Thank God for a Constitution that limits power and checks ambition.

Obama wants to be re-elected. Accordingly, a WSJ editorial notes that Obama is dumping his campaign rhetoric about a “windfall” profits tax on the oil companies. (During the campaign, there was some discussion of one of his advisers assuring Canada that Obama’s NAFTA talk was just campaign rhetoric.)

Obama now doesn’t want to tax “windfall” profits of the oil companies. The WSJ editorial notes that his staff says the lower price of oil has made the tax a moot point. And why is that?

Obviously the “windfall” is gone. But as the editorial notes:

Left unexplained was why the oil companies suddenly decided to stop profiteering, or manipulating commodity prices, or whatever it was they were supposedly doing. But be thankful for small mercies. It is reassuring that Mr. Obama’s calls to arbitrarily soak an unpopular business were merely rooted in political expediency, not some economic philosophy.

The pressure of “political expediency” will work across issues as he thinks about re-election. The day before, Peggy Noonan noted the thinking in regard to security. She noted the bipartisan work of Democrats for in writing a report on a biological threat. She noted:

Why does Congress prepare such reports? To inform, and to win support for new plans. To show they are doing something. And to be able to say, in the event of calamity—forgive my cynicism—that they warned us. This hasn’t been the first such report. It won’t be the last. But it comes at a key moment for Mr. Obama, because it gives him a certain amount of cover to be serious about what needs to be done. What’s at stake for him is two words. When Republicans say, in coming years, “At least Bush kept us safe,” Democrats will not want tacked onto the end of that sentence, “unlike Obama.”

Similarly, Obama shouldn’t want to hear, “at least gas prices didn’t stay high under Bush.”

Maybe Obama will do something to guard against a biological or other terrorist attack and maybe do something to ensure gas prices stay down. Much can happen in four years. Terrorists may strike again. Gas prices may spike again. If he acts vigorously, at least he’ll have some evidence to support his case for re-election in four years and that he “warned us.” So the hypocrisy of political expediency is not without a constitutional connection to foresight.

But I do wonder, why did those gas prices spike before the election? I wonder, to stay in office will he rely again on insubstantial but good sound-bite ads? Is he willing to rely on real accomplishment in good governance to get re-elected?

And while I might like some of his politically expedient moves, I might not care for others. Obama spoke reassuringly to gun owners about the Second Amendment. Now TWP reports that a new “study” (the form all effective propaganda must take today) that says states with liberal gun laws, like Virginia, supply guns to criminals in other states and cause the deaths of police officers. The report appears to be pushback on Heller and “evidence” for the “reasonable” kind of gun control laws that Obama may support. (I’m skeptical about the about the study, especially given the admittedly sketchy data and John Lott’s More Guns, Less crime)

The manipulation of the ambition of hypocrites may work, but it does reflect a defect. As Madison said, ambition countering ambition is necessary because of “the defect of better motives.” If the country is to prosper and move beyond sound-bites, we’ll need real substance. Good people will have to make good choices and use good arguments to push politically-expedient politicians in the right direction.

Where is speech “freer” for minorities? Lynchburg or San Francisco?

Habits are tough to break, and a bad habit is a tough problem to overcome. And problem solving is great when problems are solved, otherwise problem solving can be fatiguing, if not depressing. And it’s easy for tired problem solvers to quit and say there is no solution. But quitting is not proof there is no solution to a problem.

Following the election my pastor made a couple of comments, to encourage a proper perspective and keep our eyes focused on Jesus. And indeed, we need to keep a proper perspective, and doing so is difficult when wrapped up in the passions of party politics.

Dealing with “church and state” seems to be an ongoing problem, or, rather, a recurring point of discussion–as though there were a problem every two or four years. But the regularity of the discussion may be evidence of the lack of a real problem, and so evidence there is a solution, a proper perspective.

As a People we’re never directly involved in our national government, in actual governing. We don’t make laws, or vote to approve laws, or vote to approve or disapprove Roe or even Supreme Court Justices; we only choose representatives. And we’ve been doing that with great regularity, in times of peace and war since the beginning of the nation.

Still, there’s a suggestion that there’s a problem. And sometimes the suggestion, like my pastor’s, is that the problem is secondary. In a way, that’s fine. We shouldn’t fret about politics, particularly if it’s working. But if the suggestion is that we shouldn’t fret about politics, not because the problem is minor, but because politics is unimportant, then I’m skeptical. Perhaps I, the political philosophy junkie, like the pastor, am overtaken by bias but I’m skeptical about discounting the work of politics.

It’s quite true that no politician is going to usher in the kingdom of God and no politician is going to usher it out. But were I more like the skeptical Lincoln, I might respond by saying that no preacher is going to usher in the kingdom, and no preacher is going to usher it out.

God will have his glory. God will save his people. But, as with Esther, it’s better for us to do the job we’re given. Like Mordecai said to Esther:

Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. 14For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

It seems to me that, like Esther, we each have a job to do, even if it’s not in a palace. Of course, voting in a little booth is a lot less scary than Esther’s approaching the king to speak the truth. But although our involvement in politics is limited, can our involvement be anymore unrelated to God’s plan than Esther’s? Can speaking the truth be secondary to “kingdom” work? Can the administration and execution of justice be secondary? If faith without works is dead, what is faith without a concern for justice?

Some have taken up justice as a mission. “IJM’s work is founded on the Christian call to justice articulated in the Bible (Isaiah 1:17): Seek justice, protect the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”

At times, however, I wonder about the commitment of churches. This past election, a number of pastors have said that the Bible applies to politics and have refused to speak in generalities. They’re breaking with a habit that’s formed since the 1960’s when tax exemptions were threatened. At times, I wonder about the habits of churches and the influence of laws and “secular” ways of thinking.

You see, sometimes I wonder if moral relativism doesn’t creep into the church. It seems that preaching against sin, necessary for preaching the gospel, is acceptable, as long as it doesn’t mean being serious about applying it and confronting public life….

Consider Prop 8 in California. Preaching against sodomy was okay, or um, preaching against “sexual sin” was okay, until it meant something real. Now even the moral relativism of “personal” religious beliefs comes in for criticism for donating money to support “traditional” marriage. A theater director gave money to the “wrong” side and has now been forced to resign. See LA Times story here including this:

he basically gave me that thing we’re just sick of hearing — ‘these are my religious beliefs, but it’s nothing personal’ ” against gay people. “I don’t want to hear that anymore. I just told him I’m disgusted at that use of money that came in some way from a show I created.

And see the director’s blog and his resignation letter here.

Here’s the LAtest:

Yes on 8 forces plan a Friday news conference to decry the “outrageous campaign of blacklisting, harassment, and intimidation against supporters of the Yes on 8 Campaign. Churches have been defaced. Employers of donors and volunteers for Yes on 8 have been intimidated into firings, and forced resignation of employees who simply exercised their constitutional right to participate in the political process.”

Some poor woman made the mistake of opposing some protesters in Palm Springs.

And even the “N-word” came out of the closet in some instances because blacks supported Prop 8. Can the church take the heat? Can it do so as a matter of course? Can it stay out of the closet?

From my Glock Bro’: Raped woman calls 911 but police don’t arrive in time for rapist.

Barack Obama says he supports reasonable gun control. In Illinois, this woman may have been subject to prosecution. The story said she borrowed a weapon and in Illinois a permit is required before possession of a shotgun can be legal. Moreover, our President Elect opposed immunity for people using guns to defend themselves in their own homes.

His past voting record has not ben about reasonable restrictions that support public safety. His past voting record is anti-gun, plain and simple. He has campaigned, however, saying he won’t take our guns. That, is not much of a concession. Taking guns is not easy; were that the aim, it wouldn’t be the first step. But what will he do?

Obama, to discount his record, repeatedly said he supported the Second Amendment. His plans for re-election therefore may moderate his actions against gun owners and gun manufacturers. We’ll have to wait and see what the Democrats pass in Congress and what Barack signs.

The Democrats will be pushing more gun control. They will be using federal regulations and ATF “interpretations” etc. of manufacturing, sales and ownership to make self-defense more difficult, but all in the name of public safety.

I doubt the primary target of gun legislation and regulation will be criminals like rapists; the target of socialists is liberty. In the end, I suspect the “reasonable” restrictions will do less to decrease crime than borrowing a shotgun did in this case.

I was sorting through some old files and found something about healthcare for all. It’s more evidence about how strong is The Dream for meeting all needs, even at the expense of freedom.

The L.A. Times reported back in 1993 about a “mystery nervous-system epidemic in Cuba.” (Yes, this about Michael Moore’s favored healthcare system.) The story noted, “foreign specialists concur with Cuban doctors that the epidemic cannot be blamed only on Cuban nutrition levels….”

Of course, what Cuban doctor would say that the Cuba had a health problem because of the socialist system? Vitamins did seem to help, though.

The International Socialists support Obama.  They hope for “real change.”  Obama can be pressured.

Of course we do feel that people should vote for Obama over McCain, not because he is one of us or is even friendly to us and our positions, but because there is no hope of real change without a president that progressives and social movements can pressure to sign legislation that provides universal, affordable health care; reestablishes unions’ ability to organize, reexamines our trade agreements and withdraws our forces from Iraq as quickly as possible.

Frank Llewellyn
National Director
Democratic Socialists of America

Obama is for “spreading around opportunity.”

That’s his interpretation of spreading around the wealth.

But let’s look at this “opportunity” based on spreading around the wealth. Consider two questions: what’s the opportunity for? and how does one get this opportunity?

Obama says that by spreading around the wealth, a waitress can “can put a roof over her head.” Well, I suppose that’s a possibility. But aren’t there other possibilities as well? Obama hasn’t specified that. At least he hasn’t done so yet. But I suppose the law could require “tax refunds” to be spent on government housing. On the other hand, maybe the waitress will spend the money on cigarettes. Then we would have the “opportunity” to spend more on her healthcare. This, no doubt, could provide her more “opportunities.”

And how does one get Obama’s “opportunity”? Well, it appears to require merely a vote for Obama and his fellow travelers. On the other hand, there are other ways to get “opportunity.” Just ask around. Some might say work. Others might say beg. Some might even say steal. Those ways might get you a roof, or a cigarette or two, or a new HD television or GPS system, or even a set of wheels.

An old-fashioned scrupulous fellow who clings to God might insist on discriminating. He might insist that the American way has something to do what’s right and “opportunities” by theft are no “opportunities” at all. He might say that theft by government is wrong too.

But can we say that anything the government does is wrong? If it’s legal isn’t it right? Well, some might say it’s right or wrong, or even patriotic, depending on whether Bush or Clinton or Obama is responsible for it…..

If we do insist on a standard of right and wrong above formalities, we might need to re-examine this “opportunity.”

We seem to have forgotten that “opportunities,” (or, in that old-fashioned language, liberty) means not being forced to do wrong and not being prevented from doing what’s right. So I’m reminded of the “opportunity” of the widow. She didn’t receive her mite from the government but she was more charitable than everyone else.

What we need for opportunities to succeed is not someone else’s money, but faith that right makes might. And what’s right is to work to be able to give as God shows us those who truly need help.

I’d prefer to help my church help more those in need (like the orphans in Zambia), rather than see more tax money go to CEOs of Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN. :sigh:

Hear ye! Hear ye!

Come inside the snake oil salesman tent at Youtube and see for yourself!

See Obama selling his abortion policy to everyone from Planned Parenthood to Saddleback church. (from cuz Jeannie)

Thank God for “Joe the Plumber”!

Even Senator McCain got it and was able to run with it, but where has he been? Why can’t Senator McCain make it clear that “spread the wealth around” is what Obama’s healthcare, and tax “cuts” etc. are all about? Go for it McCain, remind people more that the words Obama uses, like “health” in the abortion debate, have twisted meanings.

Look, I’m fine with “spreading the wealth around” as long as it’s truly public wealth that gets spread. But as McCain said, we don’t need “the government” taking the money we’ve earned and have the Pelosi-Reid-Obama triumvirate give it to someone else to “buy” their vote. Come on McCain, Reagan did it, call Obama what he is: a tax and tax, spend and spend liberal.

And quit buying the Obama propaganda that 8 years of Bush caused all our problems. Bush proposed to reform Freddie and Fannie and to run them in a financially responsible fashion. See links in “Barney’s Blarney” and my comments.

I know the dream of a world with jobs, homes, and health care sounds great, but unless we want to be subjects who are told what job to do, which mass transit system to use, where and in which mass housing project to live, where to go for healthcare (and how long to wait for it if we don’t die first), we need to wake up.

Consider, what should a government do for good people who know how to govern themselves? Do we think that our representatives should serve those who can’t control themselves? Should our representatives serve those who can’t control their spending habits and can’t pay their debts? Should our representatives served the greedy and get special VIP housing loans?

What should hard working people demand of their representatives? Taxes and taxes? Why not demand that officials protect their property from thieves?

What should generous people who donate money to an orphanage in Zambia demand of government? More “tax and tax” so less is available for orphans? Why not demand that our representatives protect our property from terrorists?

What should people who save their money demand of their representatives? Spend and spend money, inflating the currency and devaluing savings? Why not demand the end of the “tax and tax, spend and spend” habits of liberals?

Do good people want to be “fixed” by the government? Or do we want to control the government, limit its power to legitimate ends, and live free?

If we want to live free, we have a duty to protect Joe’s freedom. That’s the wealth that needs to be “spread around.”

Dreams can be powerful.

Consider the power of the communist vision on one man Sam Herman and his son Victor. Sam was a gunrunner and a Communist organizer in Detroit. In 1931 Sam and his family went to the Soviet Union. Victor says he followed his father; he did what sons do. Sam obeyed a dream that had captivated him. Sam Herman was going to help make the world a better place. After all, doesn’t Socialism mean, as Victor would later write, “the good of everyone everywhere … fairness for everyone and the good life for all?”

Victor tells of his life in the Soviet Union in his 1979 autobiography, Coming Out of the Ice. He tells how he was sent to prison and of his suffering in prison. He learned to like rat to survive prison. He tells about life in Siberian exile and how he described America to his hungry daughter like a fairy tale place where she could have “two potatoes.”

He wrote that he’d follow his father again. And of the Socialism of his father, in which all are rich, Victor saw nothing wrong.

The dream of life with no suffering is powerful. Who doesn’t want to rid the world of hunger and orphans? Who wants to see his child suffer? Socialism is captivating.

Victor reflected on consequences for decisions:

How does a father reckon up accounts when he buys and his child pays? But does not every parent make choices for himself that prove decisive in the life of his child? Isn’t this what history is?

We might say that Victor’s father Sam exercised his right of the “pursuit of happiness.” Like Sam, we might have too narrow an understanding if we think of the pursuit of happiness as the pursuit of material wealth rather than a right way of life.

Being poor didn’t make Victor less American. But you might not know that listening to politicians today. We hear politicians talk about the American dream or the promise of America, and it’s all about how much we’re going to get from the government. The right way to live seems to be defined as getting the most from government.

But if we misunderstand the pursuit of happiness, we may not be pursuing a better world. Unwittingly we may be pursuing the gulag.

Victor had insisted on the truth. He was an American. He refused to deny that. When offered the opportunity to return to America, if he came as a Russian, he refused. When given a Russian pension, he refused to give up his goal. He returned as an American. As Reagan would say of him and those like him, they became the “rulers of the guards.”

Truth is liberating.

There’s nothing wrong with being rich, and there’s nothing wrong with everyone being rich, but we can’t deny the truth and be free. We can’t believe that government can fix everything. We can’t deny that people are endowed with different talents and abilities and some are better equipped to make money than others. We can’t deny that some deal drugs or steal, rather than work.

If we have liberty, some will have more than others; and if we try to make all people the same, all “rich,” we have the gulag.

What was once sold as “socialism with a human face,” a new and improved socialism, was understood by the French philosopher Bernard-Henry Levy as “Barbarism with a Human Face.” As he said, “The dream was not born yesterday, then, but … it always turns into a blood bath.” He, rather like Victor, insists on thinking — even without believing — “the impossible thought of a world freed from lordship.” Well, rather like Victor, he sees possibilities in America.

But do we still think it’s possible to live without the lordship of big government? Once the government owns our income, our homes, our healthcare, and our retirement, what’s left of freedom?

What choices are we making for our children? Will our children know the language of freedom? Or will they only know a “socialism with a Christian face”?