A Wonderful Christmas Story

During every Christmas season, I am amazed at the basic goodness and generosity of the people in this great country. Millions of people representing all religious faiths spend a considerable amount of time and money helping other people who are in need. Their help sometimes takes the form of giving money to the local food bank or to a homeless shelter. In all communities, there are many programs for providing toys and clothing for children who would otherwise not receive anything for Christmas. A local restaurant in my neighborhood, which is owned by a Jewish couple, recently took $10 off the price of a meal for anyone who brought a toy to be donated to a needy child. Most of the items on the restaurant’s menu cost $10 to $15. The restaurant, in effect, was forfeiting its profits and perhaps even losing money to help needy children.

I attend a relatively small church in Atlanta. Like most other churches, we are struggling to collect our budget for the year. We have members who are unemployed and retired members who are living on drastically reduced incomes. Nevertheless, before Christmas the narthex of the church was filled with toys purchased by the members of the church to be given to children in the Atlanta area. Similar opportunities to help others are provided by churches throughout Atlanta and throughout the country. This is what Christmas is all about. It’s about the joy of giving. It’s about the joy of helping others.

A heart-warming story about Christmas has been circulating around the internet. I don’t know who wrote the story, but I want to share it with you in case you have missed it. The story describes the wisdom of a grandmother who taught her grandson about Santa Claus. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Adventure With Grandma (A Christmas Story)

I remember my first Christmas adventure with Grandma. I was just a kid. I remember tearing across town on my bike to visit her on the day my big sister dropped the bomb: "There is no Santa Claus," she jeered. "Even dummies know that!"

My Grandma was not the gushy kind, never had been. I fled to her that day because I knew she would be straight with me. I knew Grandma always told the truth, and I knew that the truth always went down a whole lot easier when swallowed with one of her world-famous cinnamon buns. I knew they were world-famous, because Grandma said so. It had to be true.

Grandma was home, and the buns were still warm. Between bites, I told her everything. She was ready for me. "No Santa Claus!" she snorted. "Ridiculous! Don't believe it. That rumor has been going around for years, and it makes me mad, plain mad. Now, put on your coat, and let's go."

"Go? Go where, Grandma?" I asked. I hadn't even finished my second world-famous, cinnamon bun. "Where" turned out to be Kerby's General Store, the one store in town that had a little bit of just about everything. As we walked through its doors, Grandma handed me ten dollars. That was a bundle in those days. "Take this money," she said, "and buy something for someone who needs it.

I'll wait for you in the car." Then she turned and walked out of Kerby's. I was only eight years old. I'd often gone shopping with my mother, but never had I shopped for anything all by myself. The store seemed big and crowded, full of people scrambling to finish their Christmas shopping. For a few moments I just stood there, confused, clutching that ten-dollar bill, wondering what to buy, and who on earth to buy it for.

I thought of everybody I knew: my family, my friends, my neighbors, the kids at school, the people who went to my church. I was just about thought out, when I suddenly thought of Bobby Decker. He was a kid with bad breath and messy hair, and he sat right behind me in Mrs. Pollock's grade-two class. Bobby Decker didn't have a coat. I knew that because he never went out for recess during the winter. His mother always wrote a note, telling the teacher that he had a cough, but all we kids knew that Bobby Decker didn't have a cough, and he didn't have a coat. I fingered the ten-dollar bill with growing excitement. I would buy Bobby Decker a coat!

I settled on a red corduroy one that had a hood to it. It looked real warm, and he would like that. "Is this a Christmas present for someone?" the lady behind the counter asked kindly, as I laid my ten dollars down. "Yes," I replied shyly. "It's .... for Bobby." The nice lady smiled at me. I didn't get any change, but she put the coat in a bag and wished me a Merry Christmas.

That evening, Grandma helped me wrap the coat in Christmas paper and ribbons (a little tag fell out of the coat, and Grandma tucked it in her Bible) and wrote on the package, "To Bobby, From Santa Claus" -- Grandma said that Santa always insisted on secrecy. Then she drove me over to Bobby Decker's house, explaining as we went that I was now and forever officially one of Santa's helpers.

Grandma parked down the street from Bobby's house, and she and I crept noiselessly and hid in the bushes by his front walk. Then Grandma gave me a nudge. "All right, Santa Claus," she whispered, "get going." I took a deep breath, dashed for his front door, threw the present down on his step, pounded his doorbell and flew back to the safety of the bushes and Grandma. Together we waited breathlessly in the darkness for the front door to open. Finally it did, and there stood Bobby.

Fifty years haven't dimmed the thrill of those moments spent shivering, beside my Grandma, in Bobby Decker's bushes. That night, I realized that those awful rumors about Santa Claus were just what Grandma said they were: ridiculous. Santa was alive and well, and we were on his team.

I still have the Bible, with the tag tucked inside: $19.95.

Do You Have Time for Beauty?

Do you recognize beauty when you see it? During this Christmas season, are you too busy and stressed out to enjoy your family and friends? Do you make snap judgments about other people based on their appearances or the setting in which you meet them? Do you take time to be thankful for your blessings, or are you preoccupied with your problems?

On a cold January morning about two years ago, a man sat down in a subway station in Washington, D.C. and started to play the violin. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. It was rush hour at the time, and it was estimated that more than a thousand people walked through the subway station while the man was playing the violin.

After about three minutes, a middle-aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried up to meet his schedule. A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and continued to walk without stopping. A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.

The one who paid the most attention to the man playing the violin was a three-year-old boy. His mother hurried the boy along, but not before he stopped to look at the violinist. As the boy’s mother pushed him forward, the boy turned his head to look back at the violinist. Several other children also paused to watch and listen, but their parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only six people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. The musician collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded. There was no recognition.

The violinist in the subway station was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written with a violin worth $3.5 million. Two days before playing in the subway station, Bell gave a sold-out performance at a theater in Boston. The average cost of a seat was $100. Bell is a winner of the Avery Fisher Prize for outstanding achievement in classical music. He normally performs more than 200 engagements a year.

The Washington Post arranged for Joshua Bell to play incognito in the subway station as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and the priorities of people. One of the possible conclusions from this experiment could be: if we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?

A friend sent me this story several months ago. I checked it out on Snopes.com, and it is a true story. According to Snopes.com, “Many a marketing survey has been conducted to gauge how presentation affects consumer perceptions of quality, and quite a few such surveys have found that people will frequently designate one of two identical items as being distinctly better than the other simply because it is packaged or presented more attractively.” In the case of the experiment conduced by The Washington Post, it is clear the overwhelming majority of people could not distinguish between a world-class violinist and an ordinary street musician because of the setting in which the performance was being conducted.

The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize for its article about the violinist in the subway station. Gene Weingarten, the reporter who wrote the article, described the experiment as follows:

“Each passerby had a quick choice to make, one familiar to commuters in any urban area where the occasional street performer is part of the cityscape. Do you stop and listen? Do you hurry past with a blend of guilt and irritation, aware of your cupidity but annoyed by the unbidden demand on your time and wallet? Do you throw in a buck, just to be polite? Does your decision change if he’s really bad? What if he’s really good? Do you have time for beauty? Shouldn’t you? What’s the moral mathematics of the moment?

If you had been in the subway station on the cold January morning when this experiment was conducted, would you have stopped to enjoy the music? Would you have recognized the quality and beauty of the music being played? As for me, I must admit, regrettably, that I probably would have been one of those who rushed by without noticing.

There is a lesson here for all of us, especially during this hurried time of year. Find the beauty that exists all around you. Stop and enjoy the moment. Be aware of the meaning of the Christmas season. Be thankful for what you have. Praise God for the gifts He has given to all of us.

The Nobel Peace Prize

Like many others, I did not think President Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize. At the same time, I thought it was unfair for some people to criticize him for winning the prize and to suggest he should refuse to accept it. President Obama didn’t ask for the prize, he didn’t campaign for it, and he had no control over the committee that awarded the prize to him. The only thing he could control was the tone of the speech he would give when accepting the prize. In my opinion, the speech President Obama gave this week when he accepted the Noble Peace Prize was his best speech since he became our President and Commander-in-Chief.

When you hire an attorney to represent you, you expect him to be your advocate—not your critic. Likewise, when the American people elect a President of the United States, they expect him to be an advocate for our country. The President should be the country’s number one cheerleader. Prior to this week, President Obama all too often has come across as being a critic of—rather than an advocate for—the United States of America. In my opinion, this is the primary reason he won the Nobel Peace Prize in the first place. In recent years, the Nobel Committee has shown animosity toward America. Many observers believe President Obama was awarded the prize because of his frequent and unrelenting criticisms of his own country and of his predecessor as President.

My guess is the members of the Nobel Committee were not too happy with President Obama’s acceptance speech. They probably anticipated more of the rhetoric for which President Obama is known. As for me, I was very happy with the acceptance speech, which I have read in its entirety. I do not agree with everything President Obama said in the speech, but overall I think it was an excellent speech.

President Obama began the speech by showing humility. In what could be viewed as a criticism of the Nobel Committee for awarding the prize to him, President Obama, in effect, acknowledged he had not earned and did not deserve the prize. He said, “Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize—Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela—my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women—some known, some obscure to all but those they help—to be far more deserving of this honor than I.”

As the Commander-in-Chief of a nation involved in two wars, President Obama did not apologize for his country, as he has done so frequently in the past, but he instead emphasized that some wars are just and necessary. As an example, he said “it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers” during World War II.

Many liberals, including President Obama, have frequently criticized the United States for causing wars and for seeking to impose its will on other countries. During his acceptance speech, President Obama took a different approach. As he should have, he recognized the important role played by the United States in the pursuit of peace. He said, “[T]he United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest—because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and democracy.”

President Obama also emphasized that evil in the world exists and must be addressed. He talked about the threat to world peace posed by terrorism and pointed out that “modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.” He made reference to the non-violent strategies advocated by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but then added, “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.”

Although we are constantly seeking peace, President Obama said, “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations—acting individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.” He added, “I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.”

I was encouraged by President Obama’s speech. I was encouraged because he actually praised the country he was elected to represent. I was encouraged because he acknowledged the important role the United States has played and is continuing to play in pursuing peace and in seeking freedom for oppressed people throughout the world. I was encouraged because he recognized the need for a strong military to keep the peace. I was encouraged because of his recognition that terrorism poses a huge threat to peace and must be combated. Most importantly, I was encouraged because the speech shows President Obama recognizes reality.

Maybe the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was a good thing. It gave him a forum to become an advocate for his country and to discuss the problems of evil in the world. We all want peace. It is clear to me, however, that we cannot achieve peace by sitting back and doing nothing or by talking without acting. President Obama and I may be on the same page for once.

Two Must-See Videos

Please take two minutes to review the video that can be found by clicking on the link below. If this doesn’t turn your stomach, nothing will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgUCdefSW8

Now please take five minutes to watch an unrelated video that can be found by clicking on the link below. It is amazing, exciting, and frightening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

Nothing more needs to be said by me.

Legal Bribery

Webster’s Dictionary defines a bribe as “money or favor bestowed on or promised to a person in a position of trust to pervert his judgment or corrupt his conduct.” The website Total Legal Defense defines bribery as “an attempt to influence another person’s actions, usually a government or public official employee, by offering a benefit in exchange for the desired decision.” A more complicated definition is contained in Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines a bribe as “any money, goods, right in action, property, thing of value, or any preferment, advantage, privilege or emolument, or any promise or undertaking to give any, asked, given, or accepted, with a corrupt intent to influence action, vote, or opinion of a person in any public or official capacity.”

It is clear there is a fine line between legal and illegal bribery. Everyone knows politicians buy and sell votes all the time. They will never admit, however, that their vote was influenced by the “advantage” or “privilege” they received. They will always claim there was no quid pro quo. In other words, they will always claim there was no express agreement they would vote a certain way in exchange for something given or received. Politicians know how to play the game. There’s a wink, a nod, and an understanding, but no one expressly says, “I will vote this way if you do this for me.” In other words, politicians know how to bribe each other and how to accept bribes without crossing the line so that their conduct becomes illegal. It’s legal bribery.

The most recent example of legal bribery occurred last week in connection with the U.S. Senate’s vote to proceed with debate on the proposed health care legislation. Under the Senate’s rules, 60 votes were needed to proceed with debate. Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu’s vote was needed to get to 60, but she was on the fence. She had not announced her position on the vote, but she had expressed concerns about the legislation’s costs. All of a sudden, new language was added to the legislation that would provide increased federal subsidies to the State of Louisiana at the expense of taxpayers in other states. Some reports said the new federal subsidies for Louisiana would cost the taxpayers an additional $100 million. Sen. Landrieu said, “It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it.” After the new language benefitting Louisiana was added to the proposed legislation, Sen. Landrieu immediately jumped off the fence and announced she would vote to proceed with the debate. Although she had previously expressed concern about the cost of the legislation, she voted “yes” after the cost went up rather than down. She voted “yes” because of the “advantage” or “privilege” added to the legislation to benefit her state and to benefit her politically.

Unfortunately, many votes in Congress are purchased or influenced through taxpayer funding for projects favored by individual members of Congress whose votes are needed to pass unrelated legislation. The terms “earmark” and “pork” refer to the way the game is played. Individual members of Congress agree to vote for legislation in exchange for taxpayer funding of projects that benefit their home districts. They can then go home and say to the voters, “Look what I did for you. I deserve to be re-elected so I can send even more money your way.”

The $787 billion stimulus legislation adopted by Congress earlier this year was full of “earmarks” and “pork” inserted in the legislation in order to buy votes in favor of the legislation from individual members of Congress. The legislation passed the House of Representatives with no Republican votes. In the Senate, three Republicans, one of whom has since become a Democrat, voted for the legislation. Needless to say, most of the “pork” contained in the stimulus legislation was designed to benefit the Democrats who voted for it.

Both Republicans and Democrats have played this game extensively. The majority party always has the advantage, and the majority party always plays the game regardless of which party it is. The minority party complains when it is the minority party, but it plays the same game when it becomes the majority party.

The game is played with your money and my money. Taxpayer money is used to fund projects that provide a benefit or advantage to individual members of Congress, who then vote for the legislation containing the benefit or advantage for which they negotiated in exchange for their vote. In the process, federal tax dollars are being used to pay for local and state projects that, even if worthy, should be funded by the local or state taxpayers who will benefit from the projects and not by the taxpayers in other states.

There are many other ways in which politicians buy votes with taxpayer money. During last year’s Presidential campaign, President Obama made the famous promise that he would “spread the wealth around” if elected. In other words, he was promising to use the tax system to transfer money from those who have earned it to those who haven’t. By doing so, he was promising a benefit to a certain class of voters in exchange for their vote. The beneficiaries of the promise presumably will respond by saying, or at least thinking, “I will sell you my vote in exchange for your promise to provide benefits and advantages to me at the expense of someone else.”

The easiest thing for a politician to do is to give away someone else’s money. It’s as natural as breathing for the typical politician. It’s a way of survival. Politicians obtain power through their promises and remain in power by buying votes with taxpayer money.

After the last election, President Obama acknowledged he was indebted to the nation’s unions, who spent millions of dollars helping him get elected. The unions did not spend millions of dollars helping Obama get elected without expecting something in return. They are now getting what they wanted, although at a slower pace than they would like. But they will get more of what they want because Obama will need them to get re-elected in 2012.

Of course, the Republicans play the same game. They typically receive support from business groups and business lobbyists, who are expecting something in return for their investment. They get more support when they are the majority party because they have the ability to deliver. They get less support when they are in the minority because the “benefit” or “advantage” is less clear.

Many individuals, of course, give money to politicians who support their views. The typical individual, however, does not give enough money to buy influence. There can be no doubt, however, that the unions and business lobbyists who give millions of dollars to politicians are expecting something in return, and the politicians who receive the money know it. There may not be an express quid pro quo, but there’s a wink, a nod, and an understanding.

The bottom line is that politicians from both parties know how to play the game. They know how to walk the fine line between legal and illegal bribery. If you examine the various definitions of bribery, however, it is obvious that bribery is rampant in our political system.

The Reality of Abortion: An Inconvenient Truth

Technology frequently has a way of exposing facts we would like to ignore. This is especially true when we are considering the deeply emotional and extremely divisive issue of abortion. Without advances in technology during the last several decades, the issue of abortion would be much less controversial because most of us would be much less informed. But technology has made it clear that an abortion involves the taking of an innocent life in order to accommodate the “rights” of the mother.

In a story that has received little coverage from the mainstream media, the former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas recently experienced a conversion in her views about abortion as a result of her first-hand exposure to technology. Abby Johnson, age 29, had volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood for eight years when she was asked to assist a doctor who was performing an abortion procedure. Several days ago, I saw an interview with Ms. Johnson on television. I have not been able to get the interview out of my mind since then.

Ms. Johnson said she had always been “pro-choice” until she actually witnessed an abortion. She was asked to hold an ultrasound device over a woman’s stomach so the doctor could locate the fetus with the instrument he was using to kill it. Ms. Johnson said she could see the unborn child—with its head, arms, hands, legs, feet, and heartbeat—moving away from the doctor’s probe as it fought for its life. Ms. Johnson said she realized she was not watching a “choice.” Instead, she was watching the death of a child. Ms. Johnson said she watched the fetus “crumple” as it was vacuumed out of the patient’s uterus.

During the interview, Ms. Johnson said Planned Parenthood was putting increased emphasis on abortions rather than other methods of birth control because the organization makes more money from abortions. She said there’s not as much money in family planning as there is in abortions.

After witnessing the abortion, Ms. Johnson went home and told her husband, “I can’t do this anymore.” Even though Ms. Johnson and her husband needed two incomes, she resigned from her position with Planned Parenthood. As a result of her conversion, Ms. Johnson now volunteers with the Coalition for Life, a pro-life organization.

When Ms. Johnson started talking about her experience, Planned Parenthood responded by suing her and asking the court to issue a restraining order to keep her from talking. After hearing two hours of testimony, a Texas judge last week refused to issue the restraining order.

Technology and education are the keys to the pro-life movement. Those on the “pro-choice” side of the issue seem to go to extreme efforts to keep woman who are considering an abortion from understanding what they are doing. They have consistently opposed proposals that women, before having an abortion, be required to observe an ultrasound showing the life growing within them. The argument is this would cause trauma to the women. The real concern is that fewer women will have abortions if they are better educated about what they are doing. Technology is the key to better education of women considering an abortion.

An organization called Priests for Life has produced a very descriptive video describing a first-trimester abortion. The video is available on YouTube and has already been viewed more than a million times. It takes about three minutes to view the video. I recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about the reality of abortion. You can watch the video by clicking on the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0

There is evidence that public opinion is changing on the issue of abortion. A Gallup Poll released in May found that 51% of Americans now call themselves “pro-life” compared with 42% who are “pro-choice.” According to the Gallup organization, this was the first time a majority of U.S. adults identified themselves as “pro-life” since Gallup began asking the question in 1995. The poll also revealed changes in public views about the legality of abortions. About 23% of Americans think abortions should be illegal in all circumstances compared to 22% who think it should always be legal. Only four years ago, Gallup found that most Americans then favored unrestricted abortions.

In June of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on partial-birth abortions, a technique used for late-term abortions. In concurring with the decision, Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote, “The fact is that we—civilized people—are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull. Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder.” Although Judge Wilkinson’s comments were made in the context of partial-birth abortions, they could be applied to all abortions because the purpose and effect of an abortion are to dismember an unborn child.

Much to the dismay of many, public attitudes about abortion are changing. Technology and education are the reason. Sometimes it’s best to let the facts speak for themselves. The reality of abortion is an inconvenient truth.

Observations from Others

There are times when I don’t have the time or the motivation to write something orginal for my blog. The last couple of weeks have been among those times. I have not gone into hibernation, however, although I am tempted to do so when I am reading the newspaper or watching the evening news on television. Even though I have nothing original to write this week, I would like to share with you two comments written by others that have recently come to my attention.

First, I received an e-mail from a friend this week containing the text of a “letter to the editor” written by an emergency room doctor to The Clarion Ledger, the newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi. The letter to the editor, which was written by Dr. Starner Jones, reads as follows:

“During my last night’s shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ring tone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.

“And our President expects me to pay for this woman’s health care? Our nation’s health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture—a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks ‘I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.’”

“Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.”

Starner Jones, MD
Jackson, Mississippi

Second, The Wall Street Journal on November 10, 2009 published an editorial quoting a liberal supporter of the current health care reform efforts. The editorial was entitled “Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer.” It reads as follows:

“The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that ‘it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to.’

“Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. ‘The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment,’ he writes. ‘Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.’

“Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of ‘making the United States a more equitable country’ and furthering the Democrats' ‘political calculus.’ In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

“This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, ‘Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted.’

"No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.”

I know I have many friends and relatives who disagree with my political views and will disagree with the views expressed above. I pray they are right and I am wrong.

A Compelling Editorial

In my opinion, the damage we are doing to future generations as a result of the government’s inability to control spending is immoral. Our children and grandchildren are going to inherit a massive amount of debt that eventually will have to be repaid. The interest alone on the government debt is already staggering and will continue to grow. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial earlier this week that should be required reading for anyone concerned about the problems we are creating for future generations. Because of the importance of this issue, I am providing the editorial to you in its entirety. Here it is:

“The White House disclosed the other day that the fiscal 2009 budget deficit clocked in at $1.4 trillion, amid the usual promises to do something about it. Yet even as budget director Peter Orszag was speaking, House Democrats were moving on a dozen spending bills for fiscal 2010 that total 12.1% in more domestic discretionary increases.

“Yes, 12.1%.

“Remember, inflation is running close to zero, or 0.8%. The good news, if we can call it that, is that Senate Democrats only want to increase nondefense appropriations by 8% for 2010. Because these funding increases become part of the permanent baseline for future appropriations, the 2010 House budget bills would permanently raise annual outlays for discretionary programs by about $75 billion a year from now until, well, forever.

“These spending hikes do not include the so-called mandatory spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which exploded by 9.8% and 24.7%, respectively, in the just-ended 2009 fiscal year. All of this largesse is also on top of the stimulus funding that agencies received in 2009. The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency rose 126%, the Department of Education budget 209% and energy programs 146%.

“House Republicans on the Budget Committee added up the 2009 appropriations, the stimulus funding and 2010 budgets and found that federal agencies will, on average, receive a 57% increase in appropriated funds from 2008-2010. By contrast, real family incomes fell by 3.6% last year. There's no recession in Washington.

“More broadly, the White House and the 111th Congress have already enacted or proposed $3.4 trillion of new spending through 2019 for things like the health-care plan, cap and tax, and the children's health bill passed earlier this year. Very little of this has been financed with offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

“Throughout the era of Republican rule in Washington, we scored GOP lawmakers for their overspending and earmarks—and so did Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats. So how do their records compare? From 2001-2008 the average annual increase in appropriations bills came in at 6.4%—or about double the rate of inflation. In this Congress spending is now growing six times faster than inflation.

“And here is the kicker. Mr. Obama's 10-year budget forecast predicts that the budget deficit will fall in future years in part because federal spending on discretionary programs will grow at less than the rate of inflation. But spending is already up nearly 8% (including defense) in the first year alone.

“For a laugh-out-loud moment on all of this, we recommend yesterday's performance by New York Senator Chuck Schumer on NBC's "Meet the Press." Mr. Schumer declared that "Barack Obama and we Democrats—this is counterintuitive but true—are really trying to get a handle on balancing the budget and we're making real efforts to do it." Counterintiutive? He said this four days after Senate Democrats lost a vote to add $250 billion to the deficit for doctor payments without any compensating spending cuts.

“Democrats must figure that they can get away with this sort of rap because no one will call them on the reality of what they're spending. And they're probably right about a press corps that has ignored the spending boom since Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Meanwhile, the spending machine rolls on, all but guaranteeing monumental future tax increases.”

A Giant Leap of Faith

Do you have faith:

(1) that Congress will enact legislation that will meet the seemingly conflicting goals of decreasing the cost and improving the quality of health care?

(2) that members of Congress will take the time to read and understand and to consider the unintended consequences of all 1,500 or so pages of the final health care bill before voting on it?

(3) in the decisions made by members of Congress that will affect your health care if they are unwilling to subject themselves to the same rules and regulations they will be imposing on you and on the employers and insurance companies who provide you with your health insurance?

(4) that the health care legislation passed by Congress will be fair to all American taxpayers if it continues to provide tax exemptions for those who receive their health insurance through their employers but not for those who purchase their health insurance on their own?

(5) that Congress will enact health care reform legislation without special benefits or exemptions for various groups who have donated generously to Congressional campaigns?

(6) in the government’s estimates of the cost of the health care legislation currently being considered by Congress?

(7) that the health care legislation currently being debated in Congress will reduce rather than increase the already staggering federal budget deficit?

(8) that the government can reduce Medicare spending by $400 billion to $500 billion without reducing the benefits available to Medicare beneficiaries?

(9) that the government will in fact reduce Medicare spending by $400 billion to $500 billion in order to cover a portion of the cost of health care reform legislation?

(10) that Congress can pay for health care reform in part by imposing new taxes on certain types of health care plans without affecting the behavior of the businesses and insurance companies offering those plans in such a way that the newly imposed taxes will never be collected?

(11) that you will be able to keep your current health care plan if you like it after Congress passes health care reform legislation?

(12) that the financially-strapped states will be able to add millions of people to their Medicaid roles, as mandated by Congress, without raising state taxes in order to cover the cost of those additions?

(13) that most doctors will continue to provide services to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries if Congress further reduces the amount the government is willing to pay for such services?

(14) that bright young students, after the passage of health care reform legislation, will continue to be willing to incur substantial indebtedness and to invest an additional four to ten grueling years after graduating from college in order to become doctors?

(15) that the premiums you pay for your health insurance will not be increased as a result of new government mandates, including the requirement that all employers and insurance companies provide insurance to those with pre-existing illnesses?

(16) that the new taxes to be imposed on manufacturers of medical devices will not be passed on to the users of those devices resulting in the increased cost of health care?

(17) that investors will continue to invest in companies seeking to develop new and improved medical technologies if the government will control how much those companies can charge for their products if they are successful in developing them?

(18) that Congress has the right under the United States Constitution to impose a requirement that all American citizens purchase health insurance or pay a fine for not doing so?

(19) that the cost of health care can be controlled when most consumers of health care are not paying directly for their care and do not have an incentive to reduce their use of health care services or to shop for the most cost-effective services?

(20) that the health insurance legislation passed by Congress will not ultimately lead to a complete government takeover of the health care industry and will not ultimately lead to health care rationing?

Are you prepared to take a giant leap of faith? If you answered “yes” to at least half of the foregoing 20 questions, then I submit you are ready for a truly gigantic leap of faith.

Taking Credit and Accepting Blame

During my career, it often seemed to me I would receive credit when I didn’t deserve it, I would receive blame when I didn’t deserve it, and no one would notice when I accomplished something I thought was especially praiseworthy.

There were many times when I received credit for the successful completion of a deal even though others deserved more credit than me. In those instances, I always tried to give the credit to the people who actually deserved it. Although I did not like receiving undeserved credit, it motivated me to show I deserved the praise I was receiving. It made me work harder because I wanted to earn the confidence and meet the expectations of those to whom I was accountable.

There were other times in my career when I felt I was being blamed for something that was totally beyond my control. In those instances, it would normally make matters worse if I tried to defend myself or to blame someone else. I found it was best to take my lumps and move on.

I was always my own worst critic, but occasionally I would be extremely proud of something I had accomplished. In most of those cases, no one else seemed to notice or care about what I had accomplished. But it never worked out very well for me when I tried to boast about my own accomplishments. Most people don’t respond well to someone who is bragging about himself or is engaged in an act of self-praise. The reaction is likely to be, “What’s the big deal? That’s why you are being paid. You only did what you were paid to do.”

We all make mistakes. In my experience, it always worked best for me when I acknowledged my mistakes and accepted responsibility for them. Most people are very forgiving, especially when you point out and admit your own mistake. When you make a mistake, the worst thing you can do is conceal it and hope no one will ever find out. The cover-up is always worse than the original sin.

My experiences, of course, clearly demonstrate I am not and never have been qualified to be a politician. The typical politician will claim credit for anything that goes well, even if he or she opposed or had nothing to do with whatever worked, and will blame someone else for anything that goes wrong, even if he or she sponsored or supported the program or policy that failed. Politicians seem to be unable to accept responsibility for their actions. As the columnist Charley Reese wrote many years ago, “Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.” Most politicians will never admit they made a mistake, and they will try to conceal their mistakes so you will never find out about them. Charley Reese wrote that politicians “spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.”

I have been thinking about my own experiences with credit and blame this week in connection with the surprising award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barak Obama. It is clear President Obama has not earned and did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. To his credit, President Obama even acknowledged he has not earned the prize. In a rare act of humility for a politician, President Obama said, “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.” He also said he would accept the award as a “call to action” to confront the challenges of the 21^st century.

Many people on both the left and the right have criticized the Nobel Committee for awarding the prize to President Obama. These criticisms, I believe, are justified. I don’t agree, however, with those who seem to be blaming President Obama for receiving the award or who think he should refuse to accept the award. It does not make sense to blame President Obama for something over which he had no control. I think it would also send the wrong message to the rest of the world if President Obama refused to accept a peace prize. He should accept the award with humility, as he has done, and he should use the award as motivation to work even harder for world peace. Of course, every student of history and every realist know world peace will never be achieved. There always have been and there always will be conflicts in the world. But we will always need peacemakers who are trying to end the conflicts. All of us should want our leaders to be seeking world peace as a primary and never-ending goal.

I would like to see President Obama use the honor of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as an opportunity to seek peace in Washington, D.C. as well as peace in the world. It seems to me that the political discourse in this country reaches a new low almost everyday. Politicians on both sides spend far too much time and energy calling each other names and blaming each other for our problems when they should be engaging in a serious and honest debate about how to solve our problems. President Obama did not create the nasty political environment, but he also has not made any obvious efforts to change it. At times, it seems to me President Obama’s rhetoric toward his political opponents at home has been harsher than his rhetoric toward the tyrants and dictators who are threatening our national security abroad. President Obama repeatedly blames the prior Administration and the Republicans for all of the country’s problems. Even though the Democrats control both Houses of Congress, President Obama continues to blame Republicans when he has difficulty getting his legislative priorities through Congress. As the leader of our country, President Obama is setting the tone in Washington, but it is not the tone he promised.

During the Presidential campaign, President Obama promised to establish a new tone in Washington and to govern in a bipartisan manner. This would be a great time for him to start doing so. I acknowledge it is difficult to establish a new tone and to work in a bipartisan manner when your opponents are taking shots at you at every opportunity. But the top person in any organization is responsible for setting the tone for the entire organization. I have witnessed numerous examples of how a new chief executive officer of a company can change the entire tone and atmosphere within the company in a very short period of time. In my opinion, President Obama could change the tone of the political debate in this country if he wanted to do so. If he takes the lead, I believe his political opponents will be forced to follow or they will pay a heavy price for failing to do so.

I would also like to see President Obama use the honor of receiving the Noble Peace Prize as an opportunity to remind the rest of the world that the United States of America has been the greatest force for good in the history of the world. During the first nine months of his Administration, President Obama has not been a strong advocate for the important role the United States plays in the world arena. Instead, he has repeatedly apologized for the United States and has blamed the United States for many of the world’s problems.

Our country is not perfect and never will be. But our country has done more to resist evil, promote peace, and help the helpless than any other country. In almost every instance where there is a conflict in the world, the United States takes a lead role in trying to resolve the conflict and achieve peace. Yes, we have made mistakes, but some of our biggest mistakes have been waiting too long and watching from a distance while innocent human beings were being slaughtered by evil tyrants and dictators.

In the Sunday edition of The New York Times, the columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote the speech he hopes President Obama will deliver when he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize. Among other things, Mr. Friedman suggested President Obama say the following things in his acceptance speech:

“I cannot accept this award on my behalf at all. But I will accept it on behalf of the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century—the men and women of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944 to liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi fascism. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers and sailors who fought on the high seas and forlorn islands in the Pacific to free East Asia from Japanese tyranny in the Second World War. … I will accept this award on behalf of the tens of thousands of American soldiers who protected Europe from Communist dictatorship throughout the 50 years of the cold war. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who stand guard today at outposts in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan to give that country, and particularly its women and girls, a chance to live a decent life free from the Taliban’s religious totalitarianism. … I will accept this award on behalf of all the American men and women soldiers who have gone on repeated humanitarian rescue missions after earthquakes and floods from the mountains of Pakistan to the coasts of Indonesia. … Members of the Nobel committee, I accept this award on behalf of all these American men and women soldiers, past and present, because I know—and want you to know—that there is no peace without peacekeepers.”

The Nobel Peace Prize gives President Obama an opportunity to turn a new leaf both at home and abroad. I hope he takes advantage of the opportunity. I hope he becomes a statesman who does not accept credit when he doesn’t deserve it, who will accept the blame when he deserves it, and who will not blame every problem on someone else. In other words, I hope President Obama will quit acting like the politician that he is.

Cheerleaders for God

Fort Oglethorpe is a small town in the northern part of Georgia near the border between Georgia and Tennessee. Many residents of Fort Oglethorpe work in nearby Chattanooga, Tennessee. For more than 20 years, the cheerleaders at a public high school in Fort Oglethorpe have prepared huge paper banners containing Bible verses prior to each football game. The football players would crash through the banners as they ran onto the field prior to each game. The tradition of more than 20 years ended last week when the Superintendent of Schools in Fort Oglethorpe ordered that the religious banners could no longer be used at football games.

In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross in San Bernardino County, California to honor those who were killed in World War I. The cross was built on public land in the Mojave National Preserve. For more than 70 years, Easter sunrise services have been held at the foot of the cross. In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of the cross on the ground that it violated the clause in the Constitution that prevents Congress from passing laws establishing a religion. After a lower court ruled that the cross violated the Constitution, Congress transferred the property on which the cross stands to a private veterans’ group in exchange for other property. This did not satisfy the ACLU, which continues to argue the cross violates the Constitution. This case has now reached the United States Supreme Court where oral arguments are being held today.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …..” Like other provisions of the Constitution, the language is ambiguous. It can mean whatever you want it to mean.

It is fairly clear the founders of our country were not hostile to religion. In fact, most of them were very religious. There are many religious symbols on public property, including the building where the United States Supreme Court is located. The phrase “In God We Trust” appears on our currency. Crosses appear on gravesites at Arlington Memorial Cemetery and other public cemeteries.

The question is where do you draw the line. I don’t know the answer, but here is what I think. The Constitution is designed to provide freedom of religion—not freedom from religion. As Ted Cruz and Kelly Shackelford wrote in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, “The Constitution prohibits government from favoring one religion over another, but it does not compel hostility to faith.” Mr. Cruz and Ms. Shackelford represent the Veterans of Foreign Wars and have filed an amicus brief in the case being argued today before the United States Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, we are living in an increasingly secular society. Religion does not play as important a role in the lives of many people as it once did. It is clear that many liberals are much more hostile to Christianity than they are to other religions. They are much more willing to accommodate Muslins in the expression of their beliefs than they are Christians. A war against Christianity is clearly underway.

In the case of the Fort Oglethorpe cheerleaders, the Superintendent of Schools has taken tremendous heat for her decision to ban the religious banners, but I believe she made the correct decision. Despite their long tradition, the banners had a clearly Christian message, which is inappropriate for a public school. A public school should not be favoring one religion over another or promoting a religious message at a school-sponsored event.

Although I think the Superintendent of Schools in Fort Oglethorpe made the correct decision, I love the way the cheerleaders and their supporters responded to the decision. First, the cheerleaders complied with the Superintendent’s instructions, as they should have done. Next, hundreds of supporters for the cheerleaders showed up at last Friday night’s football game wearing t-shirts or carrying homemade signs containing scripture verses. High school officials said they sold more tickets to last Friday night’s game than ever before. These supporters for the cheerleaders were engaged in the “free exercise” of religion as clearly permitted by the Constitution. In another sign of support for the cheerleaders, a youth pastor organized a rally at a local Chick-Fil-A restaurant. The rally had to be moved when approximately 1,000 supporters showed up to cheer the cheerleaders, who have become local celebrities.

In the case of the cross in the Mojave National Preserve, I don’t know how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule. My guess is the Court will dodge the issue by holding the plaintiff in the case did not have standing to file the lawsuit because he had not been injured, or it may rule that Congress cured the problem by transferring the property on which the cross is located to a private group. If the Court orders the removal of the cross, however, it will be opening a Pandora’s box that will lead to increased litigation and will likely result in the removal of numerous historical religious symbols from public property. These symbols are an important part of the heritage of our country.

Conflicts such at the one in Fort Oglethorpe and the one involving the cross in the Mojave National Preserve bring out heated emotions on both sides. In my opinion, these conflicts are as much about tradition as they are about religion. Most people want to preserve traditions that have continued for many years. Other people get great pleasure out of finding ways to complain about how things have always been done. They love to agitate, even when they are not being adversely affected by whatever it is they are trying to change. Those on both sides demonstrate a lack of tolerance for those with an opposing view.

The conflicts involving the cheerleaders and the cross also reflect the public’s growing resentment against the government’s domineering presence in all aspects of our lives. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception we are losing our rights and our freedoms to politicians and judges who want to change and control everything. My guess is that many of those who showed up to support the cheerleaders at the football game and the rally in Fort Oglethorpe were more interested in protesting against authority than they were in advancing their own religious beliefs. They were exercising their right to free speech in order to deliver the message that enough is enough. They were simply using a controversy over religion in the public schools as an opportunity to rebel against authority.

The language of the Constitution does not specifically require the separation of church and state. It simply prohibits Congress from passing laws establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another one. It also prohibits Congress from passing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. As the cases involving the cheerleaders and the cross demonstrate, it’s not easy to know how to comply with these somewhat conflicting principles. One thing is clear. The language of the First Amendment to the Constitution has not changed since it was ratified in 1791, but the way the language is interpreted has changed dramatically. As a result, many long-standing and cherished traditions have fallen by the wayside, and many more are likely to fall during the years ahead.