ConservativeHQ.com Poll

91% of Conservatives believe Obama is a Socialist, Marxist, Communist or Fascist. On-line polls are certainly not fair, balanced or authoritative. Only the people who use a particular site get to vote. Sort of like the newspaper polls from NYT or LAT and their "sources" and anecdotal evidence.

During the Bush years, the people who didn't like him screamed Nazi or Hitler because yelling "communist" would have been a compliment. But there is a very fine line between National Socialism (Nazi Germany and Italy) and Marxist Communism (USSR or China variety. The Bush haters claim it's the war--"Bush lied people died." He brought out the ladies in pink who joined forces with the greenies. Bush didn't go to war, Congress did, read the Constitution, and they were using all the evidence they had been hearing and voting on from the previous administration. There was actually great bipartisanship in 2002 and 2003--Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, et al were all for the war and believed the intelligence about WMD. Bush was fairly elected, not with the popular vote, which he didn't win in 2000, but the electoral system which provides smaller states with a say. The county in question was heavily minority--so Democrats claimed they didn't know how to vote. They were confused. Well, whose fault was that with a Democrat machine in place? The Supreme Court didn't put him in office as the Bush-Deranged claim--it ruled on a state law of Florida. And the Bush-Deniers refused to see what was coming down the road, when the hanging chads in Florida were all swept up. Examination of all the close votes in other states--say, in Illinois where the dead Chicago democrats reappear like zombies to vote and who are probably happily receiving their stimulus checks even today. After all, they are the ones who chose Kennedy over Nixon back in 1960. If Nixon had done the right thing--demanded the same kind of endless recount Gore got--he could have saved JFK's life, but then, who would have made all those conspiracy movies?

Taking and making offense

I see the liberals are trying to saddle McCain with two preachers who aren't and weren't his pastor. If they've come out for McCain, I'm guessing it's because there is no viable alternative. If there's ever been anything said about politics in my church (UALC), it must have been the singing of God Bless America the evening of 9/11 when we gathered for prayer. Political activism is a tradition in black churches, and that's Parsley's style, although he's white. I haven't read offensive things in his latest book, so perhaps it's a little proof texting and out of context clipping. Columbus liberal mainline pastors tried to gang up on him during the last election and made fools of themselves.

But, here's a great quote from GK Chesterton which I found this morning researching the hymns suitable for Memorial Day which explains how to do the type of insult and offense stuff we read these days (and 100 years ago when he was writing).

The tone of the story (as of every Chesterton story) is strongly affected by the exuberant style of the author. There is a scene in a restaurant, where the protagonist has the task of delaying another man for a few hours, and decides to pick a quarrel with him in order to do so. A musician is playing something by Wagner in the background. He approaches the other man's table and is about to attack him. The man's companions hold him back, but he cries out,

"This man has insulted my mother!"
"Insulted your mother? What are you talking about?"
"Well, any way, my aunt."
"How could he have insulted your aunt. We have just been sitting here talking."
"Ah, it was what he said just now."
"All I said was that I liked Wagner played well."
"Aha! My aunt played Wagner badly. It is a very tender point with our family. We are always being insulted over it."

Campaign rhetoric and the Bible

In office, politicians have their hands in your pocket; but during the campaign, those hands are in the Bible, picking and choosing verses for just the right moment. Once in office, politicians all pretty much do the same--ask for more money. Methods differ--JFK, Reagan, and Bush all brought more money into the government coffers by cutting taxes of the wealthiest; our current crop of campaigners, want to raise taxes of the wealthiest, because it isn't income, but gaps that concern them.

Standing on scripture, they all have a good foundation--wealth and money is one of the most common topics in the Bible, ranging from not worshiping it, giving the government what it asks for, and sharing it with the less fortunate. It is fertile ground for the seeds of political campaigns, particularly with an electorate that claims a high percentage of belief in God--at least when polled. (Nearly 70% in 2007 according to Barna Research).

The conservatives preach a hope found in the individual. This message of hope tells us we can do anything we want, achieve any goal by our own effort and builds our pride in a nation that allows this because it is rooted in Biblical principles.

The liberals preach a hope found in a compassionate bureaucracy and code of laws, ever changing to meet the needs of the moment. This message of hope tells us we aren't there yet, but in our collective weakness there will eventually be strength to defeat all the forces of hunger, disease and personal unhappiness, even that brought on by our own behavior.

Both conservatives and liberals use either Moses leading people to the promise land (Old Testament) or the city on the hill (New Testament) to rally the crowds, to promote a bill, or filabuster a colleague's plan.

The conservatives during political campaigns urge us to remove the scaffolding that has been built up around our Constitution, a maze of court decisions, layers of codes, and reams of bills and laws, choking off access to the original structure.

The liberals during political campaigns urge us to see the structure as still crumbling and unfinished, in need of more scaffolding, not less, more carpenters, brick layers, hod carriers, right down to the tiniest nail and brad.

Over time, it has been easier to believe that a government is kind, benign and well-intentioned than to trust and believe in the goodness and decency of our neighbor, or even ourselves. After all, we don't even live up to our own standards, we'd better slap on another layer of government to make sure we do and say the right things.

Although I'm a Christian, I'm not a Dispensationalist--I don't pour over biblical texts to piece together a theory of end times and use that as a reason to believe. But no matter who is preaching that theme, my high school classmate Dave who sends out via e-mail teachings exhorting us to believe, or the TV/radio preacher, or the pastor in your church, I've noticed that the United States doesn't seem to be remotely included in any of those texts.

And that does worry me. Do you suppose we should stop standing on the Bible and start believing it?

Poverty in America--we can end it

That's a slogan of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, not George W. Bush, John Edwards or Charlie Rangel.

No one who's ever read a government, foundation or religion report believes poverty will end, especially not in the United States because the bar is always being raised. It's not "poverty" that energizes politicians to ask for more taxes or para church organizations to seek donations, it's the income gap. Those on the bottom are in poverty, even if my early 1970s SAHM life style in the educated middle class was a pretty close match with today's poverty. No air conditioning, one older car, one TV set, no cable, no computer, no dinners out, no vacations. It was mac and cheese at the end of the month; sewing the kids' clothes; postponing repair projects until we had the money. Everyone we knew lived the same way.



The good news is that the USA is the land of opportunity and the percent of change was 90% in the bottom quintile of income 1996-2004--people who will have moved up and out within the next decade--and they have been doing that at least since the 1950s according to a new Treasury Dept. report. Many of the poor of the 1990s are now in the top quintile, because the bottom always includes young people starting out willing to make sacrifices and take risks.

Today's face of poverty, however, does have a distinct, unchanging look--women and children, some recent immigrants, the unhealthy, disabled, and elderly with no family. The bad news is new poor will flood in across the border (our poverty looks pretty good to them). The bad news is we loose to death and injury more young people on our roads in one year than we lost in 4 in Iran and Iraq. Many will never again be a productive citizen and will need care and assistance. The bad news is we have many children born pre-maturely, with their first 3 months of life costing a million dollars. Even choosing a Caesarian a week or two early causes death and injury to be paid for down the road. Neither private insurance or SCHIP will solve a million dollar hospital bill. They may never be healthy--they may always need more medical care, extra help in school and modified work environment.

The bad news is many people will by choice addle their brains with alcohol and drugs, decreasing their intelligence and ability to earn a living for themselves or their families down the road, or their ability to help others. The bad news is that some people will inherit diseases or conditions for which there is no cure, only modified living arrangements, and they will need some type of help the rest of their lives.

The worst news about poverty is that young woman you see above, barely hanging on. There are too many children being raised by unmarried mothers, with Uncle Sam as a distant and uncaring step-father, while the real "daddy" hangs out with his buddies and shows up just to get a loan or make a sperm deposit. Even if she eventually finishes high school and gets a grant to complete some college, her chances of giving her children what her married friends have are slim to none. Marriage of the parents is the best safety net a child can have--her chances of growing up in poverty are extremely slim if only her mother had made better choices about sex.

Poverty shouldn't be a slogan or a bumper sticker to be trotted out by politicians or preachers to get your vote or money. You are obligated by God to help, assist and love the poor. The poor are not obligated to be your feel-good project or "teach" your teens about life for a school requirement.

You are never obligated to close the gap between quintiles by reducing or taking the incomes of others, nor do you need to stand in the way of those who are trying to escape it--which many poverty programs do. You are not obligated to help the wealthy, fair-skinned Mexican government officials continue to be irresponsible and neglectful of its own brown children, by inviting people to cross the border for money to send home, and stay here illegally, decimating their culture and villages.