more conservative place."

Compromise. Principles. These two words can coincide in governing. The party must look at itself in the mirror and remove the corruption, inconsistencies and bad ideas that have tainted the original principles. We ought to return to the core principles of the Constitution and abide by them. Reagan did great things for the nation and he did some not so great things. Heroes are human beings and make mistakes. Something that should mark an American hero is the drive to make America great and to keep America safe. The GOP has some soul searching to do. Unfortunately, it might not be in time for November.

Excellent Satire

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Competent Turks

Many speculations have begun in regards to the selection of the vice president. Mitt Romney has been rumored as an occupant of the coveted VP short-list. However, evangelicals balked at the inclusion of the former governor of Massachusetts. Foxnews reported:

“McCain and Romney would be like oil and water,” evangelical novelist and Huckabee supporter Tim LaHaye was quoted telling the Times. “We aren’t against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won’t understand that.”

It is extremely sad and disheartening when I read and hear the words of many evangelicals who disagree with a person's religion. It is not a thoughtful critique of their belief but is a knee jerk reaction that hampers their own faith. One can disagree vehemently with Mitt Romney's religion but can vote for him based upon his stances on issues. What does the phrase from LaHaye even mean? "Our people won't understand that." It is very disturbing when that can be a valid excuse.

Gov. Romney's faith is the major factor stopping some prominent pastors, as argued in a recent Washington Times article. Although there is a prohibition for a religious litmus test within the Constitution, many evangelicals take a dogmatic approach. As an evangelical Protestant, I must draw the example from Martin Luther when it comes to governments and religions. He said he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. Faith and politics can mix, but ultimately government is about ruling effectively and justly. Sometimes the most evangelical of Christians might rule more ineffectively than a competent Turk.

Idealistic America

NRO's The Corner had an interesting post in regards to Sen. Obama's appeals towards American ideals. Michael Novak said,

The Berlin speech also explains why Obama is more likely to praise an “ideal” America than the real America. He is bewitched by abstractions and lofty ideals. That is how he touches the secret chords of the heart of so many millions, the teenage romanticism of a world without different real interests, without the clashes of culture, the force of political arguments about who gets what, when, and how.

Now this commentary has some merit to it; after all, the senator often times does point to idealistic America. In my assessment, there is nothing wrong with pointing back to the revolutionary ideals of the Founders. These ideals can help ground us in reality and push us forward, striving for those goals. Martin Luther King stood upon the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and called for the people of the United States to look back to the founding. In that sense, both Sen. Obama and Dr. King are inherently conservative.

I know that this is not a common way of viewing the flag pin debacle or the Berlin speech. Wearing the flag pin shows that you love this country, actions no longer count. The yellow ribbon on the back of the SUV or a sticker on your Prius that states, "I Support the Troops But Not My President" passes for patriotism. Symbols and rhetoric outweigh legitimate action. It is an utter shame that ideologues on both sides of the partisan divide attempt to dilute the national conversation and do not raise the level of discourse. Sound logic and debate is patriotism, not empty speeches and talking points.

Ignorance Is NOT Bliss

Sen. Barack Obama is attracting a wide, diverse audience of young people. He speaks to the very heart of the youth, touching the core beliefs of the digital generation. His soundbites fit well within the confines of YouTube and text messages. Sen. Obama is seeking to capitalize on this new generation, empowering them with rhetoric and hope.

I do not believe that Sen. Obama is entirely empty nor do I think that he is dim. I think that he is incredibly bright and capable. His tactics are capitalizing upon the realities of my generation. It is immensely post-literate. It is one that aspires to quick information and Wikipedia knowledge. It is rather absurd that his generation has incredible tools for success and change yet does not take advantage of them.

I wish that the youth can regain and realize the importance of knowledge and wisdom. The ability to think critically and in depth is so necessary to a vibrant and functioning democracy. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." We must analyze those in powers and be critical of them, for only then will we be living by the Founders desires. We must be willing to look at the issues from different points of references, and that is often done through the power of the written word.

Computer screens and the Internet directs us to be more concise and to speed up our information gathering. I am not a Luddite when it comes to electronics. What I want to see limited is the way that people gather information from reading brief headlines or receiving talking points directly from a partisan blogger. It is important to gather strong opinions, but not directly from one side. We must remain ever vigilant in our democracy and fight for our Western rights. It is time to grow up America and start thinking critically.

American Exceptionalism

People all over the world are excited that Obama has been nominated for the presidency. People are genuinely excited that there is a black man on the ticket, someone who will transcend all of our hopes, fears and ambitions. He will lead the world into an era of peace, prosperity and happiness. Generally, it is viewed that Americans are finally sophisticated enough to nominate someone who is not white.

People who are not tolerant of others who are different (French, British, Indian, Chinese, etc.) all with giddiness and glee are more than obliged to point their finger at the lone Superpower. Americans are xenophobic and bigoted! Just read a clip from a Washington Post article:

"This is close to a miracle. I was certain that some things will not happen in my lifetime," said Sunila Patel, 62, a widow encountered on the streets of New Delhi. "A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more American tolerance for people around the world who are different."

America is a place that has a blood stained and horrific past. Slavery, indentured servitude and discrimination all have occurred in our past. European immigrants all faced significant ladders to climb. The Irish were absolutely discriminated against. European countries, on the other hand, have not had a good record on assimilation. Trips to any major city on the continent will bring the realities of segregation to light. India, hardly the bastion of equality, is a long way away from any sort of resemblance of tolerance.

America's rich immigrant history has aided the tolerance of society. For all of our faults (and there are many), America is a bastion of freedom and it is prolific in its plurality of people groups. The ascendancy of Barack Obama, a son of mixed heritage, has shown that perhaps this place is a bastion of freedom and plurality. As Freedom House stated, "today’s American is quite free."

Why I endorse Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican Nomination

There has been a lot of talk in regards to change this campaign season. Hillary wants you to vote for her because she is a female (and she’ll take us back to the Clinton Years). Obama wants you to vote for him because he will give us a glimpse of the Kennedy Camelot and he will fully realize all our deepest longings of hope, change and puppies. McCain would bring to the White House his Washington experience and his uncorrupted persona, personally battling lobbyists and tainted legislators. But I believe that only one can effectively implement change within the Beltway. That agent is Mitt Romney.

People are seeking to vote for Barack Obama because he has promised fundamental [abstract] change, yet he has never instituted change in Washington. He has been a US Senator for almost four years and has sponsored 113 pieces of legislation (according to the Library of Congress). The vast majority of the legislation he has introduced has been non-binding resolutions (read: opinion pieces). If he wants health care reformed, why not introduce the legislation? Why won’t he propose tax cuts for middle income families that he proposed in his television commercials? While the US Senate (the legislative body that he is a part of) is debating a possible stimulus package, he is out proposing a stimulus package on a campaign trail. The moment he set foot in Capitol he began running for the presidency. Sounds like a responsible legislator to me!

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has brought about change in three spheres. The Salt Lake City Winter Olympics were floundering into a slough of despair and were destined to become a failure. Romney was able to turn the Olympics around as a proud success for our Post-9/11 nation. He had tremendous success in the private sector as a venture capitalist. He turned Massachusetts around and helped create healthcare solutions that were realistic for the economy. He has brought about real change within the public and private sectors.

Washington is broken. It is important that we elect a president who has the qualifications to be president and who has actually changed institutions. He does not merely talk about abstract ideas like hope and change; he has implemented hope and change. In this crucial election cycle we must elect someone who confronts issues with real change. Let's not elect someone based upon a cult of personality, instead casting our ballot for someone who will be the best president. Let’s send a message in this primary season. Let’s send Mitt Romney to the White House.

Insanity Defined

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity was when one person performed the same act and looked for different results. For example, Joe would add one to two and concluded that the answer was three. If he kept adding those same numbers for five hours and expected to get two, he could be defined as insane.

Let us now turn to the issue of politics (which I am certain that many rational people can point to those on the other side and call them insane). If a school is failing and the constant outcry from the local school bureaucracy is more money, than perhaps there needs to be a reconsideration of the situation. What if the government kept performing the same tactics expecting that test scores could rise and abysmal graduation rates would rise? This same school system would cease at nothing to ensure that their power is maintained, regardless of the outcome towards the children. This scenario applies to the Detroit public school systems.

Charter schools and school vouchers are hated by the bureaucracy, because that could endanger the jobs of a bloated administration that has no talent or ingenuity. It is incredibly sad that politicians desire power above all else. People need to start to realize that this failed idealogy must end. Why are schools allowed to fail society? Why are they allowed to perpetruate the constant failure? Something must happen.

Real change comes from people who will change bad policies. We cannot idly wish for "hope" like Senator Obama would propose. Throwing money at the problem cannot solve matters, for that issue has been enacted for years now (in the case of healthcare and education). There needs to be common sense solutions. Stand up against inefficiency and demand real change!