You Are A Great American!

The news has been full of Joe the Plumber lately. I understand that many on both sides of this election feel that Joe is a lightning rod representing what is right or wrong with this country or the candidates. I get it! I really do! I just don't really feel Joe the Plumber. But today I talked to Kim.

Taking advantage of the opportunity, I performed my civic duty and voted early. After that I went to a small nail salon, where I hoped to get the hand damages caused by a week of working on my car erased. My technician, a small woman of Vietnamese origin, told me that she also had risen early to vote this morning. She spoke softly, yet passionately about how important it was to her to vote. Listening to her talk, I became curious about how she came to the United States and I asked her. This is Kim's story.

Her husband worked for the Americans in Vietnam during the war so afterwards he became a target for reprisals. Kim helped hide him, but after three or four name changes it became obvious that he would eventually be caught and either tortured or killed for his role . The family thus decided to come to America. They were able to finally leave Vietnam in 1979. The family had one Malaysian dollar when they arrived in this country and neither of them spoke English.

Kim’s husband started going to school to learn English while she cared for her two small daughters. Without language skills a job was hard to come by so Kim and her husband spent the days searching through dumpsters for aluminum cans that they could sell. They spent some and saved some. Eventually they saved enough money to buy a very old used truck which they used to collect and sell even more cans. Always, they saved money and Kim said “We are in a new country, we have to learn about the country and learn English if we are going to be able to do anything here.” After her husband finished school, he was able to obtain a job at Sears. It was nothing big, but he finally had a job in America. Kim then started going through the short course to “learn about America and English.” While the children were in school, she went out and collected cans so that the family could save some money. When money really got tight, Kim would go to the dumpsters behind food stores to retrieve food that although outdated was still edible. Thus she fed the family.

Kim finished her English class and then she went to a school to learn how to do nails. She got her license as a nail technician and that is how I met her. Kim is always at the shop. I have seen her when she is not feeling well and when she is in great spirits. I have seen her when the shop was busy and when the shop was so empty that I wondered how she was able to make any money. What I have never seen was Kim in a bad mood or feeling sorry for herself.

Kim recited her story in a very low-keyed, matter-of-fact manner, seeking neither acclamation nor commiseration from me. She just explained how she had been able to make it in America through hard work and effort. She is proud of her husband and she is proud of her children.

At the end of her story Kim looked at me and said. “I don’t know everything about the candidates or their parties. I don’t know everything about politics in America. I do know that in America we were able to make a life and I do know that I have to vote. I hope that whoever wins this election makes decisions that make things better for all Americans, I am so proud to be here.” She is an American citizen and she is the American dream personified!

I was profoundly moved and awed with what one small woman had endured to get here and to succeed here. I wished she could tell her story to everyone that is not proud of their country or who feels that this country is a mean-spirited or evil place. Words failed me though and I could not tell Kim how moved I was by her story. It is later now and I now know what I wanted to say this morning.

"Kim, You're A Great American!”

Free Will, Pro-Choice and the Abortion Question

I find myself challenging those that defend killing an unborn infant as; an election of free will given by God; vindicated by the supreme court as a constitutionally protected right; and celebrated as pro-choice by liberals. I choose to fight for life and here is my reasoning.

There is Good and Evil...

The philosophers Plato and Augustine both agreed on the existence of good and evil, and both thought it ultimately best that good prevail. Yet they fundamentally disagreed on the origin and nature of good and evil. Simply put, Plato argued that evil was caused by ignorance of good and resulted in men ignoring the wise and good direction of the state. Augustine asserted that evil was caused when men turned from God's good ill. Plato thus represented more the worldly view and Augustine the spiritual. However, even with this apparent agreement there remained an important question. Who defines what is good and what is evil?

My Theodicy...

Philosophers and theologians alike have struggled with the origin and nature of evil, perhaps even more than good. There are those who using their own experience argue that cataclysmic evil events such as the holocaust prove to them that God does not care. There are others who will attempt to use logic to argue that if God is omnipotent and the creator of everything, then God created evil, and if God created evil or allows it to exist in spite of his omnipotence he cannot be good, therefore there can be no God. Yet and this is critical, I do not come now to debate the existence of GOD; good; or evil. That battle has been joined and won, in my heart. GOD is.

I believe that in order for moral evil to exist, logically there must also exist a moral agent that defines it as evil. The pre-existence and post-existence of moral evil relative to my own existence thus dictates that I cannot be that moral agent. There have been and continue to be failures of the law and government to define evil; the Holocaust was lawful in Germany, yet few would argue that it was anything other than evil; Slavery was lawful in the United States, yet few would say that it was not evil. (And note here that I am not making a case of moral relativism between the holocaust and slavery!) These failures challenge any attempt to make the society, law or the government the moral agent that defines evil. It also is apparent to me that the moral agent must not only rightly define evil, it must be eternally and absolutely true.

To my agnostic friend who states that absolute truth does not exist, I ask, "Are you absolutely sure, that is absolutely true?"

In human history and in all of recorded time, there is only one entity that has the arguably provable attribute of being both eternal and absolute. There is therefore only one entity that can logically be the moral agent defining what is good and what is evil and that is GOD.

In Job 9:9, He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south; In Job 9:10, He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. Psalms 19 declares "The Heavens are telling of the glory of God." I believe that God is good and true without reservation or doubt. I believe that he expresses his personal will in the Bible and in interactions in my life through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

On Free Will...

A loved one reminded me that God does indeed give us free will, but he does not help us to make wrong choices. In fact, he stands by to aid us to escape the snares of wrong choices that end in sin.

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 1 Corinthians 10:13

Surely then we as Christians in a secular society, ought not to further the selection of immoral choices, but ought to seek to provide 'a way to escape' when the temptation is to kill the outcome (a baby) to avoid a perceived problem, whether that is illegitimacy or other issue.

The moral imperative defined by the Bible and generally endorsed by every legal system in the world is, Thou shall not commit murder. There is no need for separation of church and state here simply because the moral direction of the church and the self interest of the state are in coincidental agreement. The church ought not support the state attempt to sponsor the evil that is the murder of infants. Also note: Murder is defined as unjustly killing a person, especially with malice aforethought. This definition of murder then excludes the taking of a life through capital punishment and the taking of a life in war or self defense. This will trouble some who desire to morally equate abortion with war and/or capital punishment for the sake of argument.

On pro-choice...

There are those who assert, that as God has given us free will, we must not seek to impose our will or beliefs on others. They state, "I am pro-choice. I personally oppose abortion, but I will not seek to force my beliefs on others". Friends, this is a sophist's trick, used to lull a struggling conscience into acquiescence with the unconscionable. It is full of piety of expression, yet as ineffective at hiding blame as Pontius Pilate's hand washing.

Imagine asserting "I am personally against rape,but I will not seek to force my beliefs on any rapist!" Our country and our society exist largely based upon forced beliefs; we call them laws. We believe that stealing is wrong and we force that belief on everyone through law. We believe that child and spousal abuse is wrong and we force that on everyone through law. We believed that slavery was wrong and over 500,000 Americans were killed in the civil war to stop its spread and end the practice while maintaining our Union. We believe that murder is wrong and no one has a right to commit murder. And yet, even though our society has laws, individuals still make choices. For example, there is no mechanism for prior constraint, therefore, every human alive, daily has the choice to commit a murder or not. That choice however is not free of penalty. Since society believes it is wrong, a capital murder may result in capital punishment up to the loss of the perpetrator's life. Every choice, even though freely made, has a cost.

The founding document of our country also may be seen to argue against abortion. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that ...they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet though we assent that people including babies, are granted those rights by their creator; some assert a right to prevent babies from being born. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that when a person is denied the right to be born, all other rights are unavailable to them. Therefore, birth is the ultimate civil right! To then support abortion puts one in the position of a penitent before a judge who confesses guilt and then pleads ignorance of the law. Since knowledge of the law is what produces guilt, the plea of ignorance must ever fail. This choice is not free.

I believe that every soul is known to God eternally, that life begins at conception and that the abortion of an infant is murder. GOD, the only true moral agent, has declared murder to be a sin. It does not matter that for the short term, the state says abortion is lawful. Lest we forget, the holocaust was lawful in Nazi Germany, yet on the day of the Nuremberg judgments, those that attempted to defend themselves by claiming that they were only following the law (obeying orders) were hanged. How much more terrible might be the judgment day of God.

I am also pro-choice, that is in favor of making a choice, but my choice is to fight against murder. That choice is declared as morally good by God the author of the universe and the definer of good and evil. It is an eternal judgment, not subject to the vicissitudes of societal mores. Those that believe that God is; must not wash their hands of his judgments. Those that support civil rights would do well to acknowledge that all other rights flow from being born. Those who argue for a woman's right to choose should be aware that approximately half of the 1.5 million babies aborted each year are females forever deprived of the right to choose anything.

The choice...

I have and I hope convincingly argued that the force of moral law as well as civil liberties are against the murder of infants for the sake of convenience. I have argued that the definitions of good and evil are made and displayed by God. I have argued that the Law of God is superior to temporal law; eternally justified, absolutely right and infinite in scope of application.

If however, you believe that there is no higher power in the universe to whom we must eventually answer; if you believe that there is no GOD, then I can reason with you no further. The Bible declares that one that says that there is no GOD cannot be more than a fool and wisdom may not be imputed to such a one. (Psalm 14:1, Proverbs 1:7). I will however leave those with a cautionary anecdote. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist church, spoke of finding this epitaph on the gravestone of a notorious gambler.

Here lies a dicer; long in doubt
If death could kill the soul, or not:
Here ends his doubtfulness; at last
Convinced; -- but, ah! the die is cast!

So you see I am indeed pro-choice, I just have another choice in mind. The choice to fight for what we know is right or to wash our hands of the matter. If you believe abortion is wrong, support a candidate that also believes abortion is wrong.


Fence sitting hurts your backbone!

So, with apologies to the Pizza Ad on TV...

Before the die is cast, What do you want on Your Tombstone?

Yes! She was that good!

Gov. Palin is the self described 'Pit bull with lipstick" that has changed the tone of this campaign and the history of American women and politics. Today, no one in America, will say “Sarah who?” She was just that good!

After watching the Gov. Palin speech and the crowd reaction in the hall, I will paraphrase the famous words of Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbour: “I fear all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill them with a terrible resolve. Critics in the liberal media and in the Obama camp will regret having piled on. Most observers agree that it was perhaps the greatest political performance we have ever witnessed.

There are those who think that with the selection of Sarah Palin, the GOP was pandering to the Hillary supporters and women; NOT SO! Senator John McCain has led the GOP in firing the first shot in a culture war for the very soul of America. This has remarkably energized the conservative base and I think will resonate with many independents as well. It presents a picture of people aspiring to be better than their lowest natures and sometimes failing, but still holding onto high moral values and ideals. On the opposing side we have people that say if you cannot hit the mark, we should make the target larger, or lower the passing score. They say that America is a failure and corrupt among the nations of the world. They believe that religion and guns are symbols of bitterness. The McCain/Palin ticket offers a view that is more in sync with the majority of Americans.

Democrats and liberals don't know how to respond. Their panicked, stuttering responses only hint at the turmoil that is going on within the ranks of liberal partisans. McCain/Palin has taken the matra of change, sliced it up, and served it to the Obama campaign. That Obama and company do not yet really know what hit them is what should worry anyone thinking that the inexperienced, junior senator from Illinois has either the experience or the judgement to be president of the US. Palin made that obvious.

Yes! She was just that good.

A few other quotes:

Governor Mike Huckabee: “I am tired of the Democrats claiming that the Republicans are the party of fat cats, that to be a Republican you must be born with silver stockings and a silver spoon in your mouth, while the Democrats are the party of the common man. I did not join the Republican Party because I was rich; but because I was poor and I did not want to wait for the government to better my situation.”

Mayor Giuliani: “Senator Obama has not run a city, a state or even any type of business… The president cannot vote ‘Present’.”

Governor Palin: “In small towns, people support their country in good times and bad and small town people are always proud of their country.”

Morality doesn't live there anymore. It never did!

I discussed with a young(er) associate of mine the moral lapses of a former presidential candidate and his subsequent downfall. I asserted that we had the right to demand high moral standards from those that sought to lead us. My friend acknowledged the fall of John Edwards, but seemed to me to miss the main point. He asserted that the source of our national moral failures was the moral failure of our leadership. This seemingly fine point would place an ambiguous, collective responsibility for moral behavior on the nebulous 'government' and absolve individuals of their responsibility for moral behavior. I had to reply, and I will share with you some thoughts on the source of morality.

Xxxxx,

One thing that you wrote mandates my reply. You asserted that morals begin at the top with government leadership. My friend, that is just plain wrong. Morality starts at the bottom with you and I as led by God and is then ascendant into the government.

The Bible recounts the story of Mary’s visit to the tomb of Jesus after his death. When Mary approached the tomb to see her slain savior one last time, she met an angel who asked, “Why seek ye the living, among the dead?” I similarly challenge you, "Why seek good among the Godless?" Moral behavior, wisdom, courage, integrity and every positive trait that we possess or seek to obtain are attributes of our personal character. They originate within the individual, are based upon our individual beliefs, are properly derived from our personal relationship with God and then are inculcated in institutions such as government by the choices and actions of men and women of character, participating in those institutions. Nota bene, two stipulations, moral character or righteousness is an individual and personal trait and it is properly based upon ones belief in God. I do not believe that it is possible for men to be good based solely upon the actions of their government. Nor are men condemned solely by the actions of their government, nor yet is unrighteousness excused due to government action or inaction. Not every German was a Nazi, nor was following their government's immoral orders exculpatory for those that were.

There are two political systems which have tried to make men good from the outside in; socialism and communism. The results have been absolute failure. Winston Churchill famously said, "Socialism can only work in two places; Heaven where they don't need it; and hell where they already have it!" Even religious systems that sought the salvation of men solely through strict adherence to rules, such as Judaism and Islam have largely failed to change the nature of man. When Jesus said, “I come that you might have life and have it more abundantly”, he was asserting that man is a perfectly created, yet flawed and imperfect creature through sin; in need of salvation, but not capable of saving himself through his own efforts. That is why we cannot seek to find Godly behavior among the Godless, and why I reject the notion that moral good must begin and end with the government. My behavior is my responsibility, however, the government should encourage moral behavior.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. As a Christian, I believe that my faith ought to be reflected in everything that I do, including my politics. I cannot support any individual that says that he or she believes in God, but who supports ungodly things. People that do not behave in a moral fashion as led by a Godly belief system are untrustworthy to govern. Now notice that this does not mean that those in power are or may be perfect, nor does it mean that we are not to obey those with authority over us because of their imperfections. It does make it a moral responsibility to seek moral leadership, but not so that they may lead us to morality, but so they will not impede us.

My last point. In the current presidential race, one candidate is all over the place enthusiastically, even evangelically proclaiming a constitutional right to be a sodomite and a baby killer. He asserts that an unborn infant can be killed because it is not yet human. In spite of his assertion that claim is not supported by medical, scientific, moral or ethical truths. I will quote a learned and profound friend of mine who observed “If a person does not have the right to be born, all other rights are moot!”

The Bible states “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Therefore if a man would be wise, he must acknowledge a higher authority than his political affiliation and the mores of the current age. I can not select a leader that does not grasp that concept.

I remain your friend, saved by grace and flawed but fabulous.

Is America worth saving?

Friends, today I just have one question. Do you think our society is worth saving?

The following is excerpted from a review by Barbara McLintock, contributing editor to The Tyee (a Canadian publication) of American Backlash: The Untold Story of Social Change in the United States by Michael Adams as published by Viking Canada. Note, this is a Canadian view of events in the U.S. Still, it is one of the deeper and more sobering analyses of political divisions in society that I've read in quite a while. It is not a political rant, rather a study of the belief systems supporting political activity and those implications. As such I think the thoughts are worth consideration, no matter where one is on the political spectrum.

Call them Democrats vs Republicans in the U.S., or New Democrats vs Conservatives here in Canada. Ask any random sample of citizens, and the answer would almost certainly be the same: voters for these parties are representative of big divides in the key values of our society. Those who believe in the same values as George W. Bush don't share many values with those who voted for John Kerry.

Now, a massive public opinion poll conducted in the U.S. shows that those traditional beliefs don't hold true any more - and the key differences in values in American society are much scarier than those between Democrat and Republican supporters. The poll was undertaken by the highly-respected polling company, Environics, and the results are published in a new book, American Backlash, written by the polling firm's Canadian president, Michael Adams.

The key finding of the poll, which surveyed more than 8,000 citizens in four waves from 1992 through 2004, is that the differences between Democrats and Republicans are small indeed compared with the gulf that divides those who vote and participate in the democratic process, and those who do not. The values divide gets even bigger when one looks at the values of the politically involved with the thousands of young adults who appear to have become so disenchanted by the political process that they are completely alienated from political activity in any form.

In the last elections in Canada, numerous pundits have decried the lack of interest among young voters in participating in the process. However, the Environics poll shows that this lack of interest is not going to be easily cured, because it is a symptom and not a cause in and of itself.

Types of non-voters

The poll did not consider only what citizens thought about issues like gay marriage or taxation policy or welfare reform. Instead, it used more than 600 questions to drill down to try to discern the deeper values that led to someone's beliefs on those controversial issues. The questions asked not only about the respondents' views on politics and political life, but their views on consumerism, on environmental issues, on multiculturalism, even on beliefs in the supernatural.

The analysis of the results then focused on the question of which values most drove: those who voted Republican, those who voted Democrat, and those who didn't vote at all. It was the values of those who didn't vote – the "politically disengaged" as the study calls them - which were growing fastest over the past decade.

The values, they found, fell into three categories - none of which would appear to be much cause for optimism for those looking at the future of the democratic state. The three: Risk-taking and thrill-seeking; Darwinism and exclusion; and, consumption and status-seeking.

The non-voters appear particularly attracted to things that give them "strong jolts of sensation" - extreme sports, gambling, realistic video games, and psychotropic drugs. None of these are likely to encourage people to make good judgments about their own lives - or about what should happen in their communities or the larger society.

Darwinism on the rise
Even more worrying, however, is the rise in the values that Adams categorizes as "Darwinism and exclusion." Those who embrace these values, he writes, demonstrate "a mindset that sees brutal competition as a natural, exhilarating, and even cleansing condition for human coexistence ...a dog-eat-dog world in which winners win by any means necessary, including violence, and losers get what they deserve - and are unworthy of sympathy or help."

In fact, the single fastest-growing value in the U.S. over the 12 years covered by the study was "acceptance of violence." It, and those values that support it, are certainly not the dominant values among American citizens at this time - but they are the values that are growing in acceptance faster than any others. And they are growing fastest among young people. When those aged 15 to 20 were asked to agree or disagree with the statement, "It's acceptable to use physical force to get something you really want," a full 38 per cent agreed. These values are also espoused by much higher numbers of the politically disengaged than by either Republicans and Democrats.

The over-all conclusion, Adams suggests, is that Republicans and Democrats both believe in the same over-arching vision. They believe that the state is a valuable tool to improve life for all citizens, that citizens have a responsibility to their community and to the larger society, and that the democratic process will lead to the best possible outcome for the largest possible number of citizens. They disagree, in fact, only on the details - the details of how much the state should provide help to the poor or tax relief to businesses, how much and what sort of aid should be given to developing countries, how far changes should go to guarantee principles like gender equity and equal treatment for immigrants.

Haters of politics
The politically disaffected, on the other hand, do not share this vision. They see political life as corrupt or ineffective or both, and have become convinced that the only person you can or should depend upon is yourself in this "survival of the fittest" culture.

The Environics poll did not study the responses of any Canadians, nor does it purport to be expressing Canadian views. At least until the latest federal election, it argues, Canada's values, like those of Western Europe, appeared to be moving in the direction of greater tolerance and acceptance of differences. That may be changing with the new agenda brought in by Harper's Conservatives. And there's no question that the proportion of young adults interested in voting is decreasing with every election that comes around.

The most significant question may be not just how to persuade young adults to vote; but how to persuade them that voting is part of a system of community that is worth working for, as well as voting for. If we lose that battle, we are indeed in for some difficult days ahead. That question however, needs much more than just a political answer.

Universal Health Care? Just Say NO!!!

The Democratic platform calls for a universal health care system to be implemented. This government run system would provide mandatory health coverage for everyone in the country. The idea is supported by the usual liberal elite. These folk fervently support a government run public school system for everyone else; but then send their children to private schools. and loudly endorse a government run health care system, but will not be be using those government facilities either. What do they know, that you may not? Read on and just say NO!

This shocking video shows a woman writhing on the floor for about an hour before dying at Kings County Hospital, while people around her, including hospital security guards, did nothing to help. Here is the rest of the story.

Esmin Green, a 49 year old hospital patient, and native of the island of Jamaica, was taken to the mental unit at Kings County Hospital in New York, for what was described as "agitation". She fell out of her chair at 5:32a.m. on June 19th. She had been sitting about 3 feet from an observation window where she would have been in view of hospital staff. Two other patients were in the waiting room with her.

Green was lying face down on the floor, her legs splayed, when a security guard walked by at 5:53 a.m. He looked at her for about 20 seconds and walked away.

She was writhing on the floor, thrashing her legs, about 6 a.m., when an entry in her medical chart states she was "awake, up and about and went to the bathroom."

She rolled on her back at 6:04a.m and stopped moving at 6:08 a.m. Two minutes later a security guard pushed his chair into camera view. He never got out of the chair, but looked at Green and scooted away. A female mental patient finally brought a hospital staffer to check the woman.

Her medical chart claims she was "sitting quietly in [the] waiting room" at 6:20 a.m., although she was already dead at that time. The cause of death has not been reported.

After about an hour, a patient finally got the attention of hospital workers. Two security guards have been fired, along with four other staffers.

Hospital staff also may have falsified medical charts to attempt to hide the lack of treatment provided the patient before she died. The hospital was already under investigation by the Brooklyn U.S. attorney's civil rights unit.

"We are shocked and distressed by this situation," the Health and Hospitals Corp. said in a statement.

By the way, the patient had been waiting for almost 24 hours to be seen prior to this incident. The Kings County Hospital is government operated and funded. Anyone else for Universal Government Health Care?

Why am I not Surprised???

Obama’s Church Has Won $15M in Federal Grant Money

by FOXNews.com

Monday, June 2, 2008

Trinity United Church of Christ (FNC Photo)

By Jeff Goldblatt

Across America seven days a week, parents drop their kids at day care centers, which are supported by funding from the federal government.

But what makes one facility noteworthy in inner city Chicago is that it’s run by Trinity United Church of Christ. It’s the same church whose former head pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, drew widespread scrutiny after he cursed the U.S. government for its treatment of African-Americans.

FOX News has learned that over the last 15 years, Trinity has received at least $15 million in grants from the federal government — in other words, taxpayer money.

Records show this money supported a variety of outreach: everything from low income housing to nutritional programs for needy kids to money for HIV/AIDS education. Wright blames the government for intentionally infecting the African-American community with that deadly virus.

DePaul University journalism professor Laura Washington, who specializes in race and politics, said Wright is a hypocrite for taking money from the government.

“On the one hand, he says, ‘God damn America’ and he says America is responsible for all the ills in the black community. On the other hand, he’s taking money from the same community he’s crucifying,” Washington said.

But another scholar who specializes in religion and politics says Wright never swore off government funding like ultra-nationalist Black Muslims have.

Andrew Walsh, associate director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life with Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., said Wright’s practices fall in line with his preaching.

“Wright believes things like the government-funded programs are a necessary compensation for the legacy of white racism, part of what’s necessary to heal the wounds inflicted over four centuries on blacks. His niche is even more specialized– he does this sort of work in the context of white denominational mainline Protestantism, which, on the whole has welcomed both him and his message.”

So, how did Trinity, given Wright’s controversial criticism of the government, get millions of dollars in handouts from Washington over the years?

Democratic presidential candidate and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama says the grants didn’t come with any of his help, despite 20 years of membership at Trinity.

In fact, after the Obama campaign learned FOX News was working on this report, it released a statement saying, “Barack Obama did not work to secure grant money for Trinity United Church of Christ while serving in the Illinois state Legislature or Congress.”

But Jay Shafritz, an author and professor emeritus of public administration from the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, says at some level, politics invariably influences how government grant money is awarded.

“This is very much a sophisticated operation of convincing the people in government that you are the most deserving person, because these grants are very often competitive,” he said.

“It’s very much like good old fashioned patronage. In the old days, political machines had jobs to give their constituents. Nowadays, they offer them grants,” Shafritz continued.

Shafritz examined the grant documents provided by FOX News and found no wrongdoing.

Yet, he said there’s no way to know exactly how Trinity spent its millions in taxpayer money, since grant awards usually afford some latitude for discretionary use. He stressed that it’s clear the grants have helped Wright grow his once tiny ministry into a massive empire.

“Before he embarrassed himself on national television with his rantings, he was a very, very sophisticated guy in terms of growing organizations. He knew how the game was played and he played it very well. But he’s not unique,” he said.

Nationwide, African-American churches have used this kind of funding to pump investment into inner-city neighborhoods as a means of growing support — religious scholars say largely so under the Bush administration, when faith based grants increased significantly.

“For these organizations, federal funding for things like senior centers or drug treatment programs or affordable housing helps them get where they want to go,” Walsh said.

Trinity United refused comment on this story. But Wright, who officially retired on Monday, has long defended the legacy of community outreach provided by Trinity, which he founded 36 years ago.

But Washington says if Wright felt it was OK to get resources from the government, the church shouldn’t preach against it.

“It’s a dangerous thing to do because there’s a reason that the government gives that kind of support to the church. If the church bites the hand that feeds them, maybe that support is going to end.”

Once again the pandering Pastor proves that he is pimping race. Obama has been molded, his words by his 20+ year association with rRev. Wright. This guy shouldn't even have a job, much less be seeking to be POTUS.

Living 'Wright' is it's Own Reward

An investigation revealed where Barack Obama's Pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright will be spending his time in retirement. It is a far cry from the impoverished Chicago streets where this shepherd led his flock.

FOX News found documents that show that Wright will move to a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home in suburban Chicago, currently under construction in a gated community.

Rev. Wright has done well, well, well in this bad, bad, bad Amerikkka that he so roundly damns. It seems that convincing poor people that you understand their poverty and have a scapegoat pays well. Barack Obama and his wife have also done well materially, although I'm sure that his wife is not proud of it.

Funny, I thought that the verse said "Feed my Sheep" not "Fleece Them."

Don't I Know You From Somewhere..?

The Clinton campaign has been ever so circumspect on the guilt by association issue tormenting Barack Hussein Obama in recent weeks. Here is a link to what may be one reason that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been so quiet. At a prayer breakfast in 1998, with more than 100 invited religious leaders in attendance, Bill Clinton confessed his sins relative to Monica Lewinsky. Just hours later, the scandal would explode with the introduction of the infamous 'Stained Blue Dress.' Obama's controversial Pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright shown here with Clinton, was one of the invited guests.

The story suggests that both factions of the party may have no qualms about associating with the race-baiting Wright when it suits their needs. Hillary's newly released schedules show that she also attended this breakfast.

This might lead one to suspect that Hillary Clinton's caution was born of her own knowledge of past associations, rather than any desire to keep the Democrat primary campaign above mud-slinging.

Let me see if I've got the facts correct about both situations:
William Jefferson Clinton: Invites hundreds of ministers, among them Jeremiah Wright, to the White House for a prayer breakfast, followed by a contrite confession, poses for pictures with the ministers then sends them home.

Barack Hussein Obama: Sits in the pews at Trinity Church for more than two decades, was married by Jeremiah Wright, makes financial donations to the church, makes Pastor Wright his mentor and confidante, claims that he never heard any racist comments by his Pastor, retracts that statement in a speech, says he had heard such comments but disagrees with them (although, he continued to come and listen), compares his White grandmother to Jeremiah Wright, then belatedly defends her honor by saying his grandmother was just a 'typical White person'.

Equivalent? I think not!

The story behind the story: This photo was obtained from a Blog belonging to a member of the Trinity church and was released to the news media by the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign is trying to divert attention from what is seen by many as a flaw in either his character or his judgement. So, Wright's church called Obama's campaign and offered them material to use in Obama's defense; Obama's campaign thought that the two cases were similar (or wants you to think that they are); Obama's campaign released this to CNN and CNN published it. Yep, now you've got it! Wright's church was the 'deep throat' for this story on Clinton! Wow, I actually used 'deep throat' and Clinton in the same sentence. That was troubling!

Meanwhile, Obama's campaign fired a woman who stated that Hillary was a 'lying Monster' but today Obama said that Hillary had character flaws and she was a persistent liar. I guess that part about her being a 'monster' was too much, casting an unwarranted aspersion on real monsters...

And thus the Obama campaign for 'change' differs from the 'same, old, tired politics'.

How???

Our Flag is not a Virgin Pin

I watched Barack Obama's speech about race and thought he did a fine job until he opened his mouth. Things then began to slide down hill as with all of the eloquence at his command, Barack tried to make the ship of state look like a sinking canoe, the progress in this country look like regression and a sinner look like a saint. In short he tried to make gilded plates look like cow chips and the reverse also.

After an entire campaign of saying that we shouldn't talk about race, Obama now says that we must. Funny, I thought that awkward and painful dialogue was going on all of the time, even though frequently carried on by race pimps, charlatans and hucksters. His Pastor for instance, seems to have only one conversation and that is about racial insults and injury. But of course Barack would not hear the conversation going on in the country, after all he says he sat in his church for more than two decades and didn't hear anything. Despite their great good fortune and achievement, Obama and Wright exaggerate racial issues and minimize racial progress, I am not surprised that Obama's wife is not proud of such a country. This portrayal does no good for either the country or those that they profess to serve. Obama himself is a result of racial transformation in this country, otherwise his father would have been jailed and his mother cast aside for their interracial marriage.

I was also somewhat astounded at the way that Obama treated his Grandmother. This was the white woman who raised him after his Black fathers, (yes, both of them) abandoned him and his white mother. In the Black community and in the Black value system, both professed to be held in such high regard by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, we don't disrespect our mothers and grandmothers! Barack betrayed his Grandmother by revealing then comparing the confidential conversations between this loving woman and himself with the ravings of a misguided racist. Barack and Wright do not seem to be bitter, frustrated or powerless, so possibly they are trying to gain authenticity as being Black. They both may need to actually look at the Black community, rather than continue to portray a stereotype of that community.



There was one other thing that I noted and I have not seen any commentary on the point. Barack Obama made his entry and stood on a stage surrounded by American flags. There were at least six flags on the podium.


Hmmmm.

This is the patriot Obama that will not wear a lapel pin because he doesn't want to display the flag, that phony symbol of patriotism.

This is the Christian Obama who believes that neither he nor anyone else is going to heaven or hell and that every faith is the same (Falsani interview, Sun Times, 4/5/2004).

This is the post-race or no-race Obama who nevertheless appeals to some people and panders to others based upon race and whose mentor has made a living at this for more than forty years.

Senator Obama, your wife is ashamed of this country and our flag; your pastor damns the country and our flag; you agree with both of them as shown by your willingness to maintain your union and your silence. You are a remarkably malleable fellow as regards your beliefs, you seem to be quite adept at adopting the view and belief that you need for the moment without the inconvenience of principle. You specialized in either voting present or claiming that your votes were unintentional in the Illinois legislature. This was a fine legislative trick, enabling you to vote yes, yet have the record reflect that you intended to vote no on the issue. You have been able to avoid staking any claim on a matter of principle. Your vaunted and eloquent calls for change lacks specifics. You seemed to respond to this issue only when the polls showed your ratings dropping after the publicity over the 'appalling sermons'. Yet you will not disavow your so-called mentor for what he has said and still is saying.

I do have one question, and I don't expect an answer. Why did you drape yourself in the very flag that you have previously, proudly besmirched through your silence. A flag on your stage is like a virgin pin on a prostitute; it may look good, but it means nothing. If you really don't like our country, say so and run on that premise, you might even win. Unlike any country that you could pick to emulate, you can actually say that here.

Pictures Don't Lie!

Ray Nagin (left), the Mayor who fiddled and fumed while New Orleans floated, 'playfully' points an assault weapon at the New Orleans Chief of Police in this recent photo.

Nagin, you may remember was the Mayor that cried and cursed that the federal government was not doing enough to aid New Orleans during and after hurricane Katrina, while 400+ buses, that his own plan called for use to evacuate the city, went unused and were eventually flooded in the cities parking lots.

• Not a single New Orleans resident was evacuated from the city by the city government, in spite of an evacuation plan that the Mayor signed a year prior to the hurricane.
• Claiming "God told me that New Orleans should be a Chocolate City", Ray Nagin was re-elected Mayor of New Orleans after the flood. The people that were most directly harmed by his mis-management were the ones that were also fooled into supporting him by a blatant appeal to race.
• The murder rate in New Orleans after the hurricane evacuees returned was so bad that Ray Nagin called for the National Guard to assist the police. This photo in which he points a gun at the Chief of police is troubling in that it portrays Nagin's disrespect for authority, already evident in the population of the Big Easy and also demonstrates a complete disregard for safe gun-handling.
• Ray Nagin's best qualification as a Mayor is he talks a good game and in fact was a prominent radio personality. His management and organizational skills are non-existent.

Meanwhile, in another revealing photo, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama is shown dressed in the garb of a Somali Warlord or Elder. The picture was taken two years ago during a pilgrimage to Somalia by Obama.

The nation of Somalia was made famous, or infamous to most Americans, by the movie Blackhawk Down. That movie portrayed the events of an incident during the Battle of Mogadishu in October of 1993, in which Somali warlords shot down two American helicopters, mutilated and killed the crews then dragged their bodies through the streets of Somalia. Eighteen Americans died.

Is it just me or is there anyone else that wonders why Obama is visiting and honoring Somalia. Of course, his refusal to honor the Pledge of Allegiance or wear the American Flag and his wife's statement of never being proud of the United States may be explained by examining just what Obama is proud of.

Ray Nagin and Barack Obama have many similarities beyond the obvious. They are both Democrats; they are both charismatic; they are both very popular within their communities; they are both newly elected, inexperienced officials; they both lack judgment; they both talk a better game than they play and here is one more. Ray and Obama, I know your mothers tried to raise you better!

Comments from the Country

A friend sent this picture of a sign hanging on the Bates, MS Muffler Shop. You must admit, it is refreshingly blunt!

Bill the Rea... whoops ... Dreamer!

While on the campaign trail for his wife, former president Bill Clinton attended a church service honoring the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As Reverend Martin Luther King III, the son of the slain leader spoke, the former president fell asleep. Click to view video.

Now to be fair to Bill, I do believe that the Rev. MLK III is not only an uninspiring speaker, but indeed one whose girth causes the vigor of his efforts to be questioned. Yet this clip seems to confirm that the Clintons have more capacity for feigning interest in Blacks than in actually being interested. I would call that pandering.

I am ready to be corrected on this, but that's what I think!

It is Time For a Change!

A picture is worth a thousand words. Here is the picture, without comment.

"For the First Time In My Life I'm Proud"

Well, there is more from the Candidate of Hype!

Barack Hussein Obama has made much of his achievements. Remember he used to say only in America could the son of an African and an American become whatever he has become. Now his wife, in Wisconsin campaigning for him said "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of America." Oh, really!

So Michelle, the America that allowed you to meet your husband Barack, while both working at one of the largest law firms in Chicago, where you represented slum land-lords; was nothing to be proud of?

So the America that allowed your husband to move from a coke-snorting, weed-toking, alcohol-confused, young-adult 'rock' star; to a semi-responsible, populist, "rock-star" politician was nothing to be proud of?

So the America that allowed you to become Vice-President of University of Chicago Hospitals and then triple your salary when your husband became a Senator was nothing to be proud of?

So the America that allowed you and Hussein to accept a gift from a person then under investigation and now under indictment, to purchase your 1.6 million dollar home at a bargain price was nothing to be proud of?

So the America that has allowed your husband, with nothing other than the 'gift of gab' to run for President was nothing to be proud of?

Every person in this country is living better than any place else in the world. Even if you wake up homeless in the United States, you have already won a lottery that most of the other 6 billion people in the world would die to gain. Even the poor here, live better than most people in other countries. The poor here have TVs, cell phones and refrigerators. When people like Obama and Hillary say that this country is a failure it reveals either a painful naivete or a wilful attempt to mislead. They join a long parade of racial pimps and class panderers who attempt to convince you that you are unable to make it in this country, without their help. They ignore the fact that people come here from all over the world, without even English skills and make it. So can you. But not if you allow someone to say, you are helpless without me.

'My help comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth!' Obama, what have you made? Michelle; if our country is a place that you are ashamed of, why not just leave? Your husband has roots of failure in Indonesia, Africa and the United States. Pick a place where would you would feel proud to live, and where your children could do better. There is just one small problem, such a place does not exist.

I'm proud of America! We must demand no less of those who would lead.

Obama Promises Yearly Minimum Wage Increase

Once again the Jr. Senator from Illinois demonstrates why he is called "Junior". Now it's not that I'm stingy or mean-spirited, but the fact is the idea of raising the minimum wage just plain sucks. Having said that, AND THIS MIGHT HURT YOUR FEELINGS; If you are older than 18, not physically or mentally handicapped and you are still making minimum wage; then YOU have really screwed the pooch somewhere! Minimum wage jobs are not created to take advantage of individuals; they are jobs that exist because there are people that have few or no marketable skills or abilities. If you are in that group pay attention, because if Junior has his way, you may soon be making a great deal less than minimum wage! Historically whenever the minimum wage is raised the number of minimum wage earners employed is lowered. That is because when the labor costs more than the job is worth, an alternative involving automation or machinery will be purchased, and laborers will be let go. You may have noticed that there are very few minimum wage street-sweepers now, yet years ago those jobs were an entry-point for anyone who could lean on a broom. Those street sweeper positions are now filled by unionized machinery operators. They are not the same people that were formerly pushing the broom. Change always happens, but it's not always good! A candidate that promises 'change' without defining what it is should be closely scrutinized. I for one, can't wait to see what other brilliant 'change' ideas Obama has for squandering my change, while pandering to the do-nothings and the know-nothings. I'd like to see a box on the Democratic Primary ballot that says "NONE OF THE ABOVE!"