The Source

When the angels sang "Peace on earth, good will towards men". It was obviously connected in some way to the babe just born. Indeed it was

"Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."

Fascinating; read the whole thing.

Too True

Obama's inaugural choice sparks outrage

"Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month."

This is what we are talking about. The ostracising of those we don't agree with on everything. You can disagree with some of, or most of, Rick Warren's beliefs, but banning him from offering the invocation at the inaugural ceremony is the height of partisanship. It's not like he's an adviser or formulating policy.

To really cut through the crap, Jim Morin at the Miami Herald:

Merry Christmas

We wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

Rule of The Few

Time and time again the voters of California have given their elected and appointed officials a mandate to protect the traditional definition of marriage. I find it terrifying that said officials are so quick to impose the will of the few on the citizens of California. This is a mockery of the democratic process.

National Review has an impressive article California Betrayal.

Caleb's two cents:

A great find by Blog Wizard Dan. I think this quote is the meat of the article. I suggest you read it all. At least read this carefully:

"A court order invalidating Proposition 8 would also give the supreme court a super-constitutional power, above the amendment process provided for in the text of the constitution, to determine what subjects are germane to constitutional lawmaking by the people of the state. There is no other way to understand this new theory that a manufactured and unenumerated “right” can become so “fundamental” that it can no longer be the subject of a simple amendment. And, of course, who will decide whether a right has attained this stature? The California supreme court."

As the Wizard says this is a mockery of the democratic process. Basically, if the political elite in California come to hold an opinion contrary to their fellow citizens they can ban it from the amendment process. The people get no say. This interpretation of constitutional law is not isolated to California.

A most interesting thought

"It is a more important goal of government to uphold civilization than to find a general principle that will iron out all the apparent inconsistencies of the current dispensation."

City Journal: Always a good read in my experience.

Pathetic.

An Amazing Turn Around In African American Families

Great News.

"The number of black children being raised by two parents appears to be edging higher than at any time in a generation, at nearly 40 percent, according to newly released census data."

I mean check it out!

"According to the bureau’s estimates, the number of black children living with two parents was 59 percent in 1970, falling to 42 percent in 1980, 38 percent in 1990 and 35 percent in 2004. In 2007, the latest year for which data is available, it was 40 percent."

Oh wait never mind.

"The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents."

You don't solve social problems by redefining the what the problem is. This is a disservice to those the statistics are tracking and the taxpayers funding the studies. What are we going to call deficits profits now?

Want Some Killer Che Shirts?

Is China the Real Capitalist?

Looks that way.

How are they responding to the current economic slow down. Cutting business taxes.

"CHINA may soon cut business tax as part of its efforts to prop up the slowing economy amid the global financial crisis, state media reported on Tuesday.

The government is 'very likely' to soon cut the business tax for enterprises by one percentage point, the China Daily said, citing an unnamed source close to policymakers"

By comparison our solution is to effectively nationalize corporations:

"Detroit's automakers may soon be answering to a powerful "car czar," who would dole out short-term emergency loans like a kid's allowance, put them on a restructuring diet and hold veto power over any transaction of more than $25 million."

and

"The designee would have the power to "examine any books, papers, records or other data" of the companies and those of any subsidiary holding more than 50 percent of the automaker. Private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP owns an 80.1 percent stake of Chrysler."

How is this not nationalization?

We have the commies doing what needs to be done here: lowering the confiscatory burden of the government from struggling businesses, lowering the burden of the government on the people, and injecting liquidity into the markets. If we are just going to deficit spend to the tune of $700+ Billion why not just cut taxes on those that employ Americans. I'm not against spending but lets not kid ourselves. The government screws up most of what it does. Let the companies and individual Americans spend the $700 Billion.

What an embarrassment. We have to look to China for creative market oriented solution.

Few people are of this caliber -- Pray for this man as he prays for the pilot:

"A Korean immigrant who lost his wife, two children and mother-in-law when a Marine Corps jet slammed into the family’s house said Tuesday he did not blame the pilot, who ejected and survived.

“Please pray for him not to suffer from this accident,” a distraught Dong Yun Yoon told reporters gathered near the site of Monday’s crash of an F/A-18D jet in San Diego’s University City community.

“He is one of our treasures for the country,” Yoon said in accented English punctuated by long pauses while he tried to maintain his composure.

“I don’t blame him. I don’t have any hard feelings. I know he did everything he could,” said Yoon, flanked by members of San Diego’s Korean community, relatives and members from the family’s church.

Authorities said four people died when the jet crashed into the Yoon family’s house while the pilot was trying to reach nearby Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. Another, unoccupied house also was destroyed.

Yoon named the victims as his infant daughter Rachel, who was born less than two months ago; his 15-month-old daughter Grace; his wife, Young Mi Yoon, 36; and her 60-year-old mother, Suk Im Kim, who he said had come to the United States from Korea recently to help take care of the children.

Fighting back tears, he said of his daughters: “I cannot believe that they are not here right now.”
“I know there are many people who have experienced more terrible things,” Yoon said. “But, please, tell me how to do it. I don’t know what to do.”

… Yoon’s wife came to the United States about four years ago, Shin said.

Yoon spoke softly when he talked about his wife.

“It was God’s blessing that I met her about four years ago. She was a lovely wife and mother,” he said.

His voice fading, he added: “She loves me and babies. I just miss her so much.”"

Symptoms of a Greater Problem

The beleaguered American public has been consistently bombarded with dire financial tidings for the past several months. The economy is sick. New symptoms are manifesting themselves daily. Even today as we wait with bated breath to learn the fate of the Detroit Three, the ominous financial woes of the news sector flash across our computer screens. Industry across the board has felt the effects of a deepening recession. Which will be the next symptom to flash across my screen?

The New Republic has an interesting article recommending some possible solutions to the Detroit problem. I agree with a majority of Americans who believe that the automobile/manufacturing sector is an essential part of our economy. It is an industry that we can't afford to lose. Therefore I support a responsible loan to bolster viable automakers through the current crisis. That being said, this bail out business is a slippery slope. Bail out one industry and more will follow. Which will be the next industry to come a knocking?

We must keep in mind that these are all symptoms of a larger problem. If the government fails to exercise restraint in dealing with these individual symtoms, I fear a lot of money will be wasted without adequately addressing the true sickness: The subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting credit crunch. The government's number one priority must be to address this crisis, thereby restoring credit and American confidence. The lack of oversight of the 700+ billion dollar rescue package tells me that this isn't the case. It is made plainly evident by the current state of our economy, that we cannot afford to fail in addressing the subprime mortgage crisis. Fix the financial system, and the rest of the symptoms will follow.

That's A Lot of Money

The current economic crisis we are experiencing is indeed unprecedented. What is interesting is to understand in what ways it is unprecedented. There is no way to know if this crisis has reached an sort of bottom, but we do not have the 25% unemployment of the Great Depression, or near the collapse of manufacturing, in every way this economic crisis is not as bad as one has been before. What is unprecedented is the monetary expenditure the government has made in attempting to arrest the crisis. As of now the total expenditures made by the fed and government is $4.6 Trillion! I don’t think we realize how much that is. Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched some inflation adjusted numbers:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

We have outspent nearly every major government expenditure. The only other expenditure that would tip the balance is WWII. It cost 3.6 Trillion inflation adjusted. Alone, we have spent a Trillion more than WWII on this crisis. Whether or not you think these expenditures are justified, what remains true is that this is an unbelievable expenditure of money.

I am not one who says that we should not have done anything. I do however take issue with the way things have been done. We are trying to avoid a serious depression, but we should not avoid that fact that recessions and even painful recession are often and some would argue always beneficial. They work out the imbalances in the economy, they liquidate investments that did not result in profitable production, and probably most importantly they are the risk that cautions unwise future investment. This entire fiasco we are experiencing was, in the end, the result of over exuberance and the disregard of risk.

Add to that the fact that the bailout money has been utilized with zero -- zero -- oversight:

“. . . no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.”

This is turning out like any government program that fails to utilize proper oversight. I’m no economist, but I do know that humanity’s timber is crooked especially in the proximity of other people’s money

Courts vs The People

With the controversy over Proposition 8 in California, defining marriage as a union of man and woman, we have starkly seen a battle that has been playing out for many years. In the spirit of full disclosure I would have voted with reservation for Proposition 8, but whatever your opinion is concerning same sex marriage, the role of the courts in our democracy should be of concern to you. The courts over the past century, most prominently by the Warren Supreme Court (1953-1969), have expanded their role from defending constitutional rights to the creation of rights. The battle over same sex marriage in California encapsulates this issue nicely.

Lets look at what happened in California. First in the year 2000 California voters passed a state initiative defining marriage to exist between a man and woman. One must ask, why did Californians feel it necessary to put forth an initiative in 2000? Clearly, there was some measure of concern that existing California law was insufficient to contain marriage in its traditional form, and in response citizens passed the initiative with 61% of the vote. It seems that their fears in 2000 were well founded, in May of 2008 the California Supreme Court struck down the 2000 initiative as unconstitutional. Reacting to the Supreme Court decision, Proposition 8 (a constitutional amendment) was placed on the ballot by traditional marriage activists, and in no small measure was voted for in repudiation of the California Supreme Court’s decision.

Why should we be concerned with the actions of California’s Supreme Court? If you don’t live in California you should be concerned in the sense that it is a symptom of a national problem. Traditionally, the role of the court was to defend the law of the land, and a Supreme Court’s role, whether federal or state, was to defend the supreme law of the land: the constitution of the state or nation respectively. Today many justices on our national and state Supreme Courts no longer function under this guideline. They create rights and expand freedom. Why should this worry you? More freedom and rights is a good thing right? Generally speaking yes, but that assumption fails to recognize the source of our freedoms and rights. Rights dispensed by a group can be revoked by that same group. On the other hand, rights inherent to us cannot be revoked. This is the essence of rights. Rights are divinely given, or for the irreligious, inherent in our existence. They are not granted by government.

Our founders recognized this and enshrine these in the Bill of Rights. Thus, placed in the supreme law of the land, they could not be infringed upon by a powerful central authority. The protector of these rights in our system is the Supreme Court who’s duty it is to defend the Constitution. Yet, over time this role has be abdicated by many justices. Impatient for social change and unwilling to abide the pace of democracy they impose their will by expanding the meaning of the constitution in a manner pleasing to their sensibilities. Judges have a role in our democracy as a necessary check on legislative or executive excess. One of their roles is indeed to protect minority constitutional rights, and yes they have failed in the past (for example: separate but equal). Yet, such failures are not remedied by committing the same wrong act of subjective interpretation for a more preferred cause. We must preserve the fundamental rights of all Americans and let the constitutionally inherent process of amendment create and expand the rights of this nations citizens.

All Americans have an interest in preserving the integrity of the Constitution. We must support more justices like Carol A. Corrigan, who place the law above their wishes. As she said in her dissenting opinion to overturn the 2000 initiative: “In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages. But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.”

Amen.

The Change We Need

By Caleb Van Bloem and Dan Jackson
Monday, November 10, 2008

Our political discussion has become more and more rancorous, and sadly our debate seems to revolve around who can most quickly discredit the other party, rather than address the issue at hand or the proposals of the other party. These petty indulgences were once a luxury we could afford. The Cold War had been won and the nation was at peace. Yet, now many Americans believe that the challenges we face are too big to continue down this road. We must discover again: what unites us, how do we balance our different ideologies, and how do we form a more functional and civil government?

Unity:

What makes America worth fighting for? What makes the sacrifice of those who have died in its defense worth the price? Really these questions ask the larger question: what is America?

Is America a deeply flawed great power that needs radical transformation?

Alternatively, is America a source of good; a shining city, calling those who wish to live free and achieve?

Or is the answer somewhere in between?

Whatever the answer, there is something that unites us as a nation, some form of shared principles, values, and beliefs. We are not a tribal nation fighting only for family regardless of their morality. Instead, as a nation we were forged from the fires of a principled revolution, and our founding document was formed through a passionate and honest debate over what principles would animate our nation. What are those principles that we share? What keeps us together after all this time?

The vast majority of Americans believe that we each possess inherent rights, and many of those rights are enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Some Americans believe there are more rights not contained in the Bill of Rights, but most at minimum believe in those. These rights are what bind us in a common cause; a cause to defend these rights for one another and preserve a future with these same rights for our children. We can't examine every right here, but some of these rights include: the right to debate and petition government, the right to self defense, the privacy of our homes, the right to a just criminal process, and that all our laws apply equally to all citizens.

These are some of the ideals we hold in common that we can and still unite around. Let us not lose sight of these as we engage in our political debate.

Democracy:

In an election year where “change” has been a common phrase echoing from both sides of the political spectrum; it is evident that the theme has resonated with the majority of voters. While it may have become a convenient buzzword in the final months leading up to the election, it is obvious that Americans voted for change over what they felt was the status quo. Given the inherent ambiguity of the word, especially in a political context, we are left to ponder the specifics. What is the change that America voted for?

Was the “change” that the majority of Americans embraced a radical ideological shift to the left? We submit that it was not. Instead they voted for the end of a political culture that has been rendered stagnant and ineffective by years of increasing polarization, and fiscal irresponsibility.

Compromise has become increasingly rare in this day and age when the interest on one’s party is put before effective governance. In Washington, partisan power and influence are maintained at the expense of the American people. History teaches us that this type of polarization, and the obstructive practices that accompany it, is an enemy to democracy.

Americans have grown dissatisfied with the hypocrisy of a Republican party that preaches fiscal responsibility and limited government, and when in power practices the opposite. They now hope that the Democrats have managed to change their ways after they were voted out in the 1990s. Yet, if their time in the minority and two years in congressional majority is any sign of things to come, we remain quite cautious in our optimism.

Toward Loyal Opposition:

We call upon government officials on both sides of the aisle to bring about real change by ending this destructive political culture, and to work in the spirit of compromise towards effective solutions for the major issues that now face our nation. Now in the minority, Republicans need to be the loyal opposition. Opposing on principle is the strength of our republic, but loyalty is also necessary. Loyal opposition is demonstrated by reaching back when the other side reaches out in good faith and by supporting the president when they think he’s right. We do not ask America's parties to sacrifice their ideology or the right to dissent, but rather to put their nation before their party.