Politics

A Genuine Response To The State Of The Union Speech

Did you see the headlines
Little things are blown to size
It’s all around the world before you know

Last night, as I was listening to the end of President Obama’s State of the Union address and reading comments about same on Twitter, it occurred to me that I was growing very tired of it all. Tired of the endless bashing, mostly. It’s not that I’ve suddenly turned left; I thoroughly disagree with the vast majority of Obama’s philosophies, politics and practices. But that’s where it ends.

That’s where it has to end for me.

We’re living in a time
With all the borders tripped and mined
Days are gone when you could just be
Ordinary

Admitting this is probably not the best way to go as far as winning friends and influencing people on the right. In fact, that should read undoubtedly not the best way. The battle against liberalism has become a personal vendetta. Not permissible in my case. Not an option.

Another patient
On vacation
Gone for days without your medication

In my own ofttimes fumbling stumbling bumbling silly self-defeating self-destructive way I strive to live in the manner prescribed by Christ. There’s no room in there for hating people. You can decry their shortcomings all you want, always mindful that you also have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You can even grow angry with them. Jesus Himself grew angry with people. But note what it says concerning one of these moments: “He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts…” Christ longed to bring those who opposed Him during His time on this earth to Him. It hurt that they wouldn’t budge. So it should be with us.

In the end
One decision that you make
There is a way to face it
Lose your head
Find a way to get it on
Cuz’ overnight
Everything can be
So undone

That all said, a brief overview of the speech itself. Ignoring the analysis both fawning and foul, certain themes touched on were solid — the need to create more jobs, to grow more energy independent via using nuclear power plus expanding offshore drilling efforts. Others left a sour taste, most noticeably the continued theme of Obama blaming his predecessor for everything wrong under the sun. He’s been the President for a year and will be the President for at least the next three years. There are very few of us in the workforce at any level who can’t think of some choice words for what those who held our position before us did or didn’t do. But we’re there now, and it’s our responsibility to do the work. Buck up.

Did you see the headlights
Little pair of glowing eyes
Staring at you down the lonely road

Something Obama touched on at the end of the address deserves repeating: “Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is. Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation. But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 200 years ago, we wouldn’t be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard, to do what was needed even when success was uncertain, to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.”

We usually refer to this as ‘walking by faith’.

Did you dream you saw your life
Drawn across a sharpened knife
Made to watch as all the blood runs cold

To walk by faith means you don’t give in to fears about the present. Any one of us can name a dozen dozens reasons why we/he/she/it/they will fail. There are few things easier than picking something, or someone, apart. A lack of perfection makes that option one readily available to all about all save God alone. However, it does not entitle us to flail away at every everything. Remember what was said a moment ago? We, too, have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Rejecting or embracing Obama and his platform in their entirety is foolish. Instead, we should consider him as we want God to consider us. Love him or no, Obama is neither God nor out of His reach. As is the case with each of us.

Are you strong enough
Seize the moment now
There’s so little time before it’s gone
Redemption is at hand
No matter what chemical you’ve taken on
If you could use another plan
It’s got to be the genuine

You see, we’ve got this country we live in. It doesn’t really matter who’s in the Oval Office or which party is in the majority in either house of Congress. We still live here. Now, we can and do disagree on political philosophies, policies and practices. We can love or loathe whoever is in a given position in the government at any given time.

But we still live here.

It is vital for those of us who believe in Jesus to remember the priorities when it comes to people. All people. Including politicians. The most important question isn’t their position on health care, or cap and trade, or defense or any one of a multitude of issues. Certainly they’re important. But they are never the most important. The most important question is this:

What think ye of the Christ?

If someone has a honest faith, a natural byproduct will be a servant’s heart. Jesus washed the feet of His disciples the night they abandoned Him to be tortured and executed. He told them, even as He tells us, that whoever wants to be first among others must be the servant of all.

It is my prayer that the President hear his own words: “And what keeps me going — what keeps me fighting — is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on. It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, ‘None of us,’ he said, ‘… are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail.’ It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, ‘We are strong. We are resilient. We are American.’ It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it lives on in all the Americans who’ve dropped everything to go someplace they’ve never been and pull people they’ve never known from the rubble, prompting chants of ‘USA! USA! USA!’ when another life was saved. The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don’t quit. I don’t quit. Let’s seize this moment — to start anew, to carry the dream forward and to strengthen our union once more. Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.”

It is my prayer our President humbles himself before the crucified and risen Christ the Lord. It is my prayer that from this, he will serve the people and serve them wisely.

It is my prayer that our President will embrace the genuine.

Come
If you want to come
Want you to live
Like you want to live anyway
Want you to stay
If you want to stay
One decision
One decision
The genuine

Lyrics: “Genuine” by the 77s
from the album A Golden Field Of Radioactive Crows

A Thought

reagan_banner
Instead of calling it the Tea Party movement, thus inviting the usual sniggering of immature leftists about teabagging, I suggest a new name…

… the Reagan Party.

It makes sense for two reasons. First, the goal is a return to the principles of government both espoused and practiced by the great man. Second, I defy the left to mock the most loved President in recent history. Oh, they’ll take potshots. But that’s all they’ll dare to take.

What do you think?

Too Tired To Hate

Following up on yesterday’s post. Thanks to a true brother Dan Collins for first pointing me in the story’s direction; read his take on the matter. And watch/listen to the interview with Rep. Michele Bachmann, either here at GAC, Dan’s most excellent Piece Of Work In Progress blog or its original location at Breitbart.tv.

A point and an observation on Rep. Bachmann’s comments, neither of which can be overemphasized. First, the point. The breathtaking scope of sheer arrogance demonstrated in Rep. Barney Frank’s bill exemplifies the modern liberal mindset permeating Washington. This mindset believes it alone is good, private enterprise is evil and the people — all people — must be controlled by government rather than government being controlled by the people. It is naked, insatiable lust for power; the pride of man that prior to its inevitable fall is determined to destroy the fundamentals of our economy and our freedom to pursue a better life by forcibly placing the elements of self-improvement out of reach. It is evil, an evil that must be opposed with all available methods. Nothing less will suffice.

That said, the observation. There is no rancor in Rep. Bachmann’s message. No personal attacks against Rep. Frank, Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama. None of the childish name calling that far too often passes for political debate. Instead, while appealing to heart and mind Rep. Bachmann’s message focuses on ideology. There is no mistaking the fervor of her call; no ambiguity in her thought process. There also is no animosity directed at individuals.

I cannot speak for Rep. Bachmann, although I know we share a common bond through faith in Christ. However, perhaps she views such matters in a fashion similar to my own.

I’m too tired to hate.

I’m also quite capable of being silly and naïve.

In fact, I am so silly and naïve I actually take Jesus at His Word. That translates into my believing that no one is outside the reach of His love. No one can be written off as beyond hope. Christ knows who does and doesn’t belong to Him. He knows who in the future will accept or reject Him. We don’t. And so we must press on.

I am so silly and naïve I actually work off of the notion that the redemptive power of coming to know and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior does far more than create another entry in the book of life. It also entails transformation of the mind. Renewal, as Paul put it.

I am so silly and naïve I genuinely see even the most corrupt, punch-drunk with power and narcissistic politician as an individual capable of being turned around. In the face of those pursuing evil, ruinous plans I cling to the quiet smile, one based in the unshakable knowledge that Christ will triumph no matter what the schemes of man attempt to implement. Fight for what is right and good? Always. Yet always with the open hand and the words of the prophet Isaiah ever ready: come, let us reason together.

And as noted, I’m too tired to hate. Too much transpiring in my life to devote the necessary energy. Far better to seek peace in Christ and live there.

Oppose the evil. But never at the expense of following Jesus.

Political World

A lengthy but vital interview with Representative Michele Bachmann conducted earlier today.

Some thoughts tomorrow.

[video http://www.diecast-dude.com/gac/TheBCastInterviewWithRepMicheleBachmann324.flv nolink]

Missed Opportunity (Again)

There are times one wonders what exactly people are thinking. Or rather, not thinking when it comes to how they are perceived by others.

Christians have something of a dual perspective on such things. While one one hand they know it doesn’t matter what the world thinks of them individually or collectively in terms of their standing where it counts, namely in the eyes of God, they also know the important nature of conducting themselves in a manner that displays the true nature of their fellowship with Christ. In other words, being a witness. With this perspective, seeing how people react to different scenarios takes on a whole new perspective.

A brutal example of this came last week with the murderous attack at Fort Hood. Even the most cursory examination of Nidal Malik Hasan reveals a radical Muslim devoted to jihad, never challenged on this due to political correctness translating into weakness on the part of those who long ago should have removed him from any association with the military. Yet what do we see in response to the overwhelming evidence? A media desperately fishing for any other explanation covering his actions while either downplaying or refusing to mention Hasan’s religion. The Muslim community issuing mealymouthed “condemnations” of Hasan immediately overrun by the usual schoolyard cries of ‘they’ started it, don’t pick on us poor oppressed peace lovers, etc. When it says anything at all. Finally, a President who rearranges his schedule to attend a memorial service at Fort Hood this Wednesday, yet outside of one generic such-a-shame statement complete with a “let’s not rush to judgment” admonition has done nothing to comfort the wounded and grieving.

Way to cover yourselves in glory, gang.

Just once I’d like to see the media drop the narrative and call evil evil. Even if it means criticizing Muslims.

Just once I’d like to see a Muslim leader go off without qualifiers on the Nidal Hasans of this world in the same manner anti-abortion leaders earlier this year went off on Scott Roeder when he murdered abortionist Dr. George Tiller earlier this year, then went off again when some cretins attempted to sell items on eBay for the purpose of raising money with which to defend Roeder. Absolutely go off.

And I’d like to see President Obama get out from behind his teleprompters and spend time comforting hurting people more than once. Instead of acting like an elitist who can’t be bothered.

Missed opportunity. Again.

P.S. Speaking of such… and remember when watching the video it was the ’80s:

[video http://www.diecast-dude.com/gac/hall_and_oates_missed_opportunity.flv nolink]

This Time It’s Personal

It’s easy to view politics with a jaundiced eye, assuming little if anything done in Washington or elsewhere can possibly have that much effect on you and yours.

Which is the way we want it, really.

Most of us want to be left alone to live our lives. We know and understand how to conduct ourselves in society; the need for personal responsibility and taking care of ourselves.

Most of us.

There is an element in society that believes for whatever reason, usually past grievances against ancestors long since passed away, it is entitled to receive that for which they have not worked. The Scriptural edict laid down by God to Adam and all his descendants (“By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return”) is dismissed as irrelevant. It believes it should have what others work for without working for these things itself.

A separate segment of society has seized upon this notion, feeding it through propaganda and posing not as the great emancipator but rather the great equalizer, a contemporary Robin Hood taking away ill-gotten gain from the evil rich and graciously bestowing it on the noble poor. Never mind this segment is itself wealthy; never mind this segment is manipulating those it pretends to assist. This takes place through the creation of a cycle of dependency in which handouts, given in lieu of genuine assistance toward betterment via working toward the improvement of the situation, is standard operational procedure. Neither challenge nor encouragement to work toward self-reliance is presented. The segment of society receiving such returns the favor by unhesitatingly keeping those who allow it to languish in a state of perpetual dependency in power, never once suspecting that while it mutters of mythical dark conspiracies perpetrated against it by “the man” a blatant genuine conspiracy is working to keep them in a state it blithefully embraces.

The health care bill passed by the House last night is the most extreme example yet of this in that the Democratic majority in Congress along with the President are working toward driving as many people as possible into subservience to a government-run program. Under the guise of helping combat the rising cost of health care while making it more available to all, the plan will drive the country even deeper into its already intolerable level of debt. It will force most everyone to take up the government-run plan as the punitive regulations in the bill with either force up the price of health coverage from private insurers to an unaffordable level or drive them out of business. Further, as part of the attempt to “pay” for the plan outside of levying additional taxes on individuals and business which will further depress an already staggering economy it will dramatically slash payment to the existing Medicare system.

Which makes it personal.

The left reacted with derision when Sarah Palin used the term “death panels” to describe how under the bill it would be boards of bureaucrats deciding when someone had received all the medical assistance they warranted and, with an eye on the budget, would receive no more. The fact is these boards will be created.

Which makes it personal.

My mother is in her mid-eighties. She has assorted health problems. Will the government be willing to pay for the treatment and medicine she needs?

My brother suffers from diabetic neuropathy and the onset of MS. Will the government be willing to pay for the treatment and medicine he needs?

Or will some faceless suit somewhere decide they’re not worth the cost?

And how will my own health coverage along with my wife’s be affected when we’re eventually forced into the public plan? Will we have any say in who our doctors will be? Will we have to fight to keep our assorted prescriptions? How much will it all cost, either directly or indirectly through taxes and fees?

So yeah, this one’s personal.

Damn straight this one’s personal.

Some People Can’t Help Themselves, I Guess

I like the Foo Fighters’ music a lot. Last year I went to see them in concert for the first time, and left rather wishing I hadn’t. It wasn’t that the performance was lacking. Rather, it was how in-between songs band leader Dave Grohl’s banter was an incessant stream of f-bombs. It was like being back in junior high during gym class. Childish and ridiculous.

Anyway, a few days ago Foo Fighters released a greatest hits CD, which I bought. On it are two new tracks, one of which (“Wheels”) is currently receiving major airplay on multiple radio stations. The other, “Word Forward,” probably won’t be getting as much attention. Why? Not because it’s a  bad song, but because Grohl decided a f-bomb would be just the thing to put at the beginning of the chorus. I’m sure the record company’s thrilled.

Seems Grohl just can’t help himself when it comes to profanity.

I note this as an illustration of what we’re presently seeing in Congress. The Democratic leadership is so drunk on its own power and delusion it can manage any and every aspect of life better than the private sector it is shoving painfully flawed legislation down our throats — health care, cap and trade — under the guise of it being good for us.

Sure.

Destroying the economy and devastating the public sector the Democrats fail to understand yet loathe all the same will reap a whirlwind of benefits. Spending the country into bankruptcy even as heavier taxes and fees are levied against the people is a surefire method of making things grand for one and all. Continuing to function under the delusion, which should have been dispelled by the collapse of multiple former financial giants under the weight of debt accumulated through a multitude of defaulted homeowners loans made to those incapable of paying them under the threat of the Community Reinvestment Act yet obviously has not been, that there is a magic pile of money “they” have and should share with everyone else will bring bountiful blessings upon the land.

And Twinkles the happy unicorn is dancing in my living room.

One can only watch as the prideful and arrogant do their utmost to destroy this country under the guise of leading it to the promised land. Their fall will be great. In the meanwhile, we pray the damage they cause and the suffering they inflict on the innocent won’t be too great.

Not much more to say, is there. Other than when I listen to Foo Fighters at least I hear some great tunes. As opposed to the rhetoric from Washington.

Seems they just can’t help themselves.

A Question Of Balance

Ofttimes in Scripture there are what on the surface appear to be contradictions yet in fact are nothing of the kind. Rather, they are illustrations of both sides in areas where one cannot live solely in one place.

For example, in Galatians Paul writes:

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

So which is it? Carry each others burdens or carry your own load?

The answer, to put it simply, is yes. You do both, helping others while pulling your own weight. The person who spends their entire time helping others without tending to their own walk with Christ and life responsibilities is headed straight to the burnout pile. Doesn’t matter if you’re effectively preaching and teaching the Word if you treat your wife like part of the furniture. Or for that matter yourself.

Another area where this comes into play is in how we should interact with each other. At the beginning, the church was very much a communal movement. Okay, good. But was this a mandate on how all believers should act? No. The command to share and directly minister to others is often emphasized throughout the whole of the New Testament. However, nowhere along the line is owning personal property prohibited. Also, it bears mention that this mandate to care for one another physically as well as spiritually is one aimed solely at the believer. There is no “take care of only other believers” thought; in fact, the opposite is true. It is up to the individual believer to put this into place by their own actions.

Also, woven throughout Scripture is the directive of personal responsibility. The believer is commanded to do the work necessary to earn their keep and not be lazy. While there is no shame in asking for help, there is a problem when someone expects others to provide for them when said individual has the capability to do so.

Shall we lateral this over to the political realm?

One of the fundamental building blocks of a capitalistic society is the individual bearing responsibility for themselves coupled with the enablement of the individual to succeed. In such an environment, should they fail it’s up to the individual to rectify the situation. While the government’s preferred role is that of protector, defending the individual against those who would deprive them of their ability to succeed via unfair or blatantly evil business practices, it is not a guarantor of success. Nor can it be without destroying capitalism, instead adopting an at best statist and at worst socialist role in the lives of the people.

Although it can be said there is no issue with the government acting as a charitable entity to a degree, given the routine inefficiency of its efforts in this area one begins to wonder whether said efforts are worth the tremendous expenditure incurred by such efforts. There is also the clear danger of such efforts becoming aggressively proactive, dictating to the people how they should conduct their personal affairs rather than offering assistance for those unable to presently care for themselves.

Returning to the theme of faith, the Christian life is the act of empowering an individual to serve God and man. Granted, empowerment is usually thought of in terms of enabling the individual to do as they please. However, as they grow in their knowledge of Christ the believer comes to realize that true empowerment comes through embracing servanthood. Again, a seeming contradiction; yet in fact appearing to be so only to those who have no understanding of Jesus and His teachings.

Any government is, to put it mildly, a poor substitute for walking with Christ. It can adopt the outward trappings and mechanisms of individual responsibility along with charitable outreach all it wishes, but lacking the foundation of servitude to God it can do no better than assuming the forms of these things.

More later.

Assorted Musings On The Healthcare Debate

I haven’t written much about politics lately for various reasons: too busy with other projects, a general feeling that anything I’d say on the subject would fall into the same category as a country music songwriter penning an ode to drinkin’, dancin’ and honky-tonkin’. The subject’s already been covered. Nevertheless, thought I’d toss in my thoughts on healthcare.

Last month, in my Examiner column I posed this question: what would Jesus do about healthcare reform? In it I outlined my belief that Christ’s directives are a command to take care of each other’s needs as much as we can, and to adopt His full view of health being not only a matter of physical well-being but also spiritual wholeness through believing in Him. Not that taking care of the body is unimportant; it is His temple, created in His image. However, if your soul is diseased whether you’re physically well is the least of your problems.

With the above in mind, back to the current debate. Summarized, it goes thusly:

“We need universal healthcare!”

“We can’t afford it and we don’t want the government running it!”

“Okay, we’ll make those evil insurance companies pay for it.”

Which is where matters currently stand.

The problems with the originally proposed government-run healthcare are numerous. At its core is the belief is healthcare is a fundamental right of the people, and as such ought to be provided for by the government using the monies supplied by the people via taxes for funding. This belief is vehemently objected to by several groups:

– Strict constitutionalists, who find no such right stated or implied in the Constitution.
– Libertarians, whose base philosophy is that the government should have minimal participation in the people’s lives.
– On the pragmatic side, those none too keen on high taxes who point out the tremendous cost of such a proposal would necessitate either a dramatic tax increase or an equally dramatic rise in the national debt which is already at a record high.
– Finally, along libertarian lines of thought comes the expressed opinion that given the government’s demonstrated ineptitude to manage social programs, with Social Security and Medicare both stumbling toward bankruptcy, the last thing anyone needs is  another Washington-run program, particularly one with such dramatic personal impact on everyone.

There is also more than a bit of the class warfare issue at play. The notion that taxpayers, especially those carrying the cost of their health insurance, should pay for those who either can’t or won’t pay for their healthcare is understandably anathema to many. Even the most generous of individuals prefers selecting who they gift. The government forcibly taking over this role does not sit well. On the flip side, you have those who believe that “the man” is holding them down, therefore “the man” should pay for such things as, say, healthcare.

There is also the matter of what care will and will not be provided by a government-run system. This is where the debate becomes even more heated. Opponents to the proposal are of the firm opinion that government-provided healthcare means government-run and managed healthcare, a system under which those overseeing the program and not physicians would have the final say on who gets how much care and the nature of said care. Proponents of government-run healthcare insist this is nonsense and the various proposals floating around Washington are nothing more than efforts to provide coverage for those currently unable to afford it. None of the current privately offered plans or the companies providing same would be affected. Opponents say this is nonsense, as should it be offered the public option will via defection to same inevitably destroy the current health insurance providers. And so it goes. There is little if any middle ground in this debate.

Naturally, I propose one.

Although health insurance provider bashing is quite the popular hobby, as it provides a convenient villain against which government can portray itself as the protector of people, it is both misguided and futile. No, “they” are not evil. Neither do “they” have an unlimited supply of cash with which all can be fully covered. Thinking along these lines is the same faulty reasoning that led to today’s economic miseries, brought on when years of forcing banks and financial lending institutions to offer home loans to those incapable of paying for them inevitably led to the housing market collapse following shortly thereafter by the collapse of banks and financial institutions, crushed into bankruptcy by the weight of defaulted loans and corresponding ownership of property which could not be resold at even a fraction of its price just six months prior.

Back to the proposed solution. It’s built on the government treating health insurance in the same manner it treats property casualty insurance (auto, home, etc). Which is a field I have at least some familiarity.

A property casualty insurance provider has two primary fallbacks for when disaster strikes: reinsurance and government provided coverage for extreme catastrophes. Reinsurance is sold by assorted private companies. In essence it’s insurance for an insurance provider. The provider pays the reinsurer X amount in return for a guarantee that should a major disaster strike involving multiple major claims, the reinsurer will cover a large percentage of the losses. Government provided, or more accurately funded, coverage is for major risks no private company could hope to afford — for example, hurricane coverage in Florida. In this case the government either provides the coverage or acts as a reinsurer for providers.

Now, one of the fundamental differences between health insurance and property casualty insurance is that the former is far, far more likely to be called on than the latter. You can buy an auto insurance policy at sixteen and have never used it by the time you’re sixty-six by never being in an accident. Not going to the doctor ever? Not nearly as likely.

Also, consider this. Few targets in this society are easier to lob live ammo against than corporate profits. Never mind that without said profits the companies would cease to exist, thus rendering their employees — in many cases that’s you and me, folks — unemployed. In the case of an insurance provider, it is necessary for the company to be sufficiently profitable to the point where if every single policyholder filed a claim tomorrow for the maximum amount of their coverage the company could pay every single claim without going under.

Now, take this to healthcare. Would it not be far better for the government, rather than assorted members trying to score brownie points with their constituents by playing the blame big business game, actually work with same for the benefit of all? Sure, it’s not nearly as much fun as grabbing your share of soundbytes. But how about actually leading for once instead of striking a pose?

Here’s how.

Make the government’s sole involvement in healthcare being a reinsurer. The health insurance providers pay X amount a year. In return, the government covers the cost of catastrophic care when the bills any given individual incurs exceeds the limits on their healthcare.

Also, go with the suggestion that every individual be required to buy health insurance. No exceptions, no excuses. If you want to set up government assistance for the disadvantaged, fine. Humanitarian concern cannot be neglected. However, write into any such agreement the mandate that the individual be required to pay back the assistance when able to do so. The era of handing out endless checks because you’re poor must be abandoned forever. Personal responsibility must become the action item.

Tighten regulatory control of health insurance providers, not to the point of forcing them out of business but rather insuring fair business practices. After all, if the government is the reinsurer, the “we can’t afford to cover this person or that health problem” immediately flies out the window.

Finally, could both sides cut the crap? Seriously. Start acting like adults. Stop striking poses. If you can’t, then STFU and step aside. Work out a common sense solution such as what is proposed here.

And start being honest. Things cost money. Stop borrowing us into unpayable debt to China. Stop pretending we can simply print money and everything’s good. Stop pretending the rich and/or corporations could pay for it all if they wanted to. They can’t. So can the rhetoric and get real with the math.

That’s pretty much all I have to say on the subject.

Who Cares If This Will Play In Peoria

Still running short of material, alas. Thus, for your dining and dancing pleasure here is yesterday’s column from the Examiner.

This one took a long time to write. I felt the need to constantly examine (no pun intended) the whys of its content. Was I writing what I believed, and was I willing to accept the instant ostracization that would come with it should any of the Kool Kidz currently ruling the politically conservative blogosphere’s roost come across it? In the end, I decided it was indeed what I believe. And how would being ostracized differ in the least from where I am now? Better to tell the truth and be a pariah than play along for the sake of popularity.

With all that, I present…

Michelle Malkin’s professional culture of corruption

A quick glance at the top selling book list on Amazon and elsewhere shows that when it comes to choice of reading material, at the moment politics and religion are king. Currently conservative tomes are riding high, this being the inverse of what was prevalent during the previous administration. Apparently if you’re not running things at the moment, might as well read someone ripping on those who are.

At or near the top of the sales charts, depending on which one you’re looking at, is Culture Of Corruption by Michelle Malkin. Ms. Malkin is a leading light in the conservative journalism realm, particularly online where between her own site and HotAir, which she owns, there is an average of close to a million visitors per day.

Ms. Malkin’s presentation is in the same mold as most every political commentator regardless of their leanings: I am the champion of truth, justice and the American way; if you disagree with me you’re a babbling moron. This in and of itself is fine, as one should have the courage of their convictions. However, in Ms. Malkin’s case her professional actions belie her spoken intent.

A preface as to why this is so is in order. The debate over what should be a Christian’s approach to politics has been ongoing since the days when Christ was walking the earth. His own comments on the matter were sparse and succinct: give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Other than that He had very little to say on the matter. Apparently it wasn’t a priority to Him. There’s a lesson in that.

Jesus’ message was repentance of sins, salvation through faith in Him and take care of each other — feed the hungry, help the poor. He didn’t make political speeches above and beyond the aforementioned give whatever government you’re under its due while you do what you’re supposed to do. Whether the political aspect, if any, of your reaching that point leads you to be a flag-waving conservative or socially minded liberal is your call. It’s also a secondary issue. Getting there by doing the things He commands in taking care of one another is the primary focus.

While Scripture unfailingly condemns isolation from the world, i.e. other people who do not share the faith, it unfailingly speaks of separation from the world. Why? The fallen nature of the world has nothing in common with the spiritual nature of life in a risen Savior. While a believer is called to reach out to people where they are, the believer is also commanded neither to leave them there nor themselves live in the same fashion. A prime example of this is how Jesus first spared the life of a woman who had committed adultery by telling the crowd, which had gathered nominally to stone her but in fact were there in an attempt to catch Him in His own words, that whoever among them was sinless was more than welcome to condemn the woman for her sin. After the people had dispersed, He told the woman to leave her life of sin. Christ lived among those considered the dregs of society; people such as tax collectors, who by working for the Roman invaders were traitors to their own people, and prostitutes. However, his message to them was never it’s all good. He offered unconditional love, not blanket acceptance. His message was clear: believe, repent, change.

After His ascent into heaven, as the church was created and developed this concept was carried over into its fundamentals. If you’re going to be about the Lord’s work, you need to do so in association with other believers, not non-believers. While maintaining the teaching of Christ about actively sharing His love and following His example of genuinely participating in society, if you’re going to be putting Jesus’ name on it directly or indirectly you’d better be sure you have fellowship by your side and at your back. Don’t throw whatever you run across that coincides with your agenda out there regardless of the source. The devil is a lousy wingman.

If you’re going to say your way is the right way, the Godly way, the Christ-like way, how you bolster your argument and who you work with in promulgating your message matters. Someone who does not share your faith agrees with you? Bully for them. However, this does not negate the fact this person has a critical flaw that threatens to turn fatal at any moment. Namely, they don’t know Jesus. There is a divide between you and them only their accepting Christ can bridge. Walking down the same path politically is never the same as walking together down the narrow path that leads to heaven. The Prince of Peace trumps politics every time. Choose your associates accordingly.

Which leads back to Ms. Malkin’s professional associations.

A central theme running throughout much of the conservative school of thought is the dictum that the movement’s principles and practices are rooted in Christian beliefs. Be that as it may, most of the movement’s leaders, including Ms. Malkin, freely identify themselves as followers of Christ and their political activities being not only correct philosophically and logically, but also spiritually. Therefore, if one extends the tenets noted above about doing the Lord’s work into all aspects of life, a professional exercise rooted in the notion of it being in His service ought to have the same level of commitment to separation as an overtly Christian outreach.

So why doesn’t it?

The main blogger employed by Ms. Malkin at HotAir writes under the pseudonym Allahpundit. Allahpundit is a rabid atheist, frequently making mention of same in assorted blog posts and messages on Twitter. He is openly contemptuous of believers and routinely blasphemous. A quaint word, perhaps, but an accurate description of the man.

It should be noted Ms. Malkin is not alone in the distinction of promoting an individual who at their core rejects the faith professed by the one doing the promoting. Radio talk show host and author Hugh Hewitt, who often writes about his evangelical faith, frequently has atheist political observer Christopher Hitchens as a guest on his show.

How exactly does this work? An individual thinks another individual is an idiot due to their beliefs. Yet because they speak the same language politically, the one considered to be an idiot publicly support the one who considers them an idiot. By what stretch of logic and reason does this make sense? Are politics more important than Christ? Is the number of site visits and/or listeners to a radio show stemming from including these people a greater priority than Jesus? If so, something is seriously wrong.

Not every word out of a Christian’s mouth is going to be “Jesus Jesus Jesus.” There is no justification for isolating oneself from non-believers, associating only with those who share ones faith. That said, if someone is doing what they believe is God’s calling for them, something firmly grounded in Christ, yet in the course of doing so works with those who mock Christ “for the sake of the cause,” they are in serious error. Neither popularity in the public eye and/or among your peers, nor politics, are worth the price incurred by embracing a personal culture of corruption stating Jesus is your Lord and Savior… but isn’t important enough to honor.