Barack Obama: The Rise of the Religious Left

Last week, June 23rd, Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) gave a speech in Hartford Connecticut. The text of this speech is amazing. The Senator begins by describing his perception of the heartbeat of America:

...folks are hungry for change - they're hungry for something new. They're ready to turn the page on the old politics and the old policies... But I also get the sense that there's a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any single cause or issue. It seems to me that each day, thousands of Americans are going about their lives - dropping the kids off at school, driving to work, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets, trying to kick a cigarette habit - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They're deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long road toward nothingness.

He continues by outlining his Faith and friendship:

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma. ... And slowly, I came to realize that something was missing as well - that without an anchor for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone. ... I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith.

He then connects to this his policy plans of which I only copy the meat:

Our conscience can't rest so long as 37 million Americans are poor and forgotten by their leaders in Washington and by the media elites. ... That's why I've been fighting to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and the minimum wage. ...

Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology - it's a moral commitment.

And until we stop the genocide that's being carried out in Darfur as I speak, our conscience cannot rest.

And we should close Guantanamo Bay and stop tolerating the torture of our enemies.

But we also know our conscience cannot rest so long as the war goes on in Iraq. ...Because the Iraq war is not just a security problem, it's a moral problem.

Today there are 12 million undocumented immigrants in America, most of them working in our communities, attending our churches, and contributing to our country. ... We cannot ignore that we have a right and a duty to protect our borders. ... Our conscience cannot rest until we not only secure our borders, but give the 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country a chance to earn their citizenship by paying a fine and waiting in line behind all those who came here legally.

Thus, it is now a profound sense of Christian morality, not neo-Marxism, that drives left-wing, wealth re-distribution schemes. Incorporating or increasing the welfare (oops... workfare) distributions within the income tax code, providing Universal (read nationalized) health insurance, and intervening in Darfur are moral duties driven by He who blessed us. Now we see that socialism is a moral duty arising out of deep sense of Christian Faith.

The Junior Senator from Illinois then ties the package with a bow.

I'm hearing from evangelicals who may not agree with progressives on every issue but agree that poverty has no place in a world of plenty; that hate has no place in the hearts of believers; and that we all have to be good stewards of God's creations. From Willow Creek to the 'emerging church,' from the Southern Baptist Convention to the National Association of Evangelicals, folks are realizing that the four walls of the church are too small for a big God. God is still speaking.

I'm hearing from progressives who understand that if we want to communicate our hopes and values to Americans, we can't abandon the field of religious discourse. That's why organizations are rising up across the country to reclaim the language of faith to bring about change. God is still speaking.

Well, I told you it was an amazing speech. It seems utterly misguided however. It seems that the Senator, like most liberals, doesn't appreciate the common sense of principles that underlay conservatism. The sense that our rights come from the Creator, and that the federal government functions best when it is limited in scope. This is exactly the vision laid out by the founders. The sense that every individual needs to be responsible for themselves not dependent on the largess of a kind, Christian, and Neo-Marxist government.

Senator, I understand that you want the world to acknowledge that many Democrats are Christians. This is a truth, and a good one. But Christianity is inherently incompatible with Marxism. This is why every communist leader in history has abolished Faith within their realm.

Good Luck in the Primaries Senator.

Free Speech: FEC, McCain, et al. v. WRTL

Well, I have completely read the Supreme Court decision in the case of the Federal Election Commission vs. Wisconsin Right-to-Life; Senator John McCain, et al. vs. Wisconsion Right-to-Life.

This case, to my reading, deals with the influence of corporate and union money in politics. A century's worth of legislation and case law has attempted to eliminate corporate and union contributions to, and expenditures on behalf of, political candidates for Federal office. The main purpose is to eliminate even the appearance of corruption and quid pro quo votes.

Cleverly and as expected, the money has found routes around regulations. McCain-Feingold attempted to create new barriers by controlling ads that advocate a candidate's defeat or election while pretending to be issue ads. These are called express advocacy ads. At issue is how to decide whether an ad is, or is not, an express advocacy ads.

The dissenters apply a standard that would prohibit ads that are essentially innocuous based on 1) the actual appearance of a candidate's name in the ad (urging viewers to contact Senator Feingold -- not mentioning voting at all) and 2) the "context" including other ads sponsored by organization placing the ad earlier in the election season.

The Court's Decision, authored by The Chief Justice, holds that if an ad can be interpreted as a legitimate issue ad, then it should be allowed. Thus, the court tries to error on the side of free speech.

Justice Scalia's concurring opinion is the real meat of the decision. The Justice, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, argues that neither the principle decision's logic nor the dissenter's logic hold. This opinion would reverse a previous decision and declare unconstitutional the applicable chapter of McCain-Feingold.

In the end, the case is undermined by the failure to link the behaviors to actual or potential corruption. It is never clear where the threat is. The dissenters would broadly constrain the content of issue ads. Most reasonable people would think it perfectly acceptable for an issue ad to encourage people to register their opinions with their elected representatives. It seems ludicrous to insist that the ad, if run within the 30 days prior to the election, cannot provide the name and contact information for those representatives. It also seems ludicrous to insist that an organization give up its right to issue advocacy because it engaged in permissable electioneering prior to the 30 day period. This is especially true given that absolute lack of evidence for potential corruption.

I forecast that in the near future the court will have to revisit this issue. If the court constructionists' are reinforced, I predict Justice Scalia's views will carry the day. If the court moves back to the left, the Dissenter's will reassert the flawed McConnell logic.

The decision thus illustrates the importance of the 2008 election cycle.

Freedom of speech

Supreme Court Decision in FEC v WRTL (McCain, et al. v WRTL):

"Throughout the 2004 senatorial campaign, WRTL made no secret of its views about who should win the election and explicitly tied its position to the filibuster issue. ... 'Re-elect George W. Bush' and 'Send Feingold Packing'... It was under these circumstances that WRTL ran the three television and radio ads in question. ...corporations earmarked more than $50,000 specifically to pay for the ads... Each {ad} criticized an unnamed 'group of senators' for 'using the filibuster delay tactic to block federal judicial nominess from a simple 'yes' or 'no' vote,' and described the Senator's actions as 'politics at work, causing gridlock and backing up some of our courts to a state of emergency.' ....In sum, any Wisconsin voter who paid attention would have known that Democratic Senator Feingold supported Filibusters against Republican presidential judicial nominees, that the propriety of the filibusters was a major issue in the senatorial campaign, and that WTRL along with the Senator's Republican challengers opposed his reelection because of his position on filibuster."

Justice Souter, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, arguing in dissent in FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life (John McCain et al. v. WRTL) that Americans should be kept in the dark prior to elections.

I have not yet read the complete decision. I will download, read it, and have more to say later.

Ron Paul's Unrealistic Foreign Policy

Congressman Ron Paul (R - TX) continues is his effort to be the most unrealistic candidate ever to run for President of the United States. The following is a direct quote from his website's issue page:

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

Let's interject some reality here. First, according to a data set on U.S. Military international force postings from 1950-2005 at heritage.org, we actually we have military in 149 countries. However, most of these are stationed at places like U.S. embassies. In reality, there are only 30 countries in which we have over 100 (including Canada, Greenland, and Iceland), and only 14 in which there are over 1,000 (including the U.K., Germany, and Italy). According to a report for the U.S. Congress at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS20649.pdf, there are currently 1.38 million U.S. troops on duty, almost 1.1 stationed in the U.S. and its territories.

Certainly seems like we are so busy extending our empire that we can't defend the homeland.

Invoking the voice of great founders like Washington and Jefferson is disingenuous-- theirs was a different day and context. However, when push came to shove both men led this nation in war. For Jefferson see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

What Presidents like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison understood is that there are some prices that are too high to pay. How about the deaths of innocent civilians in countries around the world?

Congressman Paul, get real.

In Denial: Ron Paul

The following quote is from the Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire which took place Tuesday June 5th, 2007. Speaking is Congressman Ron Paul (R - Texas).

REP. PAUL: I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just- war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!

I am afraid of the congressman is in denial. The facts are that Iran has committed, either directly or indirectly through their Hezbollah terrorist organization, at least seven acts of war since 1979. These include:

1. Attacking the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
2. Illegally detaining U.S. diplomatic personnel for 444 days.
3. Bombing the U.S. embassy in Lebanon (Hezbollah)
4. Bombing the British embassy in Lebanon (Hezbollah; per the NATO treaty)
5. Bombing the French embassy in Lebanon (Hezbollah; per the NATO treaty)
6. Bombing the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon (Hezbollah).
7. Bombing the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia (Hezbollah).
8. Facilitating the design of IEDs targeted at US and Coalition Forces in Iraq.
9. Facilitating the manufacture of IEDs targeted at US and Coalition Forces in Iraq.
10. Facilitating the importation of IEDs targeted at US and Coalition Forces in Iraq.
11. Illegally detaining British sailors illegally captured in Iraqi waters.

Of course, this is irrelevant to Congressman Paul. He believes it is all America's fault. He is missing the main point: no behavior of ours can justify such barbaric acts.

A short P.S. for Congressman Paul: The United States is not an empire, we do not maintain an empire, we do not desire an empire. Please come to your senses Mr. Congressman.