Obama: Forced To Lie?!?

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's a central dilemma of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a postpartisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Dole might put it, he's forced to lie about his record.

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!!

(with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a New York Post article, OBAMA'S EXTREMISM:

OBAMA'S EXTREMISM [/] By RICH LOWRY [/] August 19, 2008 --

Barack Obama had a mini Bob Dole moment after the Saddleback presidential forum the other night. Asked on the Christian Broadcasting Network about a controversy over his opposition to legislation in Illinois protecting infants born alive after surviving abortions, an irked Obama replied, "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

Obama's line recalled Dole's plaint on national TV after the first George Bush beat him in New Hampshire in 1988, "Tell him to stop lying about my record." Dole's outburst would live in infamy as evidence of his distemper. Obama's problem isn't his temperament, but the unsustainable exertions necessary to attempt to square his reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion with the extremism of his record.

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby gets rights, Obama said, "I'm absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue." This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is "above his pay grade." Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors "limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health." But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34, respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It's not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - the occasion for his televised accusation of lying. In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. [/] Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted "present" - effectively "no" - on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a "neutrality clause" specifying that it didn't affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. [/] In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn't have the same "neutrality clause" as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

Confronted about this on CBN, he said the pro-life group was lying. But his campaign has now admitted that he had the legislative history wrong. Obama either didn't know his own record, or was so accustomed to shrouding it in dishonesty that it had become second nature.

Here's a central dilemma of Obama's candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he's a postpartisan healer. So, as someone as splenetic as Dole might put it, he's forced to lie about his record. [My ellipses and emphasis]

McCain: Forced To Be Professional?!? --- Maverick No More?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a New York Times David Brooks op-ed, The Education of McCain:

The Education of McCain [/] By DAVID BROOKS [/] Op-Ed Columnist [/] August 19, 2008

On Tuesdays, Senate Republicans hold a weekly policy lunch. The party leaders often hand out a Message of the Week that the senators are supposed to repeat at every opportunity. Sometimes there will be a pollster offering data that supposedly demonstrates the brilliance of the message and why it will lead to political nirvana.

John McCain generally spends the lunches at a table with a gang of fellow ne’er-do-wells. He cracks jokes, razzes the speaker and generally ridicules the whole proceeding. Then he takes the paper with the Message of the Week back to his office. He tosses it on the desk of some staffer with a sarcastic comment like: “Here’s your message. Learn it. Love it. Live it.”

This sort of behavior has been part of McCain’s long-running rebellion against the stupidity of modern partisanship. In a thousand ways, he has tried to preserve some sense of self-respect in a sea of pandering pomposity. He’s done it through self-mockery, by talking endlessly about his own embarrassing lapses and by keeping up a running patter on the absurdity all around. He’s done it by breaking frequently from his own party to cut serious deals with people like Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. He’s done it with his own frantic and freewheeling style, which was unpredictable, untamed and, at some level, unprofessional.

When McCain and his team set out to win the presidency in 2008, they hoped to run a campaign with this sort of spirit. McCain would venture forth on the back of his bus, going places other Republicans don’t go, saying things politicians don’t say, offering the country the vision of a different kind of politics — free of circus antics — in which serious people sacrifice for serious things.

It hasn’t turned out that way. McCain hasn’t been able to run the campaign he had envisioned. Instead, he and his staff have been given an education by events.

McCain started out with the same sort of kibitzing campaign style that he used to woo the press back in 2000. It didn’t work. This time there were too many cameras around and too many 25-year-old reporters and producers seizing on every odd comment to set off little blog scandals. [/] McCain started out with the same sort of improvised campaign events he’d used his entire career, in which he’d begin by riffing off of whatever stories were in the paper that day. It didn’t work. The campaign lacked focus. No message was consistent enough to penetrate through the national clutter.

McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. The poverty tour got very little coverage on the network news. McCain and his advisers realized the only way they could get TV attention was by talking about the subject that interested reporters most: Barack Obama.

McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked. Obama vetoed the town meeting idea. The issue is not closed, but G.O.P. leaders are resisting a cross-party pick like Lieberman.

McCain and his advisers have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them. They have been compelled, at least in their telling, to abandon the campaign they had hoped to run. Now they are running a much more conventional race, the kind McCain himself used to ridicule.

The man who lampooned the Message of the Week is now relentlessly on message (as observers of his fine performance at Saddleback Church can attest). The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily. It is the only way he can get the networks to pay attention.

Some old McCain hands are dismayed. John Weaver, the former staff member who helped run the old McCain operation, argues that this campaign does not do justice to the man. The current advisers say they have no choice. They didn’t choose the circumstances of this race. Their job is to cope with them.

And the inescapable fact is: It is working. Everyone said McCain would be down by double digits at this point. He’s nearly even. Everyone said he’d be vastly outspent. That hasn’t happened. A long-shot candidacy now seems entirely plausible.

As the McCain’s campaign has become more conventional, his political prospects have soared. Both he and Obama had visions of upending the system. Maybe in office, one of them will still be able to do that. But at least on the campaign trail, the system is winning. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Georgia: US Reaction Shameful?!?

The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger.

Say it ain't so, President Bush!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Telegraph [UK] article by John Bolton, After Russia's invasion of Georgia, what now for the West?:

After Russia's invasion of Georgia, what now for the West? [/]
At least for now, the smoke seems to be clearing from the Georgian battlefield. But the extent of the wreckage reaches far beyond that small country. [/] By John R Bolton [/] Last Updated: 2:32PM BST 15 Aug 2008

Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage.

As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger. Sending Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice to Tbilisi is touching, but hardly reassuring; dispatching humanitarian assistance is nothing more than we would have done if Georgia had been hit by a natural rather than a man-made disaster.

The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich: a ceasefire that failed to mention Georgia’s territorial integrity, and that all but gave Russia permission to continue its military operations as a “peacekeeping” force anywhere in Georgia. More troubling, over the long term, was that the EU saw its task as being mediator – its favourite role in the world – between Georgia and Russia, rather than an advocate for the victim of aggression.

Even this dismal performance was enough to relegate Nato to an entirely backstage role, while Russian tanks and planes slammed into a “faraway country”, as Chamberlain once observed so thoughtfully. In New York, paralysed by the prospect of a Russian veto, the UN Security Council, that Temple of the High-Minded, was as useless as it was during the Cold War. In fairness to Russia, it at least still seems to understand how to exercise power in the Council, which some other Permanent Members often appear to have forgotten.

The West, collectively, failed in this crisis. Georgia wasted its dime making that famous 3am telephone call to the White House, the one Hillary Clinton referred to in a campaign ad questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for the Presidency. Moreover, the blood on the Bear’s claws did not go unobserved in other states that were once part of the Soviet Union. Russia demonstrated unambiguously that it could have marched directly to Tbilisi and installed a puppet government before any Western leader was able to turn away from the Olympic Games. It could, presumably, do the same to them.

Fear was one reaction Russia wanted to provoke, and fear it has achieved, not just in the “Near Abroad” but in the capitals of Western Europe as well. But its main objective was hegemony, a hegemony it demonstrated by pledging to reconstruct Tskhinvali, the capital of its once and no-longer-future possession, South Ossetia. The contrast is stark: a real demonstration of using sticks and carrots, the kind that American and European diplomats only talk about. Moreover, Russia is now within an eyelash of dominating the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the only route out of the Caspian Sea region not now controlled by either Russia or Iran. Losing this would be dramatically unhelpful if we hope for continued reductions in global petroleum prices, and energy independence from unfriendly, or potentially unfriendly, states.

[...] Finally, the most important step will take place right here in the United States. With a Presidential election on November 4, Americans have an opportunity to take our own national pulse, given the widely differing reactions to Russia’s blitzkrieg from Senator McCain and (at least initially) Senator Obama. First reactions, before the campaigns’ pollsters and consultants get involved, are always the best indicators of a candidate’s real views. McCain at once grasped the larger, geostrategic significance of Russia’s attack, and the need for a strong response, whereas Obama at first sounded as timorous and tentative as the Bush Administration. Ironically, Obama later moved closer to McCain’s more robust approach, followed only belatedly by Bush.

[...] * John R Bolton is the former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, he is the author of the recently published “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations” [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: Infanticide Advocate?!?

>>> "Thrice in the Illinois legislature, [...] Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste."!!!

>>> "Opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act"!!!

>>> "Pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion."!!!

>>> Partial birth abortion: "When Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."!!!

"How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?"???

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!!

(with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Human Events .com article, A Catholic Case Against Barack:

A Catholic Case Against Barack [/] by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author) [/] Posted 08/12/2008 ET

In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points. The cool liberal Harvard Law grad was not a good fit for the socially conservative ethnics of Altoona, Aliquippa and Johnstown.

But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously.

For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.

Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary."

Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

And Barack did not let the militants down. When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women." [/] As David Freddoso reports in his new best-seller, "The Case Against Barack Obama", the Illinois senator goes further than any U.S. senator has dared go in defending what John Paul II called the "culture of death."

Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this?

If, as its advocates contend, abortion has to remain legal to protect the life and health, mental and physical, of the mother, how is a mother's life or health in the least threatened by a baby no longer inside her -- but lying on a table or in a pan fighting for life and breath?

How is it essential for the life or health of a woman that her baby, who somehow survived the horrible ordeal of abortion, be left to die or put to death? Yet, that is what Obama voted for, thrice, in the Illinois Senate.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate before Barack came, spoke out on its behalf: [/] "Of course, we believe everyone should deserve the protection of this bill. ... Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that. ... We join with an 'aye' vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous."

Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?

Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?

Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."

In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion.

What we once called God's Country would become the nation on earth most zealously committed to an unrestricted right of abortion from conception to birth.

Before any devout Catholic, Evangelical Christian or Orthodox Jew votes for Obama, he or she might spend 15 minutes in Chapter 10 of Freddoso's "The Case Against Barack Obama" For if, as Catholics believe, abortion is the killing of an unborn child, and participation in an abortion entails automatic excommunication, how can a good Catholic support a candidate who will appoint justices to make Roe v. Wade eternal and eliminate all restrictions on a practice Catholics legislators have fought for three decades to curtail?

And which Catholic priests and prelates will it be who give invocations at Obama rallies, even as Mother Church fights to save the lives of unborn children whom Obama believes have no right to life and no rights at all?

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong." [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL BJon The '04 Obama: Gone Forever?!?

What has happened to the above-partisanship unifier?!?

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 132020!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

From a Washington Post article, That Was the Obama We're Still Waiting For:

That Was the Obama We're Still Waiting For [/] By Michael Tomasky [/] Sunday, August 10, 2008; [Page in print edition] B01

As the Democratic convention approaches, it's a safe bet that the cable networks will transport us back in time to late July 2004 by showing clips of Barack Obama's electrifying keynote address to that year's gathering. That was the speech that made him a star (and unlike John McCain's ad team, I mean this as a compliment). But I've sometimes wondered in recent months: Whatever happened to that Obama, to that enemy of excessive partisanship and evangelist of national unity?

You will recall the money sentences: "Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." These phrases were followed by several deftly chosen images designed to skewer the stereotypes that red and blue Americans entertain about each other. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states," Obama thundered. "And yes," he added, "we've got some gay friends in the red states."

These now-famous lines constituted just a small sliver of the speech; the rest was more standard stuff -- his biography, his concern for workers at a Maytag plant in Galesburg, Ill., (he was running for Senate, after all) and, of course, all the marvelous things that John F. Kerry would do as president. But those lines stood out for a reason: They articulated a deep yearning, held by many Americans of varying beliefs, for less polarization and division. This theme was precisely what cata pulted Obama to the front rank of Democratic poli ticians.

Now ask yourself: Have you heard Obama talk like that lately? [/] Chances are you haven't. The grand 2004 theme of post-partisanship seems to have all but disappeared from the candidate's rhetoric. [/] [...] but I also think that Obama will miss an important opportunity if he doesn't use this month's convention to restate this theme -- and remind voters that a purpler America is still a pretty good idea.

Here are four theories about why Obama has moved post-partisanship to the rhetorical back burner.

Theory No. 1: There's only room in a campaign for one big theme at a time, and the Obama team has settled on "change." [...]

Theory No. 2: Post-partisanship is too abstract. Obama has taken lots of fire from pundits and GOP operatives for supposedly being too highfalutin', a propensity he now feels he must guard against. [...]

Theory No. 3: The Obama team may feel that they've already established the purple theme sufficiently. [...]

Theory No. 4: It could be that the post-partisanship theme is simply less resonant now than it was in 2004. [...]

So perhaps the Obama campaign has good reasons to move away from the theme that made its candidate famous. The Obama people may know exactly what they're doing. After all, they haven't done too badly so far. [...] [/] Even so, I would like to see Obama return to the post-partisan, one-America idea himself. It's an electoral winner and a governing essential, should he be elected. [/] mtomasky@gmail.com [/] Michael Tomasky is the editor of Guardian America, the U.S.-based Web site of the Guardian.

[Links to] Ads by Google: [/] Free Obama Button [...] [/] [...] Full Story on Jesse Jackson's Crude Remark [...] [/] [...] "Barack Obama Exposed" - Free! [My ellipses and emphasis]

Poll Question: The '04 Obama: Gone Forever?!? | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Hypocrisy now obvious. / 2. Yes. Circumstances have changed. / 3. Yes. Times have changed. / 4. Yes. Slamming conservatives now more important. / 5. Yes. It was all a dream. / 6. Yes. It was all media hype. / 7. Yes. Reality has set in. / 8. Yes. / 9. Possibly. / 10. Possibly. Post-partianship too abstract. / 11. Possibly. One theme at a time. / 12. Possibly. Post-partisanship less resonant. / 13. No. . / 14. No. Purple theme established. / 15. No. Hope implies unity. / 16. No. Change implies unity. / 17. No. All will like Obama's changes. / 18. No. Statism brings unity. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study.. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 132020! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

Government Caused the Global Economic Crisis!?!

But Capitalism Gets the Blame!?!

At root, this crisis was caused by state error. Governments and economic ideologies rigged the system in favour of debt. City and Wall Street banks were pushed into behaving with reckless abandon. They took part shamelessly, of course. But their antics were merely symptoms of a deeper problem.

Needless to say, this is not the perception in North America or Europe. It already looks as if the political response will be a massive assault on the workings of the free market. Socialism is coming back. One wants to weep.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Telegraph [UK] article, Governments caused the credit crisis:

Governments caused the credit crisis, but capitalism gets the blame [/] By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [/] Last Updated: 8:31am BST 08/08/2008

State error led banks to ignore the lessons of history and overdose on too-cheap money, writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Three years ago, the world's top watchdog warned that the global economy was veering out of control. Defending orthodoxy against the easy debt policies of the Greenspan era, the Bank for International Settlements said interest rates were being held too low for safety in most of the mature economies.

America had embarked on an unprecedented experiment. The US savings rate had fallen to near zero for the first time since the Slump. The current account deficit had reached levels that were incompatible with the dollar's role as the anchor of the global system. [/] The rising powers of Asia were preventing adjustment by holding down their currencies, and flooding the world with cheap credit in the process. Incipient bubbles were ubiquitous. "Most industrial countries are showing symptoms of over-heating in the housing market," it said. [/] New-fangled securities were allowing banks to take "highly leveraged positions". It was unclear how these untested inventions would "handle a string of credit blow-ups".

"One simply cannot ignore the number of indicators that are now simultaneously exhibiting marked deviations," concluded the BIS. That was in June 2005. [/] Regrettably, governments did exactly that. They ignored manifest risks. Real interest rates were held near or below zero in the US and a large arc of Europe until well into 2006.

By then, the damage was done. US housing had succumbed to full-fledged mania. Variants were emerging - later in the cycle - across the Anglo-Saxon world, the Baltic, Club Med, and Eastern Europe.

What occurred was a fatal cocktail, a mix of too much and too little government intervention at the same time. Bureaucrats (central banks) held down the price of credit: other bureaucrats (regulators) turned a blind eye to the excesses that cheap money caused in mortgages and the "shadow banking system" - that $3 trillion nexus of structured credit. Northern Rock continued to offer 125pc mortgages. Honey-trap "teaser" loans continued to ensnare Americans.

Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan now says the world faces a "once or twice in a century event". Faith in the financial system has been called into question. Taxpayers will have to rescue more banks. Missing is any hint of apology for his role in incubating this crisis as monetary overlord for 20 years.

[...] The Fed could have done a great deal to offset the tsunami of Asian money by squeezing liquidity at home. It chose not to do so. Mr Greenspan and his protégé, Ben Bernanke, saw no need to act because inflation was tamed. [/] Cheap Asian goods flooded the world, keeping a lid on inflation in the West. It lulled the central banking fraternity into a false sense of security. As they slept, the excess money found its way into asset booms. This was the "Great Error".

[...] Critics say the rescues have failed. One can only ask what would have happened if nothing had been done. There is no "solution" to this crisis. The task now is to keep the ship afloat as debt defaults run their awful course. [/] It will be a long work-out. Japan has suffered its Lost Decade, with the worst pain in the second half. Don't assume the Anglo-Saxons and Club Med will get off more lightly. Japan started its descent as top creditor, brimming with reserves and savings. Westerners go down empty.

Henceforth, we must design out asset bubbles. The BIS suggests a credit speed limit of sorts. Old-fashioned monetarists say the debacle could have been avoided if we had paid more heed to the M3 and M4 money supply. These aggregates blew the whistle three years ago.

At root, this crisis was caused by state error. Governments and economic ideologies rigged the system in favour of debt. City and Wall Street banks were pushed into behaving with reckless abandon. They took part shamelessly, of course. But their antics were merely symptoms of a deeper problem.

Needless to say, this is not the perception in North America or Europe. It already looks as if the political response will be a massive assault on the workings of the free market. Socialism is coming back. One wants to weep. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Anti-Revolutionary Wisdom

From onetime political philosophy professor at a Christian university, and longtime Washington columnist: George Will.

The world is a fact, and facts are indeed stubborn things. After eight years, if such there are, of an Obama presidency, if such there is, the world will look much as it does today — if we are lucky.

Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities — often of wars, sometimes of people determined to "remake the world." Wise voters — polls might be telling us that there are more of them than Obama imagines — hanker for candidates whose principal promise is that they will do their best to muddle through without breaking too much crockery.

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From an Investor's Business Daily article, Obama Cannot Keep Running On Narcissism:

Obama Cannot Keep Running On Narcissism [/] By GEORGE F. WILL | Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 4:30 PM PT

As the presidential candidates enter the three-month sprint to November, Barack Obama must be wondering: If that did not do it, what will? [/] The antecedent of the pronoun "that" is his Berlin speech. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" is assuage anxieties about his understanding of the need to supplement soft power (diplomacy) with hard power (military force).

He spoke in Berlin at the bullet-scarred base — it was in the crossfire 63 years ago as Russian troops neared Hitler's bunker about a mile away — of an 1873 monument to German militarism. To be precise, the monument celebrates the Franco-Prussian War and lesser triumphs of the militarism that would help ruin the next century. [/] Anyway, at that monument Obama exhorted Germans — does the candidate of "change" appreciate how much beneficent change made this exhortation necessary? — to be more willing to wage war, in Afghanistan. He was right to do so.

But polls taken since his trip abroad do not indicate that Obama succeeded in altering the oddest aspect of this presidential campaign: Measured against his party's surging strength in every region and at every level, he is dramatically underperforming. [/] Surely this fact is related to anxieties about his thin resume regarding national security matters, the thinnest of any major party nominee since Wendell Wilkie's in 1940.

But the fact also might be related to fatigue from too much of Obama's eloquence, which is beginning to sound formulaic and perfunctory. [/] Even an eloquent politician can become, as Benjamin Disraeli described William Gladstone, "a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity."

[...] Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs — someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy.

And no more locutions such as "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship." If they meant anything in Berlin, they meant that Obama wanted Berliners to know that he is proudly cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism is not, however, a political asset for American presidential candidates.

Least of all is it an asset for Obama, one of whose urgent needs is to seem comfortable with America's vibrant and very un-European patriotism, which is grounded in a sense of virtuous exceptionalism.

Otherwise, "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship" are, strictly speaking, nonsense. Citizenship is defined by legal and loyalty attachments to a particular political entity with a distinctive regime and culture. Neither the world nor the globe is such an entity.

In Berlin, Obama neared self-parody with a rhetoric of Leave No Metaphor Behind. "Walls"? Down with them. "Bridges"? Build new ones between this and that. "A new dawn"? The Middle East deserves one.

And Berlin was the wrong place to vow to "remake the world once again." Modern Berlin rose from rubble that was the result of the last attempt at remaking "the world."

Of course, from Obama, such tropes, although silly, are not menacing, any more than they were from Ronald Reagan, who was incorrigibly fond of perhaps the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher, Thomas Paine's "we have it in our power to begin the world over again."
'No. We. Don't.

The world is a fact, and facts are indeed stubborn things. After eight years, if such there are, of an Obama presidency, if such there is, the world will look much as it does today — if we are lucky.

Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities — often of wars, sometimes of people determined to "remake the world." Wise voters — polls might be telling us that there are more of them than Obama imagines — hanker for candidates whose principal promise is that they will do their best to muddle through without breaking too much crockery. [My ellipses and emphasis]

US Episcopal Bishops Not Trusted?!?

Lied to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Other Authorities?!?

US Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori lied?!?

Head of Anglican Communion lacks courage to confront them?!?

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a Virtue Online .org exclusive article, LAMBETH: David's Diary:

LAMBETH: David's Diary - From My Ear to Yours (3) [/] By David W. Virtue [/] 7/30/2008 [/] [NOTE: TEC stands for THE Episcopal Church aka The Episcopal Church USA (Just kidding about the all-caps THE)]

[...] [...] Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker had some choice words to say about the 3rd Windsor Continuation Group Report. In an interview, he said that a number of TEC bishops who spoke at the hearing were quite distraught over the recommendations of the report. California Bishop Marc Andrus stood and said something like "I'm not going to lie to you; we have numerous same-sex blessings occurring in my diocese all the time, and have for years." Bishop Chane stood and commented that he had about 30 same-sex-partnered clergy in his diocese.

"While one can give both bishops points for honesty, they look less stellar when one considers their admissions (and much other evidence) alongside the pledge that TEC bishops made last September. Will [Archbishop of Canterbury] Dr. Williams finally acknowledge that the word of TEC bishops cannot be trusted - even if the WCG recommendations were to go forward?" A friend wrote: "This is hardly the first evidence of lying on the part of TEC bishops to Rowan and to the Windsor people and to anyone else involved with potentially disciplining them. I wonder if [Archbishop of Canterbury] Rowan [Williams] will now have to acknowledge the obvious. TEC bishops lied. [US Presiding Bishop] Katharine Jefferts Schori lied. They can't be trusted. I doubt he can muster the courage to do that. The reputation of Lambeth [worldwide Anglican conference] has sunk even lower, if that's possible." [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: His Code Words Reveai a Stealth Socialist!?!

"Economic justice" = Marxist "Redistribution of Wealth"?!?

"Investment" = Hyper-Liberal "Tax and Spend"?!?

Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code. [...] "Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

[...] Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From an Investor's Business Daily editorial, Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism:

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism [/] By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code. [/] [Part of] IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism [/] During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state. [/] In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all). [/] Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns. [/] It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments": [/] • "Universal," "guaranteed" health care. [/] • "Free" college tuition. [/] • "Universal national service" (a la Havana). [/] • "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families"). [/] • "Free" job training (even for criminals). [/] • "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels). [/] • "Free" child care and "universal" preschool. [/] • More subsidized public housing. [/] • A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor." [/] • And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff. [/] Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

[...] Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist. [/] Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider"

[...] But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

[...] Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: Stealth Socialist Background and Upbringing!?!

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)? [/] Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes[!!!]. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion[!!!]. [/] The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager[!!!] in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.[!!!]

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From an Investor's Business Daily editorial, Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism:

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism [/] By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

[...] The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities." [/] As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment. [/] "They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America. [/] The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters. [/] After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics. [/] (A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans." [/] [...] Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

[...] (Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere. [/] Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits. [/] (Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer." [/] He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice." [/] He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist. [/] Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL ToK Active Gay Bishop Resign?

From U.S. Episcopal Diocese

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 131408!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

From a Virtue Online .org article, Congolese bishop says Robinson "Causing Pain":

LAMBETH: Congolese bishop says Robinson "Causing Pain" [/] By Hans Zeiger in Canterbury [/] July 28, 2008

CANTERBURY -A bishop of the Anglican Church in the Congo spoke with VirtueOnline on Sunday about his personal opposition to homosexual ordination. The Rt. Rev. Sylvestre Bahati Bali-Busane, Bishop of the Diocese of Bakavu in the Congo , said that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, the gay Bishop of New Hampshire, is "causing pain in the church."

Through an interpreter, Bishop Bahati said, "In my opinion, so many bishops are not here because of Gene Robinson. It would have been good to be forthright and also for Gene Robinson to resign. Most bishops are not happy with him continuing to be bishop in a church and he should have stepped down. That is my own opinion."

Hundreds of orthodox Anglican bishops, mostly from Africa, have stayed away from the Lambeth Conference, opting instead to attend the Global Anglican Future Conference in the Holy Land last month. Divisions in the Anglican Communion run deep.

Bishop Bahati reiterated his belief that Bishop Robinson is to blame for the schism. Robinson is "really causing pain in the church," said Bahati. "He should stop it completely. It would be very, very good to stop completely ordination of gay bishops and marriages, because it is evident that this is the biggest problem in the church at the moment."

Bahati then quoted from I Corinthian 8 in Swahili. Given the Scriptural admonition not to cause problems for a brother with a weak conscience, said the bishop, "It would be far better to bring an end to that [gay ordination] and it will bring healing to the church." [My ellipses and emphasis]

First Corinthians 8: KJV:

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Poll Question: Active Gay Bishop Resign? (From U.S. Episcopal Diocese) | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Unity vs. bishops' right to sodomy. / 2. Yes. Embarasing to millions. / 3. Yes. Against canon law. / 4. Yes. Completely unbiblical. / 5. Yes. Offense to all humanity. / 6. Yes. In sackcloth and ashes. / 7. Yes. And change his ways. / 8. Yes. And either Repent or leave church. / 9. Yes. / 10. Possibly. Christian freedom. / 11. Possibly. Tolerate the sinner. / 12. Possibly. / 13. No. / 14. No. Freedom of sexual expression tops other considerations. / 15. No. Make the world safe for sodomy. / 16. No. Next they will be picking on women. / 17. No. Next they will be picking on minorities. / 18. No. Sexual orientation unchangeable. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study.. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 131408! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

Top Sudanese Episcopal Bishop Rejects Homosexual Practice!!!

"We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS [The Episcopal Church of Sudan]. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships."

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a Virtue Online .org article, Sudanese Episcopal Church Rejects Homosexual Practice:

Exclusives : LAMBETH: Sudanese Episcopal Church Rejects Homosexual Practice [/] Posted by David Virtue on 2008/7/21 15:00:00 (1668 reads) [/] Africans Oppose Episcopal Church for Consecrating a Practicing Homosexual - Condemn Court Actions

The Archbishop and Primate of the Province of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan has issued a statement at the Lambeth Conference [the official gathering of the world's Amglican bishops] condemning homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and saying the consecration of an openly homosexual American bishop has caused divisions within the Anglican Communion and harmed the Church's witness in Africa.

The Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul made the statement available through intermediaries to VirtueOnline. In a clear and concise statement said that human sexuality is God's gift to human beings and can only be expressed within a life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman.

"We require all those in the ministry of the Church to live according to this standard and cannot accept church leaders whose practice is contrary to this," said the Archbishop.

"We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships. This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church's witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment."

The Archbishop said the unity of the Anglican Communion is of profound importance as an expression of our unity within the Body of Christ. "It is not something we can treat lightly or allow to be fractured easily. Our unity expresses the essential truth of the Gospel that in Christ we are united across different tribes, cultures and nationalities.

"We have come to attend the Lambeth Conference, despite the decision of others to stay away, to appeal to the whole Anglican Communion to uphold our unity and to take the necessary steps to safeguard the precious unity of the Church.

"Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we appeal to the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada to demonstrate real commitment to the requests arising from the Windsor process. In particular: To refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals to bishops or priests; To refrain from approving rites of blessing for same-sex relationships; To cease court actions with immediate effect; To comply with Resolution 1:10 of the 1998 Lambeth conference; To respect the authority of the Bible."

"We believe that such steps are essential for bridging the divisions which have opened up within the Communion. "We affirm our commitment to uphold the four instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth conference, the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council, and call upon all Provinces of the Communion to respect these for the sake of the unity and well-being of the Church.

"We appeal to this Lambeth conference to rescue the Anglican Communion from being divided. We pray that God will heal us from the spirit of divisions. We pray for God's strength and wisdom so that we might be built up in the unity of the Body of Christ." [My ellipses and emphasis]

Toto of Kansas aka Jim Smiling aka Brother Jonathan

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Spirit Baptism Ended?!?

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

There are many passages that seem to show a great dispensational difference between the New Testament church and the post-apostolic church.

The formation of the nation of Israel during forty years in the desert is strikingly parallel to the formation of the Church in the forty years between Pentecost and the destruction of the Temple.

Paul's exposition of these similarities would seem to define baptism in the Holy Spirit in a way unfamiliar to most.

1 Corinthians 10:1-6 KJV Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (5) But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. (6) Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

"Under the cloud" and "through the sea" would seem to be similar to Spirit baptism and water baptism respectively. And "baptized unto Moses" is parallel to baptized into Christ. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night are parallel to baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

One thing that has always puzzled me about Spirit baptism is the exit from immersion. (Baptism is literally a dipping.) I have thought that possibly it was the residue from the immersion that was efficacious.

But this passage suggests that Spirit baptism was of the entire Church. And as the pillar of cloud ceased when the nation of Israel had been formed under Moses, the Church emerged from the baptism of the Spirit when its formation through the special spiritual offices, gifts and manifestations of the apostolic age was complete.

Toto of Kansas aka Jim Smiling aka Brother Jonathan

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Global Economy: Max Danger Is Now!?!

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Telegraph [UK] article, The global economy is at the point of maximum danger:

The global economy is at the point of maximum danger [/] By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [/] Last Updated: 6:53am BST 21/07/2008

It feels like the summer of 1931. The world's two biggest financial institutions have had a heart attack. The global currency system is breaking down. The policy doctrines that got us into this mess are bankrupt. No world leader seems able to discern the problem, let alone forge a solution.

The International Monetary Fund has abdicated into schizophrenia. It has upgraded its 2008 world forecast from 3.7pc to 4.1pc growth, whilst warning of a "chance of a global recession". Plainly, the IMF cannot or will not offer any useful insights. [/] Its "mean-reversion" model misses the entire point of this crisis, which is that central banks have pushed debt to fatal levels by holding interest too low for a generation, and now the chickens have come home to roost. True "mean-reversion" would imply debt deflation on such a scale that would, if abrupt, threaten democracy.

The risk is that these same central banks will commit a fresh error, this time overreacting to the oil spike. The European Central Bank has raised rates, warning of a 1970s wage-price spiral. Fixated on the rear-view mirror, it is not looking through the windscreen.

The eurozone is falling into recession before the US itself. Its level of credit stress is worse, if measured by Euribor or the iTraxx bond indexes. Core inflation has fallen over the last year from 1.9pc to 1.8pc.

The US may soon tip into a second leg of this crisis as the fiscal package runs out and Americans lose jobs in earnest. US bank credit has contracted for three months. Real US wages fell at almost 10pc (annualised) over May and June. This is a ferocious squeeze for an economy already in the grip of the property and debt crunch.

No doubt the rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - $5.3 trillion pillars of America's mortgage market - stinks of moral hazard. The Treasury is to buy shares: the Fed has opened its window yet wider. Risks have been socialised. Any rewards will go to capitalists.

Alas, no Scandinavian discipline for Wall Street. When Norway's banks fell below critical capital levels in the early 1990s, the Storting authorised seizure. Shareholders were stiffed. [/] But Nordic purism in the vast universe of US credit would court fate. The Californian lender IndyMac was indeed seized after depositors panicked on the streets of Encino. The police had to restore order. This was America's Northern Rock moment. [/] IndyMac will deplete a tenth of the $53bn reserve of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC has some 90 "troubled" lenders on watch. IndyMac was not one of them.

The awful reality is that Washington has its back to the wall. Fed chief Ben Bernanke thought the US could always get out of trouble by monetary stimulus "à l'outrance", and letting the dollar slide. He has learned that the world is a more complicated place.

Oil has queered the pitch. So has America's fatal reliance on foreign debt. The Fannie/Freddie rescue, incidentally, has just lifted the US national debt from German 'AAA' levels to Italian 'AA-' levels.

China, Russia, petro-powers and other foreign states own $985bn of US agency debt, besides holdings of US Treasuries. Purchases of Fannie/Freddie debt covered a third of the US current account deficit of $700bn over the last year. Alex Patelis from Merrill Lynch says America faces the risk of a "financing crisis" within months. Foreigners have a veto over US policy. [/] Japan did not have this problem during its Lost Decade. As the world's supplier of credit, it could let the yen slide. It also had a savings rate of 15pc. Albert Edwards from Société Générale says this has fallen to 3pc today. It has cushioned the slump. Americans are under water before they start.

My view is that a dollar crash will be averted as it becomes clearer that contagion has spread worldwide. But we are now at the point of maximum danger. Britain, Japan, and the Antipodes are stalling. Denmark is in recession. Germany contracted in the second quarter. May industrial output fell 6pc in Holland and 5.5pc in Sweden. [/] The coalitions in Belgium and Austria have just collapsed. Germany's left-right team is fraying. One German banker told me that the doctrines of "left Nazism" (Otto Strasser's group, purged by Hitler) had captured the rising Die Linke party. The Social Democrats are picking up its themes to protect their flank. [/] This is the healthy part of Europe. Further south, we are not far away from civic protest. BNP Paribas has just issued a hurricane alert for Spain. [/] Finance minister Pedro Solbes said Spain is facing the "most complex" economic crisis in its history. Actually, it is very simple. The country was lulled into a trap by giveaway interest rates of 2pc under EMU, leading to a current account deficit of 10pc of GDP. [/] A manic property bubble was funded by foreigners buying covered bonds and securities. This market has dried up. Monetary policy is now being tightened into the crunch by the ECB, hence the bankruptcy last week of Martinsa-Fadesa (€5.1bn). With Franco-era labour markets (70pc of wages are inflation-linked), the adjustment will occur through closure of the job marts.

China, India, East Europe and emerging Asia have all stolen growth from the future by condoning credit excess. To varying degrees, they are now being forced to pay back their own "inter-temporal overdrafts".

If we are lucky, America will start to stabilise before Asia goes down. Should our leaders mismanage affairs, almost every part of the global system will go down together. Then we are in trouble. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Anglicans Gone Astray Over Sexuality Issues?!?

As leaders of the third largest Christian communion meet in England, leaders of other communions, larger and smaller, send warnings about what is seen as a dangerous drift from biblical and traditional Christian teachings.

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a Virtue Online .org Exclusive, World Ecumenical Leaders Blast Anglican Communion over Sexuality Issues:

Exclusives : LAMBETH: World Ecumenical Leaders Blast Anglican Communion over Sexuality Issues [/] Posted by David Virtue on 2008/7/19 8:10:00 (1768 reads)

World religious leaders including Pope Benedict XVI, the Archbishop of Constantinople, the Russian Patriarchate and numerous church leaders took aim at the Anglican Communion's sexual drift and blasted its leadership saying that they jeopardized present and future relationships.

Speaking on behalf of Pope Benedict XIV, Secretary of State for the Vatican Cardinal Bertrone wrote the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops saying that "apostolic faith handed down from the beginning and the 'regula fidei' faithfully transmitted, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the ages" is not subject to compromise. [/] "Our different understanding of the divine plan for this ministry in the Church has been addressed for the past forty years. New issues that have arisen in our relationship pose a further and grave challenge to the hope for full and visible unity that has been the longstanding goal of our joint ecumenical endeavour." [/] The Pope concluded his remarks saying "the emerging ecclesiological and ethical factors make (our) journey more difficult and arduous."

The Archbishop of Constantinople and ecumenical Patriarch wrote saying that while Lambeth would be devoting special consideration to the vocation and ministry of the bishop as the symbol and instrument of unity, "we pray that the present Lambeth Conference will prove to be a council of reconciliation and unity, an occasion for speaking the truth in sincerity and without compromise, yet an occasion also for speaking the truth in love." [/] Acknowledging that questions confronting the Bishops of the Anglican Communion are "from one point of view, specifically Anglican questions" they are "at the same time questions that concern the total Christian world." The Archbishop concluded his remarks saying that "your concerns...have a vital relevance also for us."

The Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia wrote saying that the members of the conference have a very serious task. "They have to choose between the traditional, biblical norms of morality and tendencies which consider sin and general permissiveness as manifestations of love and tolerance. That is why there is laid on members of the conference such a great, historic responsibility." [/] He said the outcome of the Lambeth Conference will be of particular importance for the Russian Orthodox Church, "for the history of our contacts with Anglicans goes back to the sixteenth century. As a rule, it has been marked by warmth and mutual understanding. I sincerely hope it will be possible to maintain such relations." The Patriarch concluded his remarks saying, "It is my heartfelt wish that the work of the conference be governed by the aspiration to remain unshakably faithful to the understanding of the Christian moral ideal which is revealed to us in the Word of God and the centuries-old aposto9lic tradition."

The Holy Archbishopric of Cyprus cautioned that "great care be taken for the realization of the sacramental communication of the Anglicans with the Orthodox." [/] He noted that following the 1988 Lambeth conference, "no substantial progress had been made to "promote relations between the Orthodox and the Anglican Church, no substantial progress has been made in this area though a most fervent desire for our union exists in both churches." He said the church had recognized "Anglican ordainments" since 1923.

In a pointed statement to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Athens and all Greece suggested that as this is the year of St. Paul, the Anglican Communion might take the opportunity "to examine to what degree the Church has remained faithful or has deviated from the Pauline teaching and principles., given that most of Europe was originally evangelized by the Apostle Paul and has immediate need of re-evangelization "to distinguish between those matters that are essentials and those that are not." [/] He said it was imperative that the "Godless secularism" that threatens to engulf most of today's society should be met with "re-evangelization".

John Barrett, chairperson of The World Methodist Council wrote saying the church must reassert its authority to speak "and resist the temptation to accept uncritically a contemporary world view. It must also not retreat to a simplistic fundamentalism."

The Unity Board of the Moravian Church urged the Archbishop of Canterbury "to distinguish between those matters that are essentials and those that are not. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Toto of Kansas aka Jim Smiling aka Brother Jonathan

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Democrats: Party of No Faith At All?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Power Line Blog article, They Had No Faith to Lose, and They Know It:

They Had No Faith to Lose, and They Know It [[by John Hinderaker]] [/] July 15, 2008

I spent some time yesterday with a high-ranking Republican elected official. He noted that more than ever, the Democrats are the party of special interests. On issue after issue, they take perverse policy positions that are dictated by the fact that they are in the pocket of various special interests:

* They want to destroy the secret ballot in union elections, the cornerstone of labor democracy. Why? Because they are owned by the unions.

* They allowed our ability to spy on terrorists to lapse for a period of time, thereby threatening our national security. Why? Because they are owned by the plaintiffs' lawyers who were determined to sue telecoms.

* They try to block energy production, even though they know that the effects on our economy will be disastrous. Why? Because they are owned by the Sierra Club and other "environmentalist" groups.

What is surprising to me is not that the Democrats can be bought, but that they continue to be treated as the home team of American politics by essentially every reporter and editor in the news business. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Obama: Dishonest or Irrational on Iraq?!?

Power Line called him egregiously dishonest (see prior thread "Obama: Most Dishonest ...". Now the left leaning Washington Post call his Iraq position irrational:

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. - from editorial linked and copied below

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our

God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Washington Post Editorial, The Iron Timetable:

The Iron Timetable\Whether the war in Iraq is being lost or won, Barack Obama's strategy remains unchanged.\Wednesday, July 16, 2008; A16

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Obama: Most Dishonest Major U.S. Politician Ever?!?

It is possible that at some point in American history there may have been a major politician as dishonest as Barack Obama, but I can't offhand think of such a miscreant. - Power Line Blog Post excerpted and linked below

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Power Line Blog post, Obama's Dishonest Op-Ed:

Obama's Dishonest Op-Ed [/] Power Line [/] July 14, 2008 [/] [[by John Hinderaker]]

In this morning's New York Times, Barack Obama published an op-ed on Iraq that presumably previews his "major speech" on the subject tomorrow. Even by Obama's standards, the piece is breathtakingly dishonest. [/] Obama admits that he opposed the surge, and the attendant change in strategy and tactics, that have brought us close to victory. But he somehow manages to twist his being wrong about the surge--the major foreign policy issue that has arisen during his time in Congress--into vindication:

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those "factors" but because he thought it would fail. He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:

[E]ven those who are supporting -- but here's the thing, Larry -- even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working, I do not.

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration's new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.

In short, Obama bet the farm on his prediction that General Petraeus and the American military would fail. He was as spectacularly wrong as John McCain was spectacularly right. But his op-ed somehow twists this history into vindication on the theory that Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Iraq war has been expensive, and Iraq's political leaders "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

Let's start with the last point. Obama completely fails to acknowledge the remarkable political progress that has resulted from the surge, as manifested by the fact that the country's largest Sunni bloc has rejoined the government, and the U.S. Embassy reports that 15 of the 18 benchmarks of political progress that were set by Congress are now being met. Those benchmarks were set precisely for the purpose of measuring the "political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge," yet Obama fails even to mention them.

Still more dishonest is Obama's failure to acknowledge what would have happened if his policy prescription, precipitate withdrawal regardless of military conditions, had been followed: chaos, sectarian violence, possibly genocide, a resurgent al Qaeda in control of part of Iraq, with Iran possibly in control of other areas of the country. This would have been a foreign policy disaster, yet Obama, with vague references to cost and Afghanistan, claims vindication! [/] As to al Qaeda--the elephant in the room--Obama simply dissimulates:

Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.

That's not what Osama bin Laden (Iraq is where the "Third World War is raging”) or Ayman al-Zawahiri (Iraq is "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era”) say. Al Qaeda summoned jihadists from around the Muslim world to go to Iraq to fight American troops, declaring that this effort is the central front in their war against civilization. Those jihadists have been devastated by American armed forces, who have thereby scored what may, with hindsight, turn out to have been the decisive victory in the war against Muslim extremism. Obama denies all of this in a single sentence, without citing any evidence whatsoever.

Finally, Afghanistan: Obama would have us believe that he urged defeat in Iraq because he was so firmly committed to victory in Afghanistan. Once again, he misrepresents the record. [/] In fact, Obama has never supported our troops in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he said on August 14, 2007--less than a year ago--that our forces there are mostly committing war crimes:

We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.

Obama has been so uninterested in Afghanistan that when he went to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East with a Congressional delegation in January 2006, he skipped the opportunity to continue on to Afghanistan, which was taken by others who made the trip with him, including Kit Bond and Harold Ford. And, in an embarrassing gaffe, Obama claimed on May 13, 2008, that we don't have enough "Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers" in Afghanistan because they are all being used in Iraq. Obama thereby demonstrated the intellectual laziness and incuriosity that characterizes his campaign: they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and, anyway, interpreters are drawn from local populations, not shipped around the world.

Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181), thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq. His current effort to portray himself as a wolf in sheep's clothing on Afghanistan is a complete fraud.

It is possible that at some point in American history there may have been a major politician as dishonest as Barack Obama, but I can't offhand think of such a miscreant.

To comment on this post, go here. [/] Posted by John at 6:55 PM [My ellipses and emphasis]

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Tony Snow: Christian Witness?!?

What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. - Philippians 1:18

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a New York Times article, The Character of Optimism:

The Character of Optimism [/] By WILLIAM KRISTOL [/] July 14, 2008 [/] Op-Ed Columnist

The late Tony Snow — how odd it is to write “late” before Tony’s name, and how sad — was an editorial writer and columnist, the host of “Fox News Sunday” for seven years and of a radio talk show for three, and a speechwriter in the White House of the first president Bush and press secretary for the second. We were twice colleagues (at the first Bush White House and at Fox), and throughout our two decades together in Washington compatriots and friends. [/] I could easily dilate on Tony’s impressive achievements in journalism and government, and on the remarkable abilities and manifold talents that made his professional accomplishments possible.

But I’ll remember Tony Snow more for his character than his career. I’ll especially remember the calm courage and cheerful optimism he displayed in his last three years, in the face of his fatal illness.

For quite a while now, optimism has had a bad reputation in intellectual circles. The fashionable books of my youth — [...] The basic attitude one derived from these works was that pessimism is deeper than optimism, and existential angst more profound than cheerful confidence. This attitude remains powerful, perhaps dominant, among many thoughtful people today — perhaps especially among conservatives, reacting against a facile liberal belief in progress.

Tony Snow was a conservative. But he didn’t have a prejudice in favor of melancholy. His deep Christian faith combined with his natural exuberance to give him an upbeat world view. Watching him, and so admiring his remarkable strength of character in the last phase of his life, I came to wonder: Could it be that a stance of faith-grounded optimism is in fact superior to one of worldly pessimism or sophisticated fatalism?

Tony was one of the nicest guys you’d ever meet — kind, helpful and cheerful. But underlying these seemingly natural qualities was a kind of choice: the choice of gratitude. Tony thought we should be grateful for what life has given us, not bitter or anxious about what it hasn’t.

So he once wrote that “If you think Independence Day is America’s defining holiday, think again. Thanksgiving deserves that title, hands-down.” He believed that gratitude, not self-assertion, was the fundamental human truth, and that a recognition of this was one of the things that made America great.

After Tony’s cancer diagnosis and surgery in 2005, his faith deepened. So, amazingly, did his sense of gratitude. That doesn’t mean he accepted his illness, or the prospect of dying. He fought both. Above all, he didn’t want to leave his wife, Jill, and his three children. [/] Still, he understood the limits of human control. And, perhaps because of his faith, he found dying in a way life-enriching. As he wrote last year, “The mere thought of death somehow makes every blessing vivid, every happiness more luminous and intense.”

Tony once spoke at a dinner for journalists held in conjunction with the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. Cal Thomas reported on Tony’s remarks: “After his first cancer surgery, Snow said, he had to stay in bed and he began reading the Bible more, ‘learning to pray’ and to ask God to ‘draw me closer, please, [which] develops a hunger that is also a form of joy.’ ” As this last sentence hints, Tony was an avid reader of C. S. Lewis. [/] In July 2001, Tony wrote a beautiful tribute to a friend and former Washington Times colleague, Ken Smith, who had died of cancer at age 44. Seven years later, the piece reads uncannily as if the subject were Tony himself. [/] Tony described his friend’s extraordinary grace as he suffered from a cruel and debilitating form of cancer. Ken “hated fussing over himself, and didn’t want to burden anybody” with his problems. He “accepted calmly the news that his cancer was incurable.” What’s more, “Ken never became bitter or morose. He didn’t milk his plight to elicit pity. He remained himself.” And “when it mattered, his virtues always dominated his vices.” Above all, “He used the light of his faith to dispel shadows of death.”

Tony concluded: “I find myself in the odd position of mourning less than I ought to because I feel so grateful that I got to know him at all. The world doesn’t produce as many nice guys as it should. Ditto for people who possess exemplary courage, strength, decency and faith. Ken got 44 years to show the rest of us how to brighten a life and a world.”
Tony got 53 years to show the rest of us how to brighten a life and a world. We should be grateful. But I can’t help being indignant that he didn’t have longer. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas

Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays