Pondering Judge Henry Hudson Dec. 13, 2010 Decision

Does the Constitution confer on the Congress the power to penalize individuals for not purchasing a particular good or service in the marketplace?

According to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services and the defendant in the suit, the Congress is justified in requiring all Americans to purchase a minimum amount of health insurance coverage for two primary reasons. First, she asserts that health care is a commodity that everyone consumes at some point in their lives, and since there is a chance that they will not be able to pay for this care in full when the time inevitably comes, they should be made to contribute to the system. Secondly, Sebelius explains that the financial solvency of the ambitious and comprehensive legislation in question hinges upon universal participation. Secretary Sebelius also includes as part of her "general welfare" argument an assertion that the consequences of violating the mandate is not a penalty but a "tax" levied and collected by the IRS.

Judge Nelson gives full weight and consideration to each of these arguments in light of both constitutional language and judicial precedent, and concludes that the action at issue (compelling Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing them if they don't) is not authorized by the Constitution. He observes that words matter – that they have objective, propositional meaning – and he refuses to accept the government's manipulative conflation of the words "tax" and "penalty" as a means of bolstering its legal position in the case (the government has much more latitude imposing taxes than it does penalties).

Most importantly, Judge Nelson takes pains to emphasize that the federal government is a government of limited and delegated authority. As such, when the scope of the proposed mandate is compared against the authority of the government to act in such a manner, there is no other conclusion to draw but that the government is guilty of overreach:

"The unchecked expansion of federal power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage position would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not about regulating the business of insurance – or crafting a scheme of universal insurance coverage – it's about an individual's right to choose to participate. . . . On careful review, this Court must conclude that section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – specifically the minimum essential coverage provision – exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power." (See p. 37- 28 of the opinion, which can be found here.)

Thankfully, the Founding Fathers instituted a separation of powers between three co-equal branches of government. Judge Nelson's decision represents a great victory for constitutional governance. 

I received this summary from columnist Ken Connor, in his December 19, 2010 article. He goes on to opine that all Americans should be glad to live in a country where the government is restrained from overreaching into the lives of its citizens. Undoubtedly, this is not the last we will hear of the individual mandate controversy, as the issue is all but certain to wind up under consideration by the Supreme Court. When that day comes, if the highest judges in the land reach a conclusion different than Hudson has, there will be virtually no limit to what the government could require "in the best interest of its citizens."

Pondering Israel's Monitoring of Palestinian Promotion of Peace

An article by Joel Mowbray (December 13, 2010) explores the importance of an new initiative by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that monitors the extent to which Palestinian leadership promotes peace rather than violence. Admitedly, Palestinian Media Watch does the same thing, but apparently, in order to gain the attention of America and the west, it thinks that if the Israeli government issues reports, the West will listen.

The new Incitement and Culture of Peace Index will help Netanyahu pressure his peers in the United States and Europe to start judging Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas not by what he says at intergovernmental meetings at the White House or at bureaucratic junkets, but rather by what the PA is doing at home. Its purpose, according to Israeli officials, is not just to catalog examples of demagoguery and demonization, but also to gauge what steps the PA is taking to prepare its people for peace with Israel.

This report does not deal with Hamas, yet it is filled with examples of the supposedly moderate PA government actively undermining prospects for peace, literally at the same time PA figures tell the West how deeply they desire peace.

One of the most powerful examples of this dichotomy highlighted in the report happened recently. Speaking at the White House on Sept. 1, Abbas stated emphatically that he did "not want at all that any blood be shed" because he wanted Israelis and Palestinians "to live as neighbors and partners forever."

Speaking in Arabic to a Palestinian newspaper two months earlier, though, Abbas gave a different reason for not wanting war: "Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it." He added that he had told the Arab League, "If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor." Of course, this should not come as a surprise because Fatah's constitution maintains to this day that "the struggle will not end until the elimination of the Zionist entity and the liberation of Palestine."

Fatah routinely names streets, buildings and schools after terrorists, and sometimes it hands out awards to terrorists or their relatives.

After Fatah gave an award to the grandmother of imprisoned terrorist Khaled Abd Al-Rahman, Fatah's PA-TV provided her a platform, and she spoke to her grandson and apparently other Palestinians when she said, "Shoot your rifle and cause the Jews to go away."

The PA's glorification of terrorists is systemic. Fatah held a Web forum this fall commemorating the 10th anniversary of the so-called intifada. As documented in the Israeli report, nothing is more telling than the visuals of fires, machine guns and even masked children. One of the images is of the famous golden-domed al-Aqsa Mosque with two machine guns over it in an upside-down "v" formation.

Among the other examples in the report, prepared by a committee headed by Ya'acov Amidror and including PMW's founder, Itamar Marcus, are the PA's religious affairs official praising Palestinians who carry out "ribat," or religious war, and the coordinator of the National Committee on Summer Camps telling local media that Palestinian summer camps instill in kids the Palestinian culture, "which unites the culture of resistance, the culture of stones and guns ... and the culture of Shahada (martyrdom)."

All of this happened around the same time that Abbas said in June at the White House, "We have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we're not doing that."

While President Obama has focused most of his attention on Israeli housing policies, this new report indicates that the PA has gotten worse in its incitement since the start of the latest round of talks. It could be that Palestinian leaders think Obama's unusually strong attention on Israel has given them a free pass.

Perhaps the White House will heed the report and pressure Palestinians to stop incitement against the Jewish state. Perhaps Obama will tell Abbas that he must also actively work to build a culture of peace at home.

If that doesn't happen, however, it is a safe bet that the incoming Republican-controlled House will take the lead — and it controls the federal purse strings. Fiscal conservatives looking to target waste could condition aid to the Palestinians on changing the status quo. The PA, in other words, shouldn't be expecting a blank check from Washington next year.

Changing Palestinian culture cannot be done overnight, but it is crucial. Peace is impossible as long as Palestinian children grow up hating Israel and loving violence.

At least now it is part of the discussion.

Pondering the December 2010 "tax cut for the rich" debate

Thomas Sowell (December 7, 2010) entered the debate concerning what some call "tax cuts for the rich," a debate for the "lame duck" session of congress. For him, what those who are arguing against "tax cuts for the rich" are promoting is raising the tax rates on families making $250,000 a year and up. A husband and wife making $125,000 a year each are not rich. If they have a kid going to one of the many colleges charging $30,000 a year (in after-tax money) for tuition alone, they are not likely to feel anywhere close to being rich. Many people earning an annual income of $125,000 a year do so only after years of earning a lot less than that before eventually working their way up to that level. For politicians to step in at that point and confiscate what they have invested years of working to achieve is a little much.

he then points out that much of th rhetoric concerns taxing "millionaires and billionaires" when most of the people whose taxes the liberals want to raise are neither. He then asks, Why is so much deception necessary, if your case is good? Those who own their own small businesses have usually reached their peak earnings many years after having started their business, and often operating with very low income, or even operating at a loss, when their businesses first got started. He thinks it highly inappropriate for the politicians to step in at this point. 

One thing to remember - Often, millionaires and billionaires will be in favor of raising taxes, largely because their wealth is not taxed. They are at a high enough wealth level that tax rates will not affect their style of life, and will not increase their taxes, generally because real millionaires and billionaires have their wealth safely stowed in tax shelters

Pondering the science behind global warming

            Roy W. Spencer (Climate Confusion, 2008) is a climatologist. He is skeptical of the theory that most of global warming is caused by humanity, or that we understand the climate system and our future technological state well enough to make predictions of global warming, or that we need to reduce fossil fuel use now. Yes, he says, global warming is happening. How much of it is due to natural processes verses human activity? How bad will global warming be in the future? What can we do about it? One of his points is that any theory regarding global warming must remain a theory. Yes, he says, warming has occurred in the last thirty years. Yes, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased. Yet, this does not suggest cause and effect. He has an interesting chapter on how weather works. For many of us non-scientists, this is a helpful refresher course. The sun heats the earth, of course. Infrared light cools the earth as it moves through the atmosphere and escapes the earth. Global warming theory involves how infrared energy is redistributed within, and lost by, the surface and atmosphere. Water vapor accounts for 70-90% of the natural greenhouse effect. The other components are carbon dioxide and methane. Clouds have a large greenhouse effect, but clouds are ice crystals, and thus, not a gas. One of his main points is that weather cools the surface of the earth well below what it would be if sunlight and the greenhouse effect had their full way. The flow of heat is what we call weather. The second law of thermodynamics states that energy tends to flow from where there is more to where there is less. Evaporation is the primary means for cooling the earth. Evaporation removes heat from the surface, but it helps to heat the earth when the vapor becomes part of the atmosphere. He describes the weather system as a circulation system, constantly heating and cooling, managing the flow of heat.

            In Chapter 4, he deals with how global warming allegedly works. He focuses on carbon dioxide. For every 100,000 molecules of air, 38 of them are carbon dioxide. This small amount is why it is one of the “trace gases.” There is not much of it. Humanity is adding one molecule of carbon dioxide to every 100,000 molecules of air every five years or so. Where the increase of carbon dioxide can be measured, whether near a large city or on an isolated island, the increases are quite constant, suggesting to him that human activity has a small influence. He makes his basic proposition quite clear: “I believe it makes more sense to assume that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the ultimate guiding principle in climate sensitivity, and that the climate system changes in ways that act to rid the system of excess heat.” In essence, the earth has a thermostat called precipitation. Again, yes, human beings are producing carbon dioxide as a result of their use of fuels. Yes, carbon dioxide content of the global atmosphere has been slowly increasing. Of the 38 molecules of carbon dioxide for each 100,000 molecules of air, humanity is adding about one molecule of carbon dioxide every five years. However, that one molecule should be twice as much. It is “missing,” due to the fact that for plants, it is “food,” resulting in increasing vegetation growth rates around the world. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, albeit a trace gas, for it keeps some infrared radiation from escaping from the earth. Yet, there are also cooling effects due to weather patterns. In the past century, the earth may be about one degree warmer, with 40% of the increase occurring before 1940. 

Pondering Climate Change Models

Willie Soon, in his December 2, 2010 article, offers this reminder concerning the computer models presently used for global warming. 

The impotence of current climate models is not surprising. Climate models have not yet gotten even the most basic aspects of annual, decadal or multi-decadal monsoon events correctly.

* A 2009 paper demonstrates that not one of the 24 climate models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change generated accurate predictions for annual cycles of land surface temperatures or the arrival of seasons outside the tropics for 1954-2000. Accurate predictions of decadal cycles are out of the question.

* A 2008 study found that almost all current climate models overestimated the amount of solar radiation absorbed at Earth’s surface – leading them to forecast more severe regional dryness than will likely be the case. Even more appalling, this computer model error has been documented since 1996, and yet there are still no improvements.

* Drs. Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green found that IPCC forecasting procedures violated 81% of the 89 forecasting and scientific principles they were able to evaluate. These serious errors prove that IPCC climate projections and scenarios are useless for public policy decisions.

As climate scientists, we know computer climate models are very useful for analyzing how Earth’s complex climate system works. However, models available today are simply not ready for prime time, when it comes to predicting future climate, monsoons or droughts. Persistent attempts to use computer climate models to generate “what-if” scenarios are unrealistic, counterproductive and even anti-scientific.

Pondering Life Expectancy 2010

In some reading for sermons, I came across what I thought were some interesting statistics.

The average life expectancy of most people in biblical times was most likely in the 20s due to disease, malnutrition, traumatic childbirth for women and almost constant warfare for men. According to the estate-planning firm E.F. Moody, life-expectancy figures remained virtually unchanged for most of human history. In ancient Greece, for example, life expectancy was 20. When the Declaration of Independence was signed, life expectancy was still just 23; the median age was 16. Even as recently as 1900, most Americans died by age 47. In 1870, only 2.5 percent of all Americans made it to age 65. It’s no wonder that, until relatively recently, retirement was a word mostly associated with going to bed — and hoping one would wake up. (For more information, see the sidebar on page 27.)

Data for 1997 says that life expectancy has climbed to 76.5 years, up from 59.2 in 1930. This number continues to climb. Many of the first baby boomers (those born in 1946) who are beginning their retirement this year may have as much as 20 years or more of living still ahead. If, as some spry retirees claim, 65 is the new 55, then the old paradigm of retirement meaning a move to Florida and eating dinner at 4 p.m. is being blown up by an emerging generation of super seniors who would seem to prefer starting a second career to playing shuffleboard. Retiring boomers will embrace the philosophy about which boomer icon Neil Young once sang — “it’s better to burn out than it is to rust out.”  

Pondering Thanksgiving From the Outside

This year, as in every year since 1989 when she escaped with other "boat people" from communist Vietnam, Kim Vu will offer thanks borne out of a deep gratitude for what America has meant to her since she and so many others risked their lives for something they regarded as even more valuable: freedom.

A generation has grown up since the boat people caught the public's attention. To many in what has become a self-indulgent generation, it may be difficult to fathom how anyone could go to such lengths to achieve something too many of us take for granted.

Vu was 20 years old when her father urged her to follow her brother, who was the first to escape. She is now 41. Vu says she was not afraid, though the Vietnamese communists sank boats they could spot and killed many who tried to escape. Vu tried twice to escape, but pulled back when she sensed danger. On her third try, she succeeded.

Vu's father, a retired officer in the South Vietnamese Army, gave her two gold bars to pay for the journey. She was taken in a small boat that held no more than three people to a larger boat that waited offshore in darkness. "We spent seven days on a trip to Malaysia with no food, only water and the water consisted of three bottle caps each day."

Later she was transferred to another refugee camp in the Philippines where she spent six months before the paperwork was completed and she was allowed to come to Virginia where her older brother lived following his escape.

What does freedom mean to Kim Vu? "It means a lot, because I lived with communists, who wouldn't let me go to school. I am very appreciative to live in this country." She became a U.S. citizen in 1995.

What would Vu say to her now fellow Americans who might take their freedom for granted and not appreciate the country as much as someone who once experienced oppression? "They need to see what other countries don't have that we have here. Some people don't see, so they don't know."

Kim now cuts hair at a shop in Arlington, Va. I ask her what she likes best about America. She laughs and replies, "Everything is good."

Such is the story as told by Cal Thomas (November 25, 2010). 

Many of us born in this country have become intellectually alienated from our our own home. We have a colonial critique of America, or a capitalist critique of America, or emphasize a "house divided" between rich and boor, black and white, male and female. I call these "alienating critiques." Some in the church, such as Stanley Hauerwas, John Yoder, and others, have a religious critique of standing in opposition to America. They are "counter-cultural." All too many Americans think that they gain an intellectual or moral high ground when they see other places as superior to America. However, today, I invite you to reflect upon the blessings you already have, that you did not earn, for you were born here, in America, a country founded upon the idea of freedom. 

Pondering the Ineffectiveness of the 2010 Deficit Commission

Steve Manicek, in his November 10, 2010 article, offers a word of a caution concerning the preliminary statement by the two chairs. What I find interesting is that his focus is on a quite different point than what I have heard on television. For him, the crux of the proposal comes down to two points: capping federal government expenditures at 22% -- and eventually 21% -- of GDP, and capping revenues at 21% of GDP. And each of these represents a BIG problem. The first is on the spending side. Except for the anomalous stimulus/bailout/recession years of 2009-2011, federal government expenditures haven’t reached 21% of GDP since the collapse of the Soviet Union – and since World War II only exceeded 21% of GDP during the Reagan-Bush military buildup of the 1980s and early 90s. For virtually all of the Clinton and G.W. Bush years – and during all the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon years – federal expenditures ranged between 18 and 20% of GDP. So while the 21% figure represents something of a cut versus the out-year projections of the President’s most recent budget, it leaves plenty of headroom to establish and make permanent even more government than we had in the immediate pre-Obama years.

For him, the more important problem is on the revenue side. According to Office of Management and Budget figures, federal revenues have NEVER reached 21% of GDP. In fact, only in Bill Clinton’s final year in office – and during WW II – did revenues even exceed 20% of GDP. During the whole time from 1960 through 2008, federal tax revenues almost always fell between 17 and 19% of GDP, only occasionally rising above 19% (chiefly in Clinton’s second term) or below 17% (G. W. Bush’s first term). Even President Obama’s FY 11 Budget has federal revenues rising only to around 19% of GDP by 2015. So the 21% “cap” represents two full percentage points of GDP above what we have experienced even during historically “high” tax environments.

By way of comparison, the last time we had a “balanced” federal budget – FY 2001 – revenues were 19% of GDP and expenditures 18%. 

For me, here is the key. The Commission’s draft, in effect, proposes solving our deficit problem by allowing the federal government to grow 15-20% larger than it was under Bill Clinton, then raising taxes as much as necessary to pay for it. It institutionalizes President Obama’s expansion of the role of government – maybe not quite as much as he and Nancy Pelosi would like – and lays the burden squarely on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

For those interested in pursuing the topic, I invite you to read the following from the Cato Institute.

Downsizing the Federal Goverment

Pondering Veteran's Day 2010

Veterans Day is annual holiday in the United States honoring veterans of the armed forces and also the men and women killed in the country's wars. The observance originated as Armistice Day, which was set aside by the United States, Great Britain, and France to commemorate the ending of World War I (Nov. 11, 1918). After World War II it was recognized as a day of tribute to the veterans and the dead of that conflict as well. In Canada it came to be known as Remembrance Day, and in Great Britain the Sunday nearest November 11 was proclaimed Remembrance Sunday honoring the dead of both World Wars. In 1954, after the Korean War, the date was officially designated in the United States as Veterans Day to honor servicemen of all U.S. wars.

According to the statistics I have seen, there are 25 million living veterans, 48 million Americans have served since 1776, and nearly one million died in combat or combat related events. War has terrible consequences. The reality of war is different -- it's ugly, it's deadly, and unfortunately, sometimes it's unavoidable. When it is unavoidable, we are lucky to have men and women who are willing to serve our country and make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary. We are a nation born out of war. We declared ourselves independent from the British in 1776. It took us eight years to earn our independence from the British through the American Revolutionary War.

Many of us remember a soldier, a loved one, on a regular basis throughout the year. Maybe the young person is serving now. Maybe the young person died in wars past. As Ronald Reagan reminded us on a Veteran's Day observance in 1989, when they died, they gave up their chance to be husbands and fathers and grandfathers. They gave up their chance to be revered old men. They gave up everything for our country, for us. And all we can do is remember. Some people remember every day, as they remember one who has died. It's not so hard to summon memory, but it's hard to recapture meaning.

Reagan went on to say, "And the living have a responsibility to remember the conditions that led to the wars in which our heroes died. Perhaps we can start by remembering this: that all of those who died for us and our country were, in one way or another, victims of a peace process that failed; victims of a decision to forget certain things; to forget, for instance, that the surest way to keep a peace going is to stay strong. Weakness, after all, is a temptation—it tempts the pugnacious to assert themselves—but strength is a declaration that cannot be misunderstood. Strength is a condition that declares actions have consequences. Strength is a prudent warning to the belligerent that aggression need not go unanswered.”

"Peace fails when we forget what we stand for. It fails when we forget that our Republic is based on firm principles, principles that have real meaning, that with them, we are the last, best hope of man on Earth; without them, we're little more than the crust of a continent. Peace also fails when we forget to bring to the bargaining table God's first intellectual gift to man: common sense. Common sense gives us a realistic knowledge of human beings and how they think, how they live in the world, what motivates them. Common sense tells us that man has magic in him, but also clay. Common sense can tell the difference between right and wrong. Common sense forgives error, but it always recognizes it to be error first.

"We endanger the peace and confuse all issues when we obscure the truth; when we refuse to name an act for what it is; when we refuse to see the obvious and seek safety in the Almighty. Peace is only maintained and won by those who have clear eyes and brave minds. Peace is imperiled when we forget to try for agreements and settlements and treaties; when we forget to hold out our hands and strive; when we forget that God gave us talents to use in securing the ends He desires. Peace fails when we forget that agreements, once made, cannot be broken without a price.

Veterans Day is usually observed with parades, speeches, and floral tributes placed on graves or memorials of those who served. In the United States, group naturalization ceremonies have come to be an important part of the day's activities.

Special Veterans Day services are held at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va., and at similar shrines in other countries. Churches observe two minutes of silence. In 1921, the body of an unknown American soldier was moved from France to be buried in the Tomb of he Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, DC. The tomb honored all American soldiers who died fighting in the war. Two more unidentified American war dead were buried at Arlington in 1958. One was killed in WWII and the other in the Korean Warn. Then, in 1984, a body from the Vietnam War was brought to join the other unknowns. The 3^rd US Infantry, the Army/s honor guard, keeps a constant vigil over the tomb and it’s a tradition for the president to lay a wreath at the tomb each Veterans Day.  

Pondering the 2010 Midterm Election

Will this election make a difference? Steve Chapman (November 4, 2010) says one reason the status quo is so durable is that the differences between the two parties, when it comes to actual governing, are not nearly as large as they like to pretend. They expend vast amounts of cash in the indulgence of what Sigmund Freud called "the narcissism of small differences." But after the elections are over, the parties come back to the large ground of commonality. Such a view suggests that elections do not matter that much. Granted, they may not matter as much as committed people on the Left and Right would like. The complex nature of American governance will tend toward keeping the status quo. I am confident that many who voted for Obama, for example, expected that soldiers would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan by now, and that the nation would have single pay health insurance.

Yet, from the politically conservative perspective, the election of Obama and the Democrat Party in 2008 has made a large difference – in the wrong direction. I think elections matter. The quality of life in a democracy is, in part, determined by political governance. The point is to make them increasingly just, peaceful, and loving, apart from coercion. For many political conservatives, the message of the past two years has been one of federal smothering of individual lives, whether through taxes, health care, and regulation.

In any case, the election of 2010 has mattered. I hope that I can express at least a little of difference that it makes.

Cultural advances by groups in a society and a political party are important. In 2006, the Republican Party was described as a white, male, and southern party. Such is no longer the case. The election saw Republicans add two magnificent new black faces to the Congress. Allen West in Florida beat Ron Klein 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent (with 97 percent counted, Klein wouldn't concede). Remember his name, for he is an Iraq war hero. He could be one of those “rising stars.” Tim Scott in South Carolina defeated Ben Frasier, 65-29. Republicans also launched three new Hispanic stars this election: Sen.-elect Marco Rubio from Florida and the new governor of New Mexico, Susanna Martinez, the first female Hispanic governor in US history. A Hispanic Republican – Brian Sandoval – defeated Rory Reid, son of the very man who said he could not understand how any Hispanic could be Republican. It was not close: Sandoval dominated Rory Reid and secured a double-digit victory. In Washington, Jaime Herrera chose not to highlight her Hispanic origins in her battle against Democrat Denny Heck for the open seat in Washington’s third Congressional District. She ran a very strong, issues-based campaign, and won comfortably. And Republicans got a bonus Sikh -- Nikki Haley, the new governor of South Carolina, nominated by Republicans and attacked because of her background. The other Indian governor is another Republican, Bobby Jindal. Raul Labrador, a Puerto Rico-born attorney, pulled an upset victory over incumbent Democrat Walt Minnick in Idaho’s first Congressional District, in which the Democrat tried a racially charged ad against his opponent that, thankfully, backfired. Although such facts on the ground will make it harder to accuse Republicans of being racist, I am confident that those on the Political Left will figure out a way.

As many have noted, the most important outcome of this week's election may be the change in the state gubernatorial and legislative races. Next year, state lawmakers draw new congressional districts, determining the congressional map for the next decade. In the past, Democrats have had a 2-1 advantage in congressional redistricting. Not anymore. Tuesday night, Republicans won governorships in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina -- pause, deep breath -- New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Iowa and Florida. They also swept the state legislatures. Meanwhile, the Democrats won governor's races in California, New York, Massachusetts, Arkansas and Maryland. The advantage that Republican Party governors have is that the governors of New Jersey and Virginia have already pointed the way to how to act quickly on behalf of their states.

Clearly, California and New York remain bastions of liberalism despite the economic decay brought about by liberal government and high taxes. Like an addict, the people of these two states have not yet “hit bottom.” When they do, they may reach out to the hand that can help, that is, cutting the cost of government, cutting regulation, and reducing taxes on producers.

People often think in terms of “making a difference.” Tea partiers won some and lost some, but their influence was strong enough to make a statement: the movement has made a difference. Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle lost by healthy margins, but Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and others won big. Voters from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin elected politicians with a distinctly conservative bent — one that was clearly influenced by the tea party.

It was a “wave” election, the third one we have had since 2006. Could we have another such wave in two years? Absolutely, and I am not predicting which way the wave would go. The house has not had a switch of over 60 votes since 1948. As Michael Brone (November 4, 2010) notes, then, as now, very fundamental issues about the size and scope of government were at stake. Britain's Labor government went fully into socialism, and Roosevelt proposed the same program in in 1944. The people said no to Roosevelt in 1946 and in 1948. Even the surprise switch in 1994 was one of 54 votes. Democrats gained 31 seats in 2006 and another 23 seats in 2008. The fact that the Senate remains in the hands of the Democrat Party reflects facts on the grounds. Many of the Senate seats were open in solid Democrat states, as well as only one third of the seats were on the table. Personally, I never had much confidence in the Senate going Republican.

Victor Davis Hanson (November 4, 2010) says that on Tuesday voters rejected President Obama's attempt to remake America in the image of an imploding Europe -- not just by overwhelmingly electing Republican candidates in the House, but by preferring dozens of maverick conservatives who ran against establishment Washington. He asks, Why the near-historic rebuke? Out-of-control spending, unchecked borrowing, vast new entitlements and unsustainable debt -- all at a time of economic stagnation. So what is next? Like the recovering addict who checks himself into rehab, a debt-addicted America just snapped out of its borrowing binge, is waking up with the shakes, and hopes there is still a chance at recovery. It will not be easy. Obama and his Democrat Congress ran up nearly $3 trillion in new debt in just 21 months -- after running a disingenuous 2008 campaign that falsely promised to rein in the fiscal irresponsibility that had been rampant during the spendthrift Bush administration. So the voters intervened and sent America in for rehab treatment. In our three-step road to recovery, we, the sick patient, must first end the denial, then accept the tough medicine, and finally change the entrenched habits that caused the addiction. Hanson offers the opinion that Republicans should be willing to be demagogued by a weakened Obama as heartless and cruel budget cutters -- even if the president may well be the ultimate beneficiary by running on the new theme of fiscal responsibility and a recovering economy in 2012.

Larry Elder (November 4, 2010) offers that Obamalism has now been arrested. Voters rose to say no to the two-year gusher of spending and the staggering increases in the annual deficit and the national debt. Under Obama and the Democratic congressional majority, the national debt, as a percentage of GDP, jumped from 69 percent to a projected 94 percent. Voters said, "Enough!" I know it frustrates good Democrats and good liberals that Republicans could be the party of “No.” However, in essence, the voters were saying “No,” and the Republican Party was the vehicle for that expression. As Michael Barone puts it, Americans gave their verdict on the Obama Democrats' sharp increases in government spending and Obamacare. It was as resounding a "no." As Steve Chapman (November 4, 2010) put it, the GOP takeover of the House is far more useful as a brake than a steering wheel. The new majority can stop Obama from advancing new proposals by voting them down. But it cannot force him to accept Republican ones.

At this point, I think, we may see a difference between England and America on the one hand and France and Greece on the other. England is now going through a difficult process of reducing government spending and regulation, and doing so without riots in the streets. I think the American people are ready for changes in Social Security and other entitlement programs, as well as the corporate welfare on which too many on Wall Street have come to depend. They will do so without riots in the streets. If so, this result will be quite different from that of France and Greece, where riots occur because government increases the retirement age from 60 to 62. I think it instructive that America produces a tea party that makes a difference toward less government, and the French and Greeks both riot in the streets to have more government.

Nothing I have said should give the Republican Party too much of a “head trip.” The voters saying to Obama and the Democrat Party is not the same as the voters saying “yes” to the Republican Party.

As one looks ahead, the election proves there is a potential to repudiate the political left, but now Republicans have to think through how to replace it with a center-right governing majority. The challenge of thinking through, explaining and implementing a replacement strategy as national policy will make the next two years an intriguing time, especially for those who seek the Republican Party nomination for president in 2010.  

Road to Serfdom and the 2010 Midterm Election

As you may know, The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) is the classic book written in the early 1940’s by Friedrich Von Hayek that defined the threat imposed by the unchecked growth of central government and the resulting loss of individual freedom and liberty. Bruce Bialosky, in his his October 16, 2010 article, thinks we are headed in that direction. For him, this election will determine whether this nation surrenders to the Washington oligarchy and the media elites or "we the people" reassert the values that have been the shining hallmark of this great country for over 200 years.

If you have any age on you at all, it seems like every election "is the most important of our lifetime." For Bialosky, this time it is the truth. He even expresses the view that it may be the most critical election in America since 1860. In 2008, the nation elected a President and Congress committed to the wholesale expansion of government and the commensurate reduction in individual freedom. He admits that the people may not have thought that is what they were voting for, but that is what they got. However, any presidential candidate who promises "fundamental transformation" clearly does not like individual freedom, for what is "fundamental" about America is the charter of freedom and protection from an intrusive federal government. For Biolosky, any vote that leaves Congress in the hands of the Pelosi-Reid Democrats endorses that path. But a vote against the Democrats will repudiate their policies of invasive government and limitation of individual choice.

Well, if you are going to motivate change, one has to convince others there is a sense of urgency. At least, that is what John P. Kotter says in his classic work on leadership, Leading Change. In many ways, I am one person who is committed to politically conservative ideas who would hope that "the people" will listen to this sense of urgency and act upon it, for the defense of individual liberty. 

Tom Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, has for years been an intellectual guru for the left. In his September 28th column, he wrote: 

“Leadership today is about how the U.S. government attracts and educates more of that talent and then enacts the laws, regulations and budgets that empower that talent to take its products and services to scale, sell them around the world – and create jobs here in the process.” 

Biolosky points out there is almost no consideration of the individual in this statement, and yet it is the fundamental basis of what they believe – that government is the central point of any job creation.

Personally, I think the media and the Democrat Party need to receive a clear message from "we the people" in this election. The caveat I would offer is that as a political conservative, I am not enthused about the Republican Party. At this point, what I see is that the Republican Party will only slow down the road to serfdom, but they will not have the courage to stop it and start down another path, the road to liberty. 

Pondering the Commerce Clause and Obamacare

In 2005, the Supreme Court said the federal government's power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states" extends to the tiniest speck of marijuana wherever it may be found, even in the home of a patient who grows it for her own medical use in compliance with state law. "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause," Justice Clarence Thomas warned in his dissent, "then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

The Obama administration, according to Jacob Sullum (October 20, 2010 article), was in court this week defending the new federal requirement that every American obtain government-designed health insurance, seems determined to prove Thomas right. But despite seven decades of stretching by a Supreme Court eager to accommodate every congressional whim, the Amazing Elastic Commerce Clause is still not expansive enough, according to Sullum, to cover the unprecedented command that people purchase a product from a private company in exchange for the privilege of existing.

"Never before has the Commerce Clause ... been extended this far," noted U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson when he declined to dismiss the case he heard this week, in which Virginia is challenging the insurance mandate. Last week, allowing a similar lawsuit by Florida, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed that the Commerce Clause has "never been applied in such a manner before."

That's saying a lot, because the Commerce Clause has been used to justify some audacious assertions of federal power, under the theory that it covers not just interstate commerce but "activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."

In 1942, the Supreme Court said a farmer could be penalized for violating federal crop regulations by growing wheat for his own consumption because he thereby reduced demand in the interstate wheat market. The 2005 medical marijuana case extended this reasoning to a federally proscribed commodity grown by people who were not even farmers. In 1964, the Court held that businesses made themselves subject to a federal ban on racial discrimination by purchasing supplies that originated in other states.

But as Vinson noted, all of these cases at least "involved activities in which the plaintiffs had chosen to engage." By contrast, the insurance mandate is "based solely on citizenship and on being alive."

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh, who this month dismissed the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center's challenge to the insurance requirement, disagrees. Conceding that every case in which the Supreme Court has upheld a law under the Commerce Clause has involved "some sort of activity" and "an economic or commercial component," Steeh tried hard to find those elements in a law that punishes people for something that is neither economic nor an activity.

This was the best he could do: "Far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance. ... These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance."

Although Steeh claimed "the health care market is unlike other markets" because people "cannot opt out," his logic is easily adaptable. People who abstain from purchasing a car are making an economic decision to use other modes of transportation, and that choice has an impact on the U.S. automobile industry, which the federal government is committed to saving. People who do not eat vegetables are making an economic decision to consume other foods, and that choice affects the market for health care services as well as interstate commerce in broccoli. As Hudson observed on Monday, the possibilities are "boundless."

Worse, for Sullum, Steeh's emphasis on "cost-shifting" by people who make poor economic decisions suggests a federal government with the authority to override myriad heretofore private choices, including decisions about education, employment, housing, savings, investment and purchases of all kinds. Try opting out of that.

Pondering Obama's Views of his Opponents

President Obama, speaking at a fundraiser in Boston, said:

 "People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared, and they have good reason to be."

Mona Charen, in her October 19, 2010, points out that if the people of the United States are losing confidence in President Obama, he wants it clearly understood that he is losing confidence in them as well. If they are considering voting for candidates Obama disapproves, it is because fear has paralyzed their capacity for reasoned judgment.

The reasoning of the President, as always, is that one could not possibly disagree with him and still be rational. One must be afraid, or, in another context, angry. If philosopher Merleau-ponty is correct in saying that feelings are thoughts that do not yet have words, then even the feelings of anger and fear come from a thinking place of the mind. As Charen points out, voters gave Mr. Obama a chance and are now holding him accountable for his failures. Doing so is a rational, even if fearful and angry, response to what Obama has actually has done: sponsor government take over of health care industry, punish producers, expand national debt and deficit, and increase unemployment. 

My own hope is that my fellow citizens will deepen their respect for the founding of this nation and its fundamental principles, but that is for another time. 

The pseudoscientific fraud of global warming/climate change

Here is a news item that I have been following lately, because it involves yet another doubt about the whole notion of "scientific consensus" as it relates to global warming/climate change. You can read the full letter here. I have written an article on Jurgen Moltmann that discusses his theology as it relates to his presumption of an ecological crisis, which you can here. I have some book recommendations at the close of this article.


Professor Harold Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society after 70 years of membership over the organization's participation in the "global warming scam" is just the most recent show of disgust by principled scientists about promotion of pseudo-climate science for personal gain, according to National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett.

"This is just one more brick crumbling in the edifice of catastrophic global warming," Dr. Burnett said. "Harold Lewis joins a growing cadre of principled scientists who refuse to continue the scientific charade of catastrophic global warming."

"It is...the global warming scam with the trillions of dollars driving it that has corrupted so many scientists... It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist," Lewis said in his resignation.

By resigning, Lewis joins other principled scientists such as Chris Landsea, Claude Allegre and others who have argued that the evidence for catastrophic climate change was weak and could not justify costly, precipitous action to avert global warming.

"Lewis's resignation is just one more alarm about the folly of the pseudo-science behind global warming and catastrophic climate change," Burnett continued, "and we need to answer responsibly by reexamining the data and applying sound science, as other honest researchers have. Too many questions remain."


Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate


Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition

Pondering Environmental Extremism and the 10.10 campaign

Leading environmental organizations in Britain, with the backing of numerous major corporations, recruited British screenwriter Richard Curtis to produce a video for the "10:10" campaign, which seeks to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent every year for 10 years. The video begins in a classroom, where a mild-mannered teacher tells her middle-school students about the 10:10 effort. She then asks the class if they'd like to sign up. Most do, but two kids abstain. The teacher tells them, "That's absolutely fine, your own choice." Then, she reaches for a device on her desk with a red button on it. She pushes the button, and the kids who refused to sign up for the green crusade are blown up, their blood and viscera spraying across the classroom, staining the school uniforms of their conformist and compliant classmates. The same "joke" plays out several more times in different settings (an office, soccer practice, etc.). Each time someone resists the idea of getting with the program, the response is swift, bloody execution. 


The video's defenders argue it's all a big joke, lighten up. For the layman, the obvious response is, "That's not true." Blowing up kids isn't funny. As Jonah Goldberg points (October 8, 2010), that misses the point. This is not a joke for the benefit of conservatives. No, this is a knee-slapper for those already committed to the cause. The subtext is, "Wouldn't it be awesome if we could just get rid of these tiresome, inconvenient people?" That's why they're blown up without anyone trying to change their minds. That's the joke: "Enough with these idiots already."


Apparently, this is what passes for reasonable discourse. Let us kill our opponents. It appears that Islamic militants do not have a corner on the desire to violence to those who disagree with them.


Such tyrannical tactics are not unique to this film or to Britain Environmental extremists. Jonah Golberg offers several examples. 


A couple years ago, a British power company joined the green bandwagon by launching a "Climate Cops" program that encouraged children to keep dossiers on their parents and neighbors, recording their "climate crimes." 


Frustrated with the perceived environmental threat of economic freedom and the inconvenience of political freedom, many environmentalists yearn for shortcuts. 


New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wishes we could learn from China's one-party system. In books such as "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy," environmentalists insist that democracy needs to be replaced with a more authoritarian system. 


NASA scientist James Hansen wants to put corporate CEOs on trial for crimes against humanity. 


Al Gore compares his opponents to Holocaust deniers and insists that the time for democratic debate is over. 


Some environmentalists have almost as little regard for human life as the fictional teacher in the 10:10 video. When Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was told that banning DDT would probably result in millions of deaths, he replied, "This is as good a way to get rid of them as any." 


Finnish environmental guru Pentti Linkola argues that the earth is a sinking ship, and the greens must head for the lifeboats: "Those who hate life try to pull more people on board and drown everybody. Those who love and respect life use axes to chop off the extra hands hanging on the gunwale." 


The point is, words and images mean things. Let us just hope Shakespeare In King Lear, Act 5, Scene 3 was wrong when he said, "Jesters do oft prove prophets."

War Between America and Islam? Questioning Islamophobia Again

I have made it clear in other notes that I think we need some honesty about the intentions of global Islam. It seems that this encouragement seems to be received by some that I am part of the "hate Islam" crowd. I am note sure where that crowd is, but I have no desire to be part of it. G. K. Chesterton wrote in his biography of St. Francis that he went to Syria, determining that it was better to make converts out of Muslims than to conquer them. I share that sentiment. They need the good news of Jesus Christ. They need to replace their love for the Quran with a love for the Bible. They need to move from their Allah to the Triune God. Is this offensive? I would think that any Christian would agree.

Steve Chapman, in his September 26, 2010 article, says that there is no question that feelings on both sides are running higher than usual. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, says the Pew Research Center, 59 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Islam, but today, the figure is 30 percent. A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations blamed the recent slashing of a Muslim cab driver in New York on "hate rhetoric."    

But all these events get attention for the same reason that airplane crashes get attention: They are unusual. Considering the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and considering the U.S. invasion of two Islamic countries, for Chapman, the surprise is not that feelings between Muslims and non-Muslims in this country are so bitter and angry. It's that they are so amicable. 

He points out that the "ground zero mosque" has elicited a great deal of opposition -- but, for the most part, restrained opposition. A Fox News poll found that while 64 percent of Americans do not want the facility at that location, 61 percent -- including most Republicans -- say the group has the right to build it there.     

Chapman says that most people don't perceive all Muslims as a lurking danger. Asked whether Islam is more likely than other religions "to encourage violence," 35 percent of Americans said yes -- but 42 percent said no. 

Further, the American Muslim community is not a seething swamp of violent militancy. There are estimated to be at least 1.3 million Muslims in this country -- plenty to furnish an unending stream of suicide bombers, if the motivation existed. But it doesn't. If there is anything striking about the home front of the global war on terrorism, it's the extreme rarity of domestic jihadists. A 2007 survey by Pew found that only 5 percent have a favorable view of al-Qaida -- a number that drops to 3 percent among foreign-born Muslims. Far from praying daily for the rise of Islamic extremism, 61 percent said they were worried about it. Mr. Chapman does not mention it, but I wonder about the other 39 percent. That would about 507,000 Muslims have no concern about the rise of extremism. Although the reason for lack of concern may be benign, it still puzzles me. 

Chapman goes on to point out that unlike the alienated Muslim populations of Europe, American Muslims do not feel estranged from society. "Most say their communities are excellent or good places to live," Pew discovered. Most also believe women are better off in the United States than in Muslim countries.

 
Their overall satisfaction with the state of the country is no different, according to Pew, from the overall satisfaction of everyone else. They do not sound like a violent cult plotting to impose Taliban-style Shariah law on the infidels who surround them. They sound strangely like ... Americans. Which is what they are. For the most part, Muslims have achieved integration and acceptance. Only a quarter of them say they have ever suffered discrimination. Most have many non-Muslim friends.

Chapman suggests that these statistics may be the result of the fact that non-Muslims do not regard them with fear and loathing. Hate crimes against Muslims do not support the charge that Americans are frothing Islamophobes. In 2008, there were only 105 anti-Muslim incidents, compared with 1,013 against Jews.

 
What we see in action here is the powerful influence of deeply rooted ideas about assimilation, tolerance and freedom. Americans generally see Muslims as just one more ingredient in the national melting pot. Muslims mostly identify with our way of life.

 
The tensions and conflicts in evidence in our public debates do exist, but they give a misleading picture of modern American society. The reality is the one proclaimed by the Founders: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. 

Pondering Economics: Peasant Mentality

Victor Davis Hanson, in his article of September 24, 2010, has written what I think is an excellent article concerning economic life. He entitled the article "A Nation of Peasants?" He begins by saying that traditional peasant societies believe in only a limited good. The more your neighbor earns, the less someone else gets. Profits are seen as a sort of theft. They must be either hidden or redistributed. Envy rather than admiration of success reigns. In contrast, Western civilization began with a very different ancient Greek idea of an autonomous citizen, not an indentured serf or subsistence peasant. The small, independent landowner -- if left to his own talents and if his success was protected by, and from, government -- would create new sources of wealth for everyone. The resulting greater bounty for the poor soon trumped their old jealousy of the better off. Citizens of ancient Greece and Italy soon proved more prosperous and free than either the tribal folk to the north and west, or the imperial subjects to the south and east. The success of later Western civilization in general, and America in particular, is testament to this legacy of the freedom of the individual in the widest political and economic sense.

He goes on to say that the political class and the citizens are forgetting these basic truths lately, though Mao Zedong's redistributive failures in China, or present-day bankrupt Greece, should warn us about what happens when government tries to enforce an equality of result rather than of opportunity.

Even after the failure of statism at the end of the Cold War, the disasters of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba, and the recent financial meltdowns in the European Union, for some reason America is returning to a peasant mentality of a limited good that redistributes wealth rather than creates it. Candidate Obama's "spread the wealth" slip to Joe the Plumber simply was upgraded to President Obama's "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

The more his administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors; raises taxes on the upper income brackets; and creates more regulations, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self-interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent cash rather than using it to take risks and either lose money due to new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.

No wonder that in such a climate of fear and suspicion, unemployment remains near 10 percent. Deficits chronically exceed $1 trillion per annum. And now the poverty rate has hit a historic high. We are all getting poorer in hopes that a few don't get richer.

The public is seldom told that 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 40 percent of the income taxes collected, while 40 percent of income earners are exempt from federal income tax -- or that present entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are financially unsustainable. Instead, they hear more often that those who managed to scheme to make above $250,000 per year have obligations to the rest of us to give back about 60 percent of what they earn in higher health care and income taxes -- together with payroll and rising state income taxes, and along with increased capital gains and inheritance taxes.

That limited-good mind-set expects that businesses will agree that they now make enough money and so have no need to pursue any more profits at the expense of others. Therefore, they will gladly still hire the unemployed and buy new equipment -- as they pay higher health care or income taxes to a government that knows far better how to redistribute their income to the more needy or deserving.

This peasant approach to commerce also assumes that businesses either cannot understand administration signals or can do nothing about them. So who cares that in the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement, quite arbitrarily the government put the unions in front of the legally entitled lenders?

Health insurers should not mind that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just warned them to keep their profits down and their mouths shut -- or face exclusion from health care markets.

I suppose that no corporation should worry that the government arbitrarily announced -- without benefit a law or court ruling -- that it wanted BP to put up $20 billion in cleanup costs for the Gulf spill.

What optimistic Americans used to call a rising tide that lifts all boats is now once again derided as trickle-down economics. In other words, a newly peasant-minded America is willing to become collectively poorer so that some will not become wealthier.

The present economy suggests that it is surely getting its wish.

Here are some other books by this author:

How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security (Encounter Broadsides)

tax cuts for wealthy?

As Cal Thomas, in a September 16 article, points ot, in arguing against extending the Bush-era tax cuts for "the wealthy," President Obama claims the government cannot afford to "borrow" the estimated $700 billion he says it will "cost government." For Thomas, the question is, What about the cost of tax increases for those earning the money? For Thomas, it is funny how the president does not mind borrowing money that has put us on a trajectory for a national debt exceeding $13 trillion.

The question ought not be why people making more than $250,000 a year ($125,000 if one is married and filing separately) should be allowed to keep more of the money they earn. The question is: why should people be required to surrender more of the money they earn to dysfunctional government, which misspends so much of it on unnecessary, outdated and failed programs?

The President tacitly assumes that the total amount of money the government now spends is appropriate, and therefore it should take more of the money the people earn, and especially, of course, those over $250,000. I would suggest that before we go down the road, the President defend this level of government spending. 

Blaming Tax Cuts for Financial Meltdown? Another Disagreement with Obama

Larry Kidlow, in an article on 9/11/2010, said that in his speech in Cleveland last week, Obama blamed the Bush tax cuts for the financial meltdown and severe recession. Such ideas, even when presented by a sitting President, need to be named for the stupidity they represent. It is quite likely that the academia and the media will pick up on it accept the narrative, since it is from this President. It is quite wrong. As Kudlow points out, in 2003, the reductions of marginal tax rates led to more than 8 million new jobs in the next four and a half years. Unemployment dropped to 4.6%. Most economists agree that the 2007-2008 financial meltdown was a housing bubble and credit event. It had nothing to do with cutting taxes.

Pastor Burning Koran and Jim Wallis

A pastor in Florida says he will burn the Koran on 9/11. I suppose most of us recognize that he has the right to do on his property what he wants to do, including buy a Koran and burn it. We also recognize that this is free speech, and he has the right to express himself in this way. Those who burn the flag of the United States are making a statement, and so is this pastor.

Yet, such observations do not exhaust the story. In fact, I find it rather unsatisfying if we stop there. Those who question the wisdom, propriety, and Christian character of the act of this pastor and church also have freedom of speech. As a Christian community, we have a responsibility to care for the witness of the churches who seek to minister in this nation and around the world. This pastor is harming the witness that the churches seek to undertake for Jesus Christ in this world. Fortunately, the Christian community will universally condemn him. In fact, he figured out a way to put Jim Wallis and Sarah Palin on the same page. I am sure that this will not happen often, but he figured out a way.

I will say that Jim Wallis figured out a way to comment on this in what I consider a stupid way. He identifies the "extremists" who invoke their distorted view of the Muslim faith with the "extremists" of the pastor and church who burn the Koran. My disagreement with him is that the Muslim extremists to which he refers will kill people who disagree with them. In fact, as the approach of 9/11 reminds us, they already have done so. They are also killing other Muslims. Muslim extremists, if they kill several thousand Americans again in an attack in America, will be cheered by millions of Muslims around the world. This pastor and church will burn a book. They will not kill. They will continue to receive, justly, condemnation from every facet of the Christian community. It is this type of leveling and equating between the Christian and Muslim communities that continues to aggravate the dangers people face. In fact, it will actually discourage genuine moderates within the Muslim community from coming forward.

I am not one to pray for rain, but on 9/11, it would be helpful if it rained over this pastor and church.