Ignoring the Constitution

Fact: Amendment No. 1 to the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Fact: In 2002, Congress passed legislation prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. The law contains civil and criminal penalties for those who violate it.

Fact: In 2008, a lower federal court, based on the 2002 law, barred Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, from releasing a documentary critical of then Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for President of the United States, within 30 days of primary elections.

Fact: Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law prohibiting political spending by corporations in candidate elections was unconstitutional. The Court concluded the First Amendment prohibits the government from regulating political speech. According to the Court’s majority opinion, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Fact: Liberals are berserk over the Court’s decision. Without mentioning the Constitution, President Obama, who once taught constitutional law, called the decision “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” (He forgot to mention unions.) Even though the Court’s decision was based on a law enacted in 2002, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, the whiner from New York, said, “With the stroke of a pen, the Court decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures and override the will of millions of Americans who want their voices heard in our democracy.” The New York Times published an editorial entitled “The Court’s Blow to Democracy.” The Times said the Supreme Court “has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19^th century” and “has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.” In a tirade about the decision, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said, “This is a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little actual democracy is left in this democracy.”

Let me admit I’m a simple-minded individual. I’m not as sophisticated and intelligent as my liberal friends. But it seems to me there was one glaring omission from the condemning comments of those who are outraged by the Court’s decision. What was missing was any reference to the express language of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly and unambiguously prohibits Congress from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” There is nothing in the First Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution stating corporations or other associations of citizens are not entitled to freedom of speech. As a result, the Court’s decision, to me, was a no-brainer. I should add, however, that the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court voted in favor of upholding the law restricting political speech. These justices used their liberal logic to conclude the Constitution permits—rather than forbids—Congress to pass laws “abridging the freedom of speech”.

Those who are objecting to the Court’s decision obviously believe the language of the Constitution should be irrelevant as long as they can make a strong policy argument in favor of their position. In other words, the constitutional prohibition against laws restricting freedom of speech is irrelevant as long as the restrictions on freedom of speech have merit in the minds of those who favor the restrictions.

There are, of course, some provisions of the Constitution that are very general in nature and are subject to legitimate differences of opinion regarding their scope. For example, Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The power to regulate interstate commerce has been relied upon by Congress over the years continuously to expand the power and reach of the federal government. Reasonable people can disagree over the scope of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. It is much more difficult, however, to find a constitutional justification for prohibiting speech. The lack of a constitutional justification for prohibiting speech does not get in the way of those who want to do so. They simply ignore the Constitution and base their arguments on policies they believe to have merit without regard to whether those policies are prohibited by the Constitution.

It is true the Supreme Court, prior to its decision last week, had previously upheld laws restricting political speech by corporations. Those who are enraged by the Court’s decision are arguing the Court should have followed its own precedents even if those precedents were inconsistent with the express language of the Constitution. I believe the Constitution—not the Supreme Court—is supreme. The Supreme Court has made many mistakes during its history. For example, in 1857, the Supreme Court declared that all blacks—slaves as well as free—were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The Court also ruled Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery. 

These clearly mistaken rulings by the Supreme Court were later corrected. The Constitution does and should take priority over the Court’s prior rulings. If the Court always followed its precedents, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, “segregation would be legal, minimum-wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

It is also true there are legitimate concerns about the influence of money in elections and in politics generally. I share these concerns. But I believe the Constitution means what it says, especially when the language is clear and unambiguous. In my simple way of thinking, if the Constitution says Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech, it means Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech.

There are procedures for amending the Constitution. Those who don’t like what the Constitution says should try to amend it. They should not simply ignore it.

Poetic Justice

President Obama received a well-deserved slap in the face on the first anniversary of his inauguration as the 44^th President of the United States. As everyone except Rip Van Wrinkle knows by now, the voters of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country, rebelled against President Obama by electing a Republican to fill the seat in the U.S. Senate fondly referred to by the Democrats and members of the media as the “Kennedy seat.” The turn of events in the last several weeks has been amazing. I didn’t expect it, and I am shocked and surprised, but I am also pleased that even the voters in a traditionally liberal state are waking up and rebelling against the style and substance of the Obama Administration.

How did this happen? All of the political analysts are expressing their varying views about how President Obama and the Democratic Party suffered such a humiliating defeat. In my view, they brought it on themselves. They deserved it, just as the Republicans deserved a humiliating defeat when they lost control of both Houses of Congress in 2006. You can call it poetic justice, which refers to a literary device in which virtue is ultimately rewarded or vice punished. In this case, I’m not sure there was any virtue on the part of President Obama’s opponents to be rewarded, but there was plenty of vice that deserved to be punished, and it was.

In my opinion, a combination of factors led to the revolt in Massachusetts. All of these factors combined were more than the voters could stomach. Among the factors that led to the revolt are the following:

(1) During the 2008 Presidential campaign, President Obama was able to convince large numbers of moderate and conservative voters to ignore his record as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. He ran for President as a moderate, but he quickly returned to his liberal instincts and positions as soon as he was elected

(2) During the Presidential campaign, President Obama convinced voters he was a different type of politician and would bring a new style to Washington. He promised openness, transparency, and bipartisanship. Instead, he has governed as a rough-and-tumble, down-and-dirty Chicago politician who is willing to do almost anything, including buying votes with other people’s money, to accomplish his objectives. He completely excluded members of the minority party from secret and closed negotiations involving a major and controversial piece of legislation that, if implemented, would have dramatically altered and restructured one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By doing so, he received no support from the minority party, and he created widespread public cynicism about the political process and about his Administration.

(3) Because they controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, President Obama and the Democrats felt they could do whatever they wanted to do. After promising bipartisanship, they maintained a highly partisan political atmosphere where there was no room for compromise, where there were few checks and balances in the political process, and where they felt free to ignore public opinion and sought to impose their ideological agenda on the rest of the country.

(4) Day after day and week after week, the President and his party have been proposing new taxes, higher taxes, and more intrusive government regulations on businesses and investors. The result, not surprisingly, has been less investment, slower economic growth, and higher unemployment. Other than the threat of terrorism, the biggest problem facing the country today is the high rate of unemployment. President Obama’s policies have discouraged the new investment necessary for job creation.

(5) Since President Obama’s election, the government has represented the only segment of the economy that is growing and creating new jobs. The result is that more people are consuming wealth produced by others and fewer people are producing wealth. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand we are heading down a dead-end street.

(6) After rightly campaigning against President Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility, President Obama is presiding over a federal budget deficit three times the size of the budget deficit during President Bush’s last year in office. The Obama Administration has asked Congress to increase the amount of debt the government can issue to $14.3 trillion. The voters in Massachusetts and elsewhere understand government spending is out of control. The government’s staggering indebtedness has led to widespread feelings of pessimism and hopelessness, to concerns the country’s best days are behind us, and to the realization our children will not enjoy the same lifestyle we have enjoyed.

(7) Most citizens think the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the public and keep the public safe from terrorists and other foreign enemies. The Obama Administration has come across as lacking the necessary focus on national defense and as being soft on terrorists. Scott Brown, the newly elected U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, summed up the feelings of a lot of people when he said during his victory speech, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

(8) After a year in office, President Obama continues to blame all of the nation’s problems on President Bush. He refuses to accept responsibility for decisions he has made since taking office. This strategy worked—and perhaps even had some merit—during President Obama’s first six months in office, but it has not been well received by most people since then.

Overall, my view is that President Obama has had a terrible first year in office. He has been far worse than I expected and feared. He has lost respect and credibility, he has lost the broad support he once enjoyed, and he has deeply disappointed those who thought he had the potential to create a new political atmosphere and to bring the country together. His defeat in Massachusetts this week was poetic justice.

Is the ballgame over for President Obama? I don’t think so. We are still in the first quarter of a four-quarter ballgame. President Obama has plenty of time to recover. If he is as smart as his supporters think he is, he will change his strategy, just as any good coach would do whose team falls far behind during the first quarter. If President Obama changes his approach to governance, his first year in office will be forgotten by the time he runs for re-election. If he does not, he will go down in history as a miserable failure. These are my opinions. At least for the time being, you are free to have and express your own.

Proud of Our Country

It is impossible for me to comprehend the amount of human suffering in Haiti today. There are early estimates that as many as 100,000 people were killed as a result of the earthquake that hit Haiti earlier this week. Thousands of other people are trapped beneath the wreckage and are dying because rescue workers are unable to reach them. Those who survived don’t have water, food, shelter, or medical care. The pictures on television are gut wrenching.

As I observe what is going on in Haiti, I feel sad, depressed, and overwhelmed. At the same time, however, I feel great pride in the United States of America. Once again, the United States, more than any other country, has taken the lead in trying to alleviate human suffering. Before it is all over, the United States Government will probably have provided billions of dollars in assistance to Haiti. On top of that, millions of American citizens will have given hundreds of millions of dollars to various relief organizations that are not affiliated with the government.

Our country is despised throughout the world. We are despised because of our freedom and our prosperity. We have a President of the United States who has felt compelled during his first year in office to travel the world apologizing for our country. We have a First Lady who never felt proud of our country until her husband was running for President.

The United States is not a perfect country. We have many problems. It is easy to find examples of injustice. Nevertheless, I remain convinced we are living in the greatest country in the history of mankind. We have done more than any other country in history to help others in need. The latest proof of our greatness is the help we are now providing to the Haitian people.

Within hours after the earthquake devastated Haiti, President Obama, to his credit, mobilized a massive relief effort on the part of the United States Government. He offered millions of dollars in financial assistance as well as search-and-rescue teams, food, water, and medical supplies. In addition, individual Americans began making donations, some large and some small, to various relief organizations, such as the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and Doctors Without Borders. Within a few days, thousands of Americas had pledged over $10 million in $10 increments simply by punching a code and sending a text message on their cell phones.

Compare what other countries are doing to help Haiti to what our country is doing. More than any other country, China is lending the United States the money we need to finance our staggering budget deficits. In effect, China is lending us the money we will be spending to provide relief to Haiti. According to today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, China has pledged only $4.4 million to provide relief to Haiti. Hopefully, China will do more in the future, but don’t be surprised if China provides only a small fraction of the financial assistance the United States will provide with funds borrowed from China.

The assistance provided by other countries, although welcome, pales in comparison to the assistance being provided by the United States. According to The Wall Street Journal, Russia, for example, has provided $700,000 in assistance. Venezuela has offered food and water but no funds. I heard on television that Saudi Arabia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, has not offered any assistance so far.

There are already complaints the United States is not doing enough and is not moving fast enough. The task ahead is massive. Although the United States is doing more than any other country to help, we will be criticized by those who are doing far less. We will also face criticism from the Haitian people who will need to find someone to blame for their misery. The criticism comes with the territory and should not prevent us from doing the right thing. As for me, I salute President Obama for his leadership in this situation, and I salute the American people for their support to the people of Haiti. I am proud of our country.

Predictions for 2010 and Beyond

As we enter 2010, it is time to think about the future. What will the New Year bring? My predictions for 2010 and beyond are set forth below. These predictions represent what I think will happen—not what I would like to see happen. Some of my predictions represent my worst fears rather than my best hopes. Here they are:

(1) The world will become a more dangerous place than it already is. Although President Obama would prefer to spend his time and energy on domestic issues, including his plans to remake the American economy and to redistribute wealth, he will be forced by circumstances beyond his control to give substantially more attention to national security issues than he has during his first year in office. President Obama and his advisers will realize he has no chance of re-election if he continues to come across as being weak on national security.

(2) The war on terror will continue on a world-wide basis. The Obama Administration doesn’t like to use the term “war on terror,” but it is what it is. You can call it whatever you want, but Muslim extremists are engaged in a war against Western civilization, whether or not we are engaged in a war against them. Muslim extremists will continue to plan attacks designed to kill thousands of innocent people. They will continue to be successful with numerous small attacks throughout the world. Every now and then, they will be successful with a major attack resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives at one time. Terrorist cells and training and recruitment camps will continue to spring up in new countries. It will be difficult for us to keep up with the terrorists as they move from place to place. Political correctness will continue to hamper our ability to identify potential terrorists and will cost more American lives.

(3) Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, will continue to develop nuclear weapons. More idle threats from the United States and the United Nations will not deter Iran. Israel ultimately will take aggressive action against Iran in an effort to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the consequences will be catastrophic. Likewise, the consequences will be catastrophic if Israel bombs Iran’s nuclear facilities. Either way, Iran’s continuing efforts to develop nuclear weapons pose an enormous threat to world peace, but efforts by the world’s leaders to address the problem will continue to be weak and ineffective. There is a possibility of a revolution in Iran with unforeseeable consequences.

(4) President Obama and the Democrats in Congress will be successful in passing health care reform legislation. In the long run, the legislation will be a financial disaster for the country. The legislation will provide health insurance coverage to millions of people who don’t presently have it, but it will lower the quality of health care for those who currently enjoy the best health care in the world. The legislation will increase rather than reduce the cost of health care. The long-term implications of the legislation, however, will not be readily apparent for several years.

(5) The federal government will continue to expand and take control over more and more aspects of the lives of the American citizens. The American citizens are losing their freedoms a little bit at a time, but most of them do not realize it or care. Far too many American citizens will continue to prefer the security provided by government social programs to individual responsibility.

(6) Inflation will not be a major problem in 2010, but it will become a major problem in the years following 2010. The government cannot flood the market with new money without reducing the value of the dollars already in the market. Moreover, the government will not be able to repay the staggering amount of government debt without inflation, which will allow the debt to be repaid with dollars that are worth less than they are today.

(7) The recession will end, but the recovery will be slow, painful, and uneven. The unemployment rate will come down slowly and gradually, but unemployment will continue to be a major problem for many Americans in 2010 and beyond.

(8) The finances of state and local governments will be crippled by virtue of a combination of factors, including new mandates from the federal government, such as those contained in the health care reform legislation, lower property values resulting in reduced revenues from property taxes, and slower economic growth. Some local governments will default on their outstanding bond indebtedness, resulting in panic in the previously low-risk market for tax-free municipal bonds.

(9) The Democrats will maintain control of both Houses of Congress following the mid-term elections in 2010. They will not maintain their 60-vote majority in the Senate, however, and they will have a smaller majority position in the House. As a result, it will be much more difficult for the Democrats to advance their agenda beginning with the new Congress in 2011.

(10) The bitter partisanship between the Democrats and the Republicans in Washington, D.C. will continue. Both sides want it that way. The Democrats want to be able to say the Republicans are standing in the way of progress. The Republicans want to be able to blame everything that goes wrong on the Democrats as long as the Democrats control the White House and both Houses of Congress.

(11) President Obama will win re-election for a new four-year term in November of 2012. Don’t underestimate the power of the President, especially this President, to get what he wants by whatever means are necessary.

(12) Despite all of the threats and problems facing the country, the spirit of the American people will be renewed. Faith and religion will become more important in the lives of many people. The generosity of the American people will continue. Charities and religious organizations will continue to provide help to those in need more efficiently and effectively than the government.

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.