CBN news posted the pictured flier on their blog yesterday.
Let's see what the left's response to this will be. They heavily criticized Huckabee for his "subliminal cross" over the head in an Iowa ad. Will they go after Obama for his less than subliminal message?
Personally, I have no issue with it. Just like in an earlier post where I said the same thing about the Demmies campaigning for black votes in churches. The double standard, however, is appalling.
Last week I had the opportunity to interview Indiana Secretary of State, Todd Rokita about the recent Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law and what that might mean for Indiana families. We had a frank and open discussion that merits mentioning.
When I asked Secretary of State Rokita what he had to say to families who may have had their votes offset by others voting illegally in past elections, he told me that the "Photo ID law protects the family from being disenfranchised." He went on to say that thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the voter ID law, "Their vote won't be stolen by someone who cheats the system."
Common sense. Show your ID to vote. If you are doing things the right way you have nothing to fear.
Secretary of State Rokita called voting the "most sacred civil transaction." He also went on to say that those who claim racism on this issue may be showing some racist tendencies of their own. Some of the critics of the voter ID law are inferring that minority groups do not have the ability to participate in mainstream, modern society. Secretary of State Rokita rejects this notion and showed faith in the minority community's ability to obtain an ID and bring it to vote with them. These sorts of opponents of voter ID remind me of a George W. Bush line, with their "sutle bigotry of lowered expectations."
Coverage has abounded on the reckless statements of B. Hussein Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright. However, what I have been waiting for is a conversation about how you throw your pastor of 20 years under the bus the way B. Hussein Obama has done. Dinesh D'Zousa does a great job in his most recent article of addressing this very issue (give it a read). Shouldn't the pastor-congregant relationship be one of the most imporant relationships in one's life? I know it is for me. The argument that B. Hussein Obama did not know the radical views of his pastor is not a plausible argument in my mind. So, the real option for Obama was:
A. Remain loyal to my pastor and spiritual mentor and face the consequences.
B. Throw my pastor and spiritual mentor under the bus in the name of political expediency.
Obama was faced with a lose/lose situation, but he may have chosen the worse option. What does it say about a person when they sell out those closest to them in order to pursue their ambition? Nothing good. Is D'Zousa right? Is Wright really the consistent one, while Obama hides in the shadows? You can dedide for yourself. Here is an expert from the D'Zousa article:
Now Obama would have us believe that, as far as Wright is concerned, he's had just about enough. But why? What has Wright said that has finally caused his disciple to end their relationship? While Wright has been pontificating a lot lately, he has not given us any new bombshells. But he did suggest that, in his beliefs like the one about the U.S. government and AIDS, Obama agrees with him.
Wright noted that of course Obama is now saying something different; that's because Obama is now running for president. So he has to say something different! Translation: what we see with Obama is not what we get. And Wright is in a position to know. He's nursed Obama intellectually and spiritually over the years. It is Obama himself who has given us this man, and assured us of his integrity and reliability.
The more I examine the two, the more I think that it is Wright who is being consistent and calling it the way he sees it, and Obama who is hiding the part of himself that once embraced this man and maybe still agrees with many of his beliefs but now finds him a political liability. While Obama continues to portray himself as Mr. Straight Talk, at this point he is a candidate enveloped in shadows
Today is primary election day! Get out and vote!
For helpful information on the 2008 Indiana primary election you can visit the Secretary of State's website. Speaking of Todd Rokita, I had a very interesting conversation with him last week. Stay tuned for a post on the newly upheld voter ID law and what it will mean for Indiana families.
The Star reported on Saturday that Jim Buck, a reliable Conservative in the Statehouse, is replacing Jeff Drozda.
State Rep. Jim Buck, Kokomo, today was chosen in a Republican caucus to replace Jeff Drozda, according to Ron Thomas, a county GOP leader who served as a watcher during the vote counting.
Buck won the caucus on a single vote, with 68 votes. Contender David Mueller, a Westfield Washington School Board member and an entomologist, came in second with 15 votes. The caucus was held at Republican headquarters in Kokomo.
Our Congratulations to Jim Buck. Senator Jeff Drozda was one of my favorites. Only someone like Jim Buck could manage to fill his shoes adequately.
Barbara Boxer takes on a resolution honoring the Pope- and wins. I agree with the sentiments of the writer- with Obama's "Christians are bitter" statement and this attack on the Pope, it gets harder for Democrats to claim they aren't anti-religion.
The Wall Street Journal Political Diary is a paid service. You can subscribe here to read the entire email.
Boxer Versus the Pope
You wouldn't think there would be much to criticize about Pope Benedict XVI's splendid and uplifting visit to Washington. But leave it to Senator Barbara Boxer of California to spoil the celebration and aura of high spirits, nonpartisanship and good will. The trouble started when Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania sponsored a Senate resolution to honor the Pope and his visit to the nation's Capital. The resolution pays tribute to the Pope's message of love and compassion. It also recognizes the "vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty."
The resolution also contains language about the "power of hope over despair and love over hate." All very noncontroversial stuff.
Except for one clause that stated: "Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life." This is a statement that perhaps 99 out of 100 Americans would agree with, and even celebrate. But Senator Boxer huffed that this language hinted toward an endorsement of the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion. As one Senator told us in confidence: "There was not a single word or phrase of the resolution mentioning abortion, or life beginning at conception, or of the unborn. What Boxer objected to was the word 'life.'" She demanded that the phrase "the value of each human life" be, well, snuffed -- or else there would be no resolution at all.
Senate Republicans in particular were enraged by the Boxer protest. Many wanted to call her bluff and make her complaint public so Catholics could see first-hand an act that smacked of, at best, bad taste, at worst, bigotry. But with the clock running on the Papal visit and in the spirit of cooperation, Senators Brownback and Casey relented. The resolution passed without the "objectionable" passage about "the value of each human life."
"I wish the Senators had stood up to her," says Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute. "What have we come to where the term 'value of life' is not worthy of inclusion in a Senate resolution?"
Ironically, this dust-up happened just a few days after Barack Obama's swipe at religion in Ms. Boxer's backyard of San Francisco. Democrats have tried to reassure Christians in particular that the party isn't hostile to church-goers, but Ms. Boxer's antics this week make one wonder.
After first endorsing the Castro and the Cuban health care system, Michael Moore is now endorsing Barack Obama.
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
Well, fellow conservatives, we now know who is the most extreme liberal of the two Democrats. Barack Obama has sealed the title with his ruthless pro-abortion position and by earning the "nutty wack-job Bush planned 9-11" vote.
I never thought I would say this, but I am now convinced that Hillary Clinton is the conservative Democrat running for President- by far.
I know I'm way beyond late on this issue, but it's still more than relevant- and not just because Hillary Clinton needs it to win Pennsylvania (and perhaps the Hoosier state as well).
Here's what The Huffington Post revealed that caused such a stir about Barack Obama.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I won't dwell on how offensive it is to have my faith reduced to some sort of gut response to displeasure. However, I do find this another great example of Barack Obama's elitism- which seems to reveal itself in a distaste for our culture. These statements are a disturbing look into what kind of leader Barack Obama will be.
Here's the evidence thus far:
Obama may be running on a message of Hope, but that may not be his biggest contribution to our culture.
We were forwarded this email from a friend about a month ago. I don't think we were the target audience.
You are cordially invited to a cocktail reception for the Indiana Stonewall Democrats
featuring a joint appearance by Indiana’s Democratic candidates for Governor
Jim Schellinger and Jill Long Thompson
at the home of Jackie Nytes and Michael O’Brien
3444 Washington Boulevard
Indianapolis
Friday April 4, 2008, 7:00 pm
Please join us to raise funds for Indiana Democratic Candidates supportive of LGBT Hoosiers
Tickets: $75 General Reception Ticket
$150 Supporter Ticket (includes reception, picture with Schellinger/Thompson, and program acknowledgment).
Indiana Stonewall Democrats (ISD) is the state organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender Democrats and their friends. ISD is committed to improving the record of the Democratic Party and educating voters about the vast difference that exists between the two major parties on issues of importance to our communities.
MSM, circa 1999: Bill Clinton is a hero. He had beaten back the horrible Republicans and their smear machine. Hillary Clinton is a saint and soon-to-be Senator. Clinton is the first black President and perhaps the best President since Washington.
MSM, circa 2008: Bill and Hillary Clinton are pathological liars. Bill Clinton is a racist. Has Ken Starr took over control of the National Press Club?
What will a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?
The answer by now seems obvious: It will look like her presidential campaign, which in turn looks increasingly like the first Clinton presidency.
Which is to say, high-minded ideals, lowered execution, half truths, outright lies (and imaginary flights), take-no prisoners politics, some very good policy ideas, a presidential spouse given to wallowing in anger and self-pity, and a succession of aides and surrogates pushed under the bus when things don’t go right. Which is to say, often.
And endless psychodrama: the essential Clintonian experience that mesmerizes the press, confuses the citizenry, confounds members of both parties in Congress (not to mention the Clintons themselves, at times) and pretty much keeps the rest of the world constantly amused and fixated.
Such a picture of Clinton Redux is, by definition, speculation. But it is speculation based on the best evidence at hand: the demonstrable and familiar record of Hillary and Bill Clinton coupled together in Permanent Campaign-mode for a generation, waging a continuous fight on the national political stage since 1992, an unceasing campaign for the White House, for redemption, for their ideas (sometimes) and for themselves (almost always), especially in 2008.
In a preview of Barack Obama's foreign policy, Jimmy Carter announced that he will be meeting with Hamas over the objections of the Bush administration.
"The position of the government is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't negotiate with terrorists. We think that's a very important principle to maintain," Hadley said. "The State Department made clear we think it's not useful for people to be running to Hamas at this point and having meetings."
Carter demurred.
"I feel quite at ease in doing this," he said. "I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."
Although he said the meeting would not be a negotiation, he outlined distinct goals.
"I think that it's very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians, maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire - things of this kind," he said.
The State Department says it advised Carter twice against meeting representatives of Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist organization.
"I find it hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is, in fact, the impediment to peace," Rice said Friday, after reports of the planned meeting surfaced.
Carter said he'd be meeting Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudi Arabians and others "who might have to play a crucial role in any future peace agreement that involves the Middle East."
Asked whether it was right to meet a group that has not renounced violence or recognized Israel, he said, "Well, you can't always get prerequisites adopted by other people before you even talk to them."
Pressure to drop the meeting has come from his own party. Democratic Reps. Artur Davis of Alabama, Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Adam Schiff of California and Adam Smith of Washington state wrote a letter to Carter saying the meeting could confer legitimacy on a group that embraces violence.
"I've been meeting with Hamas leaders for years," Carter said.
The Carter Center said his "study mission" was taking him to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan this week.
Carter, a broker of the 1978 Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, won the Nobel Peace Prize for his conflict mediation as president and since.
As president, Carter led the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. "That was a totally different experience in 1980, when the Soviet Union had brutally invaded and killed thousands and thousands of people," he said, rejecting the idea of boycotting the Beijing games to protest China's crackdown in Tibet. He did not address whether just the opening ceremonies should be boycotted.
Recently we covered Barack Obama's remarkably controversial pro-abortion philosophy. Here's a glimpse into his attitude on the issue.
Senator Obama (D-Illinois) was giving his opinion on abstinence-only education at a recent town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, when he said: "Look, I got two daughters -- nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16."
What's even worse than thinking that babies are punishments, is equating them with an STD. Anyone want to make the case that our acceptance of abortion doesn't devalue human life?
by Craig Ladwig
We note with admiration how easily Bill and Hillary Clinton (with native son Evan Bayh jetting in from Washington) found connections in the Hoosier crowds during their campaign stops. It was almost as if they . . . well, as if they lived here. Truly, politicians are global citizens now. They don't have hometowns anymore in the traditional sense.
And yet, when it comes to democratic representation there remains a pesky provincialism in Indiana. At the very least there is an expectation that our politicians, who owe their status and ample retirement benefits not to marketable skills or business acumen but to the loyalty of a constituency, should retire amid that constituency.
None can say that Bill, Hillary or Evan, now welding power and influence around the world, won’t return to Hope, Chicago or Shirkieville when their days of public service are over. It’s a good bet, though, that they won’t.
And if you're going to join in that wager you'll want the term “hometown” carefully defined. Most politicians could answer honestly that they plan to retire to their Indiana hometown but only if you accept a mailing address as a home.
What the rest of us mean by a hometown is what Harry S Truman, “the man from Independence,” meant by a hometown. *
Keeping tabs on the retired president wasn’t difficult. Harry was always at home except for his morning walks. And this was the home, please know, that Harry owned before he went to the White House.
“I've been taking my walks around the city and passing places that bring back wonderful recollections,” Truman wrote. “The Presbyterian Church where I started to Sunday school at the age of six years, where I first saw a lovely little golden-haired girl who is still the lovely lady that is my wife. What a pleasure to be back here at home — once more a free and independent citizen.”
Times change, say those who reject such sentimentalism. The new politician, it can be argued, serves his hometown best by maintaining a presence near a power center — Washington, New York or, if duty calls, the capitals of Europe or the Orient.
Most of us would buy that except for the fact all the places in which our former politicians choose to serve in retirement are decidedly nicer than the Indiana towns from which they first petitioned our trust and support.
What is it about the climate of Arizona and the Gulf of Mexico or the social swirl of Georgetown that so commands an attention of Hoosier interests? Wouldn’t chance dictate that at least one retired pol, though resigned to serving Indiana from afar, end up somewhere without 365 days of golfing weather or a celebrity at the next table?
And while we're at it, isn’t there somewhere that our governor and legislative leaders could visit on their annual summer trips in search of Hoosier jobs that doesn’t require a luxurious jet ride to Europe or the Pacific?
Seemingly not.
Perhaps it's not so much the times that have changed as the leadership that has changed. A British historian, Paul Johnson, relates a conversation between King George III and an adviser following the shocking news from Yorktown:
“What will George Washington do now?” the King George asked.
“I expect he will go back to his farm,” was the answer.
“If he does that, he will be the greatest man on earth,” the king responded in sincere admiration.
That, in fact, was what Washington did, Johnson notes, first at the end of the war and again after being called from Mount Vernon by election to the presidency.
Indiana has eight months remaining in another season of modern election campaigns marked by unbridled ambition and narrow factional maneuver. It may have seen the last time a person of accomplishment with a sincere call to public service simply waited at home among family, friends and neighbors until he or she was elected to something.
T. Craig Ladwig is editor of the quarterly Indiana Policy Review. Contact him at cladwig@inpolicy.org.
* Truman's middle initial has no period because, oddly, it doesn't stand for anything. The editors of the Kansas City Star, however, perversely required that it be written with a period because it so irritated the former president. Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages to this hometown thing.
With Obama, we get an articulate and engaging candidate, but we are still getting a liberal when it comes to abortion. In fact, he's far to the left of most Democrats who supported the Partial Birth Abortion ban and also oppose infanticide.
He has taken positions in support of both infancticide and Partial Birth Abortion. But his rational continues to change. Either way, I would not have thought that anyone could make Hillary Clinton look conservative, but he does.
Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.
10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.
Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:
What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."
7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.
Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."
6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.
Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.
5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.
During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:
Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:
... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can't impose my religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:
But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.
2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.
Obama has this quote on his website:
Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.First, there was no such amendment.
Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.
The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:
Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?
Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.
It's been a bad couple of weeks for Barack Obama. In recent days, voters have been focused on coverage of Barack Obama's preacher and his anti-American, anti-white remarks (I have been in Los Angeles, sorry- but, now I am back). It's raised the larger issue of Obama's race and has dove-tailed poorly (for him) with his wife's remarks that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country" and Obama's failure to salute the flag.
For me, the problem for Obama regarding race is that he doesn't bring change. He brings more of the same. He re-packages ideas from the '60s in great rhetoric, but we still get more race politics. He continues to fight for the great delusion, propagated by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright and others that the greatest friend to minorities are the liberal leaders of our country.
Obama's speech, given yesterday to try to end the issue, made a number of good points about race in our society and was remarkably even-handed, but Obama also resorted to the same talking points on racism from the left.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
If Obama is simply highlighting the challenges that black people face, then I agree with these sentiments. But what we really need is an acknowledgment from liberals that many of these problems are of our own making and have nothing to do with race? Are the Indianapolis Public School's struggles a result of racism? I don't think so. Is the answer a funding system that favors black schools in Indiana? No.
I am refreshed that Obama seems to at least recognize that the very programs set up by liberals to favor poor families have instead eroded them- particularly black families. I hold out hope that perhaps he sees that the real problem is that the liberals who supposedly fight for minorities continue to destroy their families with entitlement policies. But I am discouraged because Obama's policies don't free these families, they simply fight for more government intervention earlier in these people's lives, not less. In fact, Obama wants government education programs starting at age 0.
What we really need, for real change for those minorities who feel oppressed, is new leaders and a new vision. We need a call for an ownership society, not more government intervention to right the wrongs of the Civil War or Jim Crow. We need to create more opportunities for minorities, not demand more equality in outcomes. We need to encourage each individual to excel by teaching personal responsibility and discourage them from the habit of blaming others for their problems (which is a problem plaguing all races in the 21st Century).
With this kind of change we could see true reform of those institutions which are hurting poor or disadvantaged minorities.
Sine Die from the the Gov’s office
Governor Mitch Daniels just concluded his press conference over the closing of the 2008 Indiana Legislative Session, praising both houses for a bipartisan accomplishment for his historic property tax reform. Reporters pressed the first term governor to score political points but Mr. Daniels simply referred to the legislation as a “win for all Hoosiers” in a year when many citizens saw their taxes skyrocket.
Mr. Daniels repeatedly praised senate and house leaders by name for their bipartisan work resulting in a “new era of reform in Indiana.” The governor adamantly believes that today’s passage will usher in permanent protection for Indiana, adding that it’s a legislation environment like this that help explains why CEO magazine recently described Indiana as the “best place for business outside the sunbelt.”
It wasn’t all softball questions, however, in that Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star queried the Governor on whether he relishes the role of being the author of a bill that will raise taxes for Hoosiers; sales tax will rise from 6% to 7% as an offset to property taxes decreasing, arriving at a net tax reduction. Daniels appropriately rebuffed her question, reminding the reporters that the legislation is a “major net tax cut.”
All in all, a lot of work got done during this short legislation session, all calculated for the dual purpose of tax relief for Hoosiers and economic development for Indiana. Whether 2008 actually helps the state’s economic development, however, might be questionable. Veritas Rex remembers Indiana Economic Development Corporation founding director Micky Mauer always reminding policy makers that Indiana does too much bad stuff and not enough good stuff; too much smoking, too much fatty eating, and not enough exercising makes for bad vibes among corporate shopping for a solid workforce pool for new business or expansion. The relevant question for 2008 is whether this year’s gambling expansion deserves to be on that “good” or “bad” list.
Sine Die from the L. Gov's office
I subsequently posed that question to the Lt. Governor, and it’s clearly not the kind of question that she enjoys taking, as her long time stand against gambling doesn’t necessarily square with Governor Daniel’s support (even if unenthusiastic support) of gaming expansion. She’s first and foremost a loyal supporter for the administration’s policies, and kudos enough for it.
She very diplomatically and carefully explains that she has been an opponent of gambling since her days as a state senator in the 80s and 90s, and personally hopes for the day when gambling declines.
Until then, I follow up, will there be appropriate increases in gambling counseling and intervention in the 2008 budget? Mrs. Skillman affirms, explaining that every budget since 2005 has increased in this area. She carefully and deliberately concludes the point by invoking Ronald Reagan, who opposed gambling’s expansion in the Golden State: “I prefer to govern Californians based on their strengths, not their weaknesses.”
A plaster bust of Ronald Reagan sits atop a fireplace mantle in Mrs. Skillman's office, appearing just over her shoulder as she quotes the Greatest Communicator. With the session's completion, the 2008 campaign trail is next.
This article, by John Podhoretz, in Commentary Magazine, is one of the best I've seen when it comes to analysis of the 2006 Election Cycle.
I'm not so much interested in re-hashing the 2006 Election Cycle, or demonstrating any opinions of it. However, I find Podhoretz's analysis of American attitudes towards the war enlightening.
I'll highlight a few portions of the article here, but you'll benefit from reading the entire article.
Podhoretz summarizes his argument about 1/4 of the way through the article.
For a midterm election, what happened in 2006 was an uncommon event: a national wave. In the past half-century, there have been only two others like it, the first in 1974 when Democrats won 75 seats in the House and four in the Senate and the second in 1994. In all three cases, there was a single, identifiable, overwhelming reason for the loss. The 1974 election occurred in the wake of Watergate. The 1994 election took place in the wake of the effort by the Clinton administration to nationalize health care. And the 2006 election? It was decided not because of a few corrupt Republicans, or because Congress had spent a great deal, or because of a flawed immigration measure. It was decided by the fact that the United States was on the verge of suffering a cataclysmic defeat in war.
He has a strong narrative on fading support for the war in 2005.
Meanwhile, for many of those who had supported the war, the Katrina crisis signified something far more disturbing. Having watched despairingly as roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices in Iraq did their monstrous work on a daily basis, they had already begun to entertain severe misgivings. Support for the war, which was at 50 percent nationally at the end of 2004, sank through 2005, almost entirely due to changes of heart among independent voters. And it was these independents who fled the farthest from Bush after Katrina. Washington’s response to the catastrophe suggested to them that Bush did not know what he was doing—and therefore that the trust they had shown him in 2004 had been misplaced.
“This will take time and patience,” Bush said of Iraq in 2005. But not until November of that year did he attempt to present an explicit “Strategy for Victory.” And that document simply repackaged the administration’s existing approach, envisioning not a battlefield defeat of the enemy but a gradual withering-away thanks to progress on the political and economic fronts and enhanced training of Iraqi troops.
As a matter of military strategy, as Bush would concede after the 2006 election, this was a flawed approach. It was also flawed as a matter of wartime leadership. In the realm of public opinion, a war must be won and an enemy must be defeated; for a nation with men fighting on foreign soil, there can be no other major goal. And there was worse. Bush had prevailed in 2004 by offering the implicit promise of winning in Iraq. But then, with great fanfare, he had announced that the great project of his second term would be—an effort to restructure Social Security. He had no mandate for such a thing, and the refusal of Republicans on Capitol Hill to line up behind it was a harbinger of similar discontents to come.
In October 2005, one month after Katrina, the President made the ill-advised decision to nominate his White House counsel Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy. This caused an eruption in elite conservative opinion, and he was forced to withdraw the nomination (while claiming that she was the one who dropped out). Miers was indeed a poor choice, but under different circumstances Bush would have had little difficulty in assuring her confirmation. What made the conservative revolt possible was not her lack of credentials but Bush’s gradual loss of standing in his own party—a loss due entirely to the sense that he might be flying blind in Iraq.
He was even more compromised in the early months of 2006 as Iraq descended into nightmarish sectarian violence following the February bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. It was against this backdrop that the President advanced his immigration-reform bill. It was not well-drafted and deserved to be defeated. Even so, however, Bush had been championing most of its provisions since his days as governor of Texas, and his advocacy had not prevented a single conservative activist from supporting him wholeheartedly in 2000 or in 2004.
Had he come before the American people as the victor in Iraq, Bush would have had his immigration bill for the taking—with, to be sure, muted grumbling from some of his backers analogous to the grumbling after the passage of his education legislation in 2001 or the prescription-drug entitlement in 2003. In 2006, however, he found himself on the receiving end of wildly intemperate blasts of scorn, contempt, rage, and disgust, and his own party killed the bill.
By November, going into the election, the GOP was divided, weakened, and disheartened. Had the Iraq war gone differently, none of this would have been the case.
Podhoretz has interesting things to say about 2007 as well.
What had happened? If the results of the 2006 election had indeed been a straightforward mandate for the Democratic view that “this war is lost” (as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would put it in April 2007), legislation sent from Capitol Hill to the White House would have reflected that conviction. Democrats from Bush districts would not have objected, and fearful Republicans would have crossed party lines to side with their Democratic colleagues. That is what occurs when an issue has a mandate.
Yet Democrats could not get a single withdrawal proposal through the legislative process to the President’s desk. What is more, their efforts to do so have endeared them to no one: neither disaffected independents, nor depressed Republicans, nor liberals crying for Bush’s head. To the contrary: according to polls, the present Democratic leadership in Congress is the object of an icy public scorn several degrees cooler even than the permafrost in which George W. Bush has been embalmed.
Finally, he concludes with his thoughts on how this impacts things in 2008.
It is a great irony that the best political news for Republicans in a notably unfavorable election year—with the public telling pollsters that it is desirous of change and prefers Democratic stands on most issues by margins ranging from ten to twenty points—may come out of Iraq. Should the surge’s progress continue and deepen, the Democratic nominee may find himself or herself in a very uncomfortable position come autumn. The Democratic base will not have changed its mind about the war’s evil, and it will not be happy with a leader who does. So the nominee will find it almost impossible to embrace the surge, and certainly not after having disparaged it caustically in the past. But if the nominee does not embrace the real possibility of victory in Iraq, he or she will run the risk of appearing defeatist, or worse, in the eyes of the same independent voters who fled the GOP in droves in 2006.
Meanwhile, the candidate most associated with the surge, John McCain, will (assuming he becomes the nominee of the Republican party) be uniquely well situated to deploy an accusation he has been leveling at the Democratic frontrunners for nearly a year. “I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq,” McCain said about a vote the two Democrats cast in May 2007. He called this “the equivalent of waving a white flag of surrender to al Qaeda.”
I'm not quite sure if his analysis of 2008 will prove true or not. Clearly Barack Obama, most likely to surrender precipitously, is gathering momentum in this Election in ways that seemed impossible.
Part of me wonders if Americans simply want to return to the blissful ignorance of the Clinton years, when the end of the Cold War and relative peace abroad had us convinced that our enemies were no longer amassing against us. We're tired of Iraq. I'm tired of the endless discussion of it. Apparently so is the New York Times, which is giving far less ink to the War in Iraq now that we are winning.
War politics in 2008 is a wild card. We've got eight more months of it until November. Only a fool would try to predict with certainty what the result will be.
Here in an interesting excerpt from an article found in the New York Post:
March 3, 2008 -- TOLEDO, Ohio - Barack Obama yesterday lashed out at political enemies who are spreading false rumors that he's a closet Muslim as he proclaimed, "I pray to Jesus every night."
"I am a devout Christian," he told voters in this key state.
"I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can."
I really like the fact that Presidential candidates, even really liberal ones, still feel as if they must convince the American people of the sincerity of their Christian faith. We may have slid a long way from John Adams' famous quote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
However, it seems that people still understand that the principles of Christianity are important to both the private and public lives of their leaders. Otherwise, Obama wouldn't be making such a big deal about it.
Hat tip: Drudge Report
On Monday of last week, the Indianapolis Star posted an article on Andre Carson. Although the Carson article focused mostly on his religion, I was more interested in the first couple of paragraphs.
Andre Carson's greatest political asset may be his grandmother's name, but one of his biggest liabilities is proving to be her funeral.
That's because his family gave a spot in the parade of dignitaries who eulogized Congresswoman Julia Carson to Louis Farrakhan, whom Jewish leaders consider one of America's leading anti-Semites, gay rights activists consider a homophobe and who famously referred to white people as "devils."
In recent weeks, Andre Carson has been reassuring Jewish leaders here and in Washington that Farrakhan's appearance wasn't his idea. He has spoken publicly about his distaste for discrimination, homophobia or racism of any kind. He has talked repeatedly of his desire for unity.
There is almost universal agreement amongst our readers regarding Farrakhan, who is widely known for his hate-filled speeches and racist comments- particularly towards Jews.
7th District Congressional candidate Andre Carson has refused to repudiate the endorsement from Farrakhan, despite this knowledge. Kudos to Barack Obama for speaking out against Farrakhan, by the way.
That's where I see the hypocrisy. Farrakhan is probably the most prominent and vocal anti-white, anti-Jew racist out there. His organization has posted rants from individuals who suggest that white people are an inferior race. According to the Nation of Islam, whites are newcomers to this planet, arriving long after aboriginals (blacks) inhabited our world. I also note that many homosexual organizations consider him highly controversial as well.
Where's the outcry? Where is the left doing their best to save us from racism? Are two paragraphs in the Indianapolis Star and a few posts from bloggers all we get here?
What would have happened if a local politician was endorsed by David Duke and then refused to repudiate him? It would have been national news. Either party would have sought for the candidate to be removed from the ballot. There would have been a front page story in the Indianapolis Star. In fact, didn't the Star fire a reporter last year for a racial slur?
So what's the difference? I don't get it. Rational explanation anyone?
I know that some people in the media are really looking forward to hearing these:
Gennifer Flowers is putting the tapes of her recorded conversations with Bill Clinton during their 12-year affair on the auction block, Vegas Confidential learned Monday.
Flowers, who came forward during Clinton's 1992 Presidential election campaign with details of the relationship, said she decided to part with the tapes after renewed interest surfaced. She was offered $5 million by a Japanese collector in the 1990s, she said.
Asked about the timing of her announcement coming out as Hillary Clinton continues to slide in her presidential bid, “I don’t need to hurt Hillary. She is doing a fine job of that herself, along with her idiot husband. Karma is an interesting thing. If these two don’t get elected, and they are a team, it will be karma coming back to visit them. It's about time."
When President Clinton denied the relationship during his presidential campaign, Flowers called a press conference played what she said were secretly recorded phone conversations.
This reminds me of the greatly detailed smear of Glenn Murphy by the Democrat Party recently. It's one thing to cover the news. It's another thing to publish police reports (including ones with the name of the victim). We've already established that President Bill Clinton had a nasty habit of not remaining faithful to his spouse. Do we have to hear the tapes too? Where does our insatiable appetite for juicy sex scandals end?
Let's hope some remote foreign collector gets the tapes instead of some supermarket tabloid.
In alphabetical order:
Hillary Clinton
From her website:
Hillary has fought the relentless and insidious efforts by far-right Republicans to limit the protections of Roe v Wade, while also working hard to expand access to family planning services.
Mike Huckabee
From his website:
I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been
clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.
John McCain
From his website:
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level.
Barack Obama
I couldn't find any information about Obama on his webpage, but did find the following by Jill Staneck of Illinois in WorldNet Daily. Frankly, he makes Hillary Clinton look like a right to life fanatic.
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
One of my heroes, Congressman Mike Pence, also spoke at CPAC. It's worth the time it would take to watch it- particularly the very end. Kristen and I both were choked up as he spoke of the soldier from his district.
This past week, I spent some time on the couch in the home of the Lahmann family, the modest home of another soldier called to duty not in public life but in Iraq.
Growing up in rural Indiana, Johnny Lahmann was an exceptional young man and the joy of his mom, Linda and dad, Alan. Johnny was handy with tools and dreamed of becoming an auto mechanic. He took his first deer when he was just 10 years old.
After 9-11, Johnny responded to the call of duty, joined the Army and deployed to Bayji, Iraq. Specialist Lahmann served in the 59th Engineering Company, 20th Engineer Battalion, 36th Engineer Brigade, part of the Army III Corp based in Fort Hood, Texas.
On December 10, 2007, at the hands of the enemy, he fell. The small army locker in the living room and bittersweet memories are all that remains of his life in the home of his youth.
When Johnny came home, his parents marveled as thousands lined the streets of Richmond, Indiana. His Dad, Alan, told me Tuesday, “I have never seen anything like that in my entire life.”
And neither had we.
Johnny Lahmann was a hero because Johnny Lahmann was a soldier.
America called Johnny to be a soldier and, as has always been the case in the history of this nation, the soldier stepped forward and saved the nation.
To go forward in these troubling times, Republican voters, and no less providence, have given us a soldier.
Let us seize upon this moment in history.
Let us renew our commitment to life, liberty and limited government and in so doing let us help the soldier unite this army and do everything in our power to see him to the presidency.
Nothing less than the future of freedom may hang in the balance.
Watch the speech here. It's just over 20 minutes long. The text is here.
We are back from CPAC. Unfortunately, wifi access was limited in the hotel so we weren't able to do as much live-blogging as we hoped. However, you can see a lot of the best speeches still.
Here were some of the highlights.
First, Dinesh D'Souza. His speech was my favorite from the event. D'Souza spoke eloquently in defense of traditional Christianity. His book, What's So Great About Christianity?, is a more detailed defense and a good read (thus far). I'm about 1/4 of the way through.
Newt Gingrich's speech was probably #2 for me. His vision for Republicans mirrors the exciting 1994 Contract with America. You can read more about Newt's American Solutions here. I'll have a post tomorrow dedicated to Congressman Mike Pence's speech.
Others worth watching:
Mitt Romney's Withdrawal (abbreviated):
John McCain's Speech (the part on immigration):
Where are the Democrats marching in the streets in anger??? Where is the ACLU???
Apparently, Democrats are OK with overt discussions of faith in politics- as long as its done by Democrats. Read about the outrage here.
In South Carolina, a state where religion counts for Democrats, it's not unusual for community leaders to have two titles _ Rev. and Rep.
This intersection of church and state looms large as Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards push to turn out the vote for Saturday's primary. The candidates have lavished attention on black churches as well as the conventional get-out-the-vote efforts _ saturating the state with political signs, working the black barbershops and beauty salons. Thousands of phone calls and text messages have gone out. Musicians, actors and other celebrities have made dozens of appearances hoping their star power will ignite voter interest.
Blacks make up an estimated 50 percent of the state's Democratic electorate and black churches have been a major focus of the candidates.
Last Sunday, more than 1,000 of Obama's campaign staffers and volunteers blanketed churches with a letter from the candidate that mentioned his Christian faith and "the grace of an awesome God." Simultaneously, about a dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus attended worship services on behalf of Clinton, talking her up to congregants in receiving lines. And Michelle Obama and Chelsea Clinton sat on opposite sides of one Columbia church, clapping in unison with a choir and signing autographs for long lines of congregants after the service.
Obama's campaign has also staged "faith forums" on the role of religion in politics, run a gospel music tour and says it signed up 200 "faith community contacts" who promote Obama in their spheres of influence.
His letter opened, "What a blessed day in the life of our nation and in the service to the Lord!" The letter talks about education and health care and says that "with the grace of an awesome God," ordinary people can do extraordinary things. Obama didn't explicitly ask people to vote for him, but encouraged voter participation.
Now, it's hard to detect sarcasm sometimes in print. So let me clarify. I don't have any problem at all with Sens. Clinton and Obama campaigning in church. Church people are people too.
But if it was Romney or Huckabee, we'd have a full week's worth of folks like Barry Lynn and the ACLU declaring that Republicans had done the country a great disservice- and threatening lawsuits.
H/T: GOP Grunt.
I took a look at the top four Prez candidate's websites to see what they had to say about faith. What will voters have to say on this Super Tuesday?
In no particular order:
Sen Barack Obama: In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered what was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years. Speaking before an evangelical audience, Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion and doubts, and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life.
Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate. In December, 2006, Senator Obama discussed the importance of faith in the global battle against AIDS.
See more here.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: Faith was central to her family. Her mother taught Sunday school, and Hillary was a regular in her church youth group. She was deeply influenced by her youth minister who taught her about "faith in action." There were trips to the inner city, babysitting for the children of migrant farm workers, and an extraordinary night when Hillary was fourteen and her youth group went to hear a speech by Martin Luther King Jr.
See more here.
Sen. John McCain: He has an excellent video on the issue that's better than anything else on his website. I'll paraphrase him in the video... "I have a purpose. And that purpose, I think, is to live a life based on Judeo-Christian values."
Gov. Mitt Romney: Romney's best stuff on faith is actually his speech delivered at the George Bush Presidential Library. "There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Check out more here.
We continue to share some of the highights from the American Viewpoint survey of likely Hoosier voters (n=800).
The results below show the Governor is doing well in a tough political environment for Republicans and that Huckabee, the most conservative of the three remaining viable GOP candidates, would beat both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton (leading Democrat candidates) in Indiana. I was told there were no so-called "head-to-head" match-ups for John McCain and Mitt Romney vs. the Obama and Clinton. Maybe I'm being spun on that point....but here's the data, which is consistent with polling data I've seen recently (we did a little poll of our own last week in one interesting legislative race) and general trends over 25 years of reading polls as a campaign manager, operative and consultant:
Verbatim poll results as shared with Veritas Rex:
"Now I am going to read you names of several people who are active in politics today and have you tell me if you are aware or not aware of each one. For those you know, I would like you to tell me if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of them…
Mitch Daniels
57% TOTAL FAVORABLE
37% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE
Pat Bauer
20% TOTAL FAVORABLE
18% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE
Jill Long Thompson
22% TOTAL FAVORABLE
11% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE
Jim Schellinger
7% TOTAL FAVORABLE
4% TOTAL UNFAVORABLE
If the election for President were being held today and the candidates were (ROTATE) Mike Huckabee (huck-a-bee), Republican and Hillary Clinton, Democrat for whom would you vote?
53% TOTAL HUCKABEE
35% TOTAL CLINTON
If the election for President were being held today and the candidates were (ROTATE) Mike Huckabeee (huck-a-bee) Republican and Barack (ba-rock) Obama, Democrat for whom would you vote?
49% TOTAL HUCKABEE
36% TOTAL OBAMA
If the election for Governor were being held today and the candidates were (ROTATE) Mitch Daniels, Republican and Jill Long Thompson, Democrat for whom would you vote?
53% TOTAL DANIELS
34% TOTAL LONG-THOMPSON
End of poll report.
One surprise for me is that Speaker Pat Bauer (D-South Bend) is not better known. His ratio of negatives to positives seems right to me, but I would have guessed he was better known by likely Hoosier voters recently polled.
Q: You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?
A: I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
Jim Wallis was on the Daily Show recently (video below). For those of you who aren't familiar, Jim Wallis is a progressive Christian political activist whose caused quite a firestorm on the right.
I've not read a lot of his work (check it out here) although he appears everywhere- particularly when the New York Times wants to declare the religious right dead (like they did last year by pointing out that non-religious right Rudy Guiliani was the FOR SURE victor in the Republican party).
Personally, I don't have any problem with Christians like Wallis who are less concerned with social issues and more concerned with environmental problems. Everyone has his/her passions.
I used to have a professor in college that would constantly remind us that nearly every political or philosophical argument could eventually be whittled down to a disagreement between World Views. In other words, my conclusions about society and politics are driven directly from the basic belief that there is a God and he is in control. If you don't agree with me on that, it's going to be hard to agree on everything else.
That's why I appreciate Wallis. Because we agree on the basic principles. I can see myself having a fruitful conversation on the issues. So my disagreement with Wallis is not on Christian grounds- its political. He's pursuing the same end- bringing more people into a closer relationship with God. It's only when he jumps into the political world that we disagree.
So check him out. I've also found a great video here. He can get my blood boiling sometimes, but he's got a lot of good to say as well.
