Who is worse, Mubarak or Chavez

WHO IS WORSE, CHAVEZ OR MUBARAK?

                I saw a reporter asking a Congressman why the United States has tolerated Mubarak in Egypt but not Chavez in Venezuela.  The Congressman insisted that the behavior of Chavez was despicable but seemed unable to go beyond that. 

                THE SAD FACT: both Chavez and Mubarak are/were terrible dictators. 

                I believe Christians should be thrilled that with Mubarak gone the people of Egypt will experience more freedom.  We pray the Islamic fundamentalists will not get control of the Egyptian government.  For the 14 million plus Egyptians (18.5% of the population) who live on $2 or less per day, we hope the new government relies on capitalistic economic ideas because the impoverished rise out of poverty dramatically faster in market based economies.

                But is Mubarak, the standard despicable dictator as bad as Chavez?

                A dictator mercilessly sucks wealth out of his people and lives like a king while much of his citizenry barely keeps alive.  Both Mubarak and Chavez are guilty.  In Venezuela, despite being the 5^th largest oil producing country in the world, over ten percent of the people live on $2 a day or less.  That is about 3 million people.  Christians who care about the poor should be appalled. 

                I contend that dictators of the left, of the ultra-socialist and Marxist type, are indeed even worse than the bad dictators like Mubarak whose primary objects are first to stay in power and second to squeeze as much money out of the people as possible.

                In the forward to the book The Absence of Tyranny by Lloyd Billingsley, Richard John Neuhaus opined that leftist dictators are even worse for three reasons. 

                FIRST: Dictators on the left are part of a worldwide pursuit of a utopian ideal which destroys freedom wherever it goes.  These dictators, whether Stalin, Castro, Chavez, or others aggressively pursue the spread of their horrific ideal to other countries around the world.  Wherever this ideal goes, people suffer and lose freedom.  Dictators like Mubarak do not try to spread their domination, they simply try to stay in power.

                SECOND: Dictators like Mubarak are satisfied, once they have sucked the wealth out of a people, to leave the society of the people alone.  Not the leftists.  They rip the social fabric to shreds in an effort to build their utopia.  They tell families how many children they should have.  If the state would benefit from the taking of children out of a home, it happens.  When leftist Daniel Ortega decided the state needed the homeland of the Miskito Indians in Nicaragua he moved them away from land where their ancestors had lived for many generations.  For the leftist dictators the state comes first and the social well being of the people is ignored.

                THIRD: Neuhaus calls leftists the “friends of unfreedom.”  Wherever socialist/Marxist ideas take root, people lose their freedom.  Leftist dictators co-operate with loss of freedom whether it is political, academic, religious or otherwise.

                END NOTE: The Shah of Iran was a dictator, but internal unrest was forcing him to yield some powers and give some freedoms.  This was not enough for the Jimmy Carter administration.  They forced him from power before the time was right and the Islamic fundamentalist government came in.  Iran would not be the horrible problem it is today if Carter had not made one of the worst foreign policy decisions in the past century.  To the credit of the George W Bush and Barack Obama administrations, they did not force Mubarak out of power.  They let the people of Egypt develop their own response to the dictator.

Was George Washington a Christian

George Washington

                George Washington was a deist.  At least this is what I was taught and what I believed.  It was not too far-fetched.  The enlightenment had influenced many people to depart from orthodox Christianity.

                But many years ago I read Washington’s Farewell Address.  It contains statements like this: “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.”  While this is not an assertion of Christianity it certainly is not a statement a deist would make.

                Then a couple years ago I came across a book called Washington’s God by Michael and Jana Novak.  Michael Novak is a respected Catholic scholar and Jana is his daughter.  Glancing at the dust jacket and through the book I was surprised that the Novaks were making a case for George Washington being a Christian.  Hmmm.

                Now, in the current issue of World Magazine, I see that Westminster Seminary President Peter Lillback did a ten year study of Washington, including surveying the 37 volumes of letters that Washington wrote, and he concluded that Washington was a devout Christian.  His book, George Washington’s Sacred Fire, should put the question to rest.  It is over 1200 pages and contains massive footnotes and documentation.  It responds to arguments like the false assertion that Washington quit taking communion.  (Even prominent twentieth century liberal Norman Cousins, in his book “In God we Trust,” notes that Washington’s temporary cessation from taking communion was “more political than religious.”

                Washington was a Christian pure and simple.  That does not mean that all founding fathers were.  It does not mean that the enlightenment did chip away at the faith of some of them.  Christians should not be led to believe that the founders were monolithically Christian.  After bitter wrangling at the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the sessions be opened with prayer.  His proposal did not pass.  (Nor did it fail, it just was not voted upon.)  If the entire assembly had been all Christian, this would have passed virtually without discussion.  Gregg Singer, strongly conservative and one of the founders of the PCA denomination, says in A Theological Interpretation of American History that deism was a necessary motivator for the American Revolution.

                But on the other hand those who started the United States were not as diverse as modern liberals would have us believe.  They were largely Christian and most of them believed that democracy, free enterprise, and the United States would not prevail without a foundation of morality, and most of them believed that morality would derive from the Christian faith.  Many who want to rewrite American history do so because they want to minimize the influence of Christianity both in history and the present.

7 QUESTIONS FOR JIM WALLIS

SEVEN QUESTIONS FOR JIM WALLIS

1.    1.   Why do you consistently present yourself as a moderate or a third-way person and deny that you are a liberal?  On virtually every issue other than abortion you take a liberal, often very liberal, position.  You advise many candidates about how to get the Christian vote.  In all cases that I know about your assistance goes to the more liberal candidate in a race.

2.     2.   Why did you call Marvin Olasky a liar when he said that you have received substantial funds from George Soros?  Investigation shows that your organization has received $300,000 from Soros, so faced with undeniable evidence, you now admit it.  As I understand it, you have apologized privately to Olasky but since you called him a liar publically, shouldn’t your apology be public?

3.      3.  Why are you are a strong believer in redistribution of wealth when Scripture defends private property?  In all the history of writing about private property rights, no statement is stronger that what is found in Exodus: “Thou shalt not steal.”

4.       4.    Why do you frequently use the words “we” and “our” without defining them?  You blur the line between we Christians and we Americans.  For example in God’s Politics you say “We must also ensure that those who are unable to work are cared for by our society.”  Are you saying we Christians or we Americans?  If you want to impose all Christian values onto society, isn’t that a theocracy?  And sometimes when we Americans is appropriate that does not necessarily imply government involvement.

5.     5.   Why do you promote fear?  I know that in God’s Politics your chapter on terrorism is entitled “Be Not Afraid,” but in Sojourners editorials on immigration you promote fear.  Your April, 2010 commentary contained the following: “…do you think undocumented parents will now go to the police if their daughter is raped or their family becomes a victim of violent crime?”  “Parents or children of “mixed-status families” (made up of legal and undocumented, as many immigrant families are out here) could be arrested if they are found together. You can be arrested if you are ‘transporting or harboring’ undocumented people. Some might consider driving immigrant families to and from church to be Christian ministry — but it will now be illegal in Arizona.”  Apparently the Arizona police are more to be feared than terrorists.  But the real problem is that Christians are not to live in fear, yet you selectively incite it.

6.    6.   Why do you see helping the poor as always motivated by justice and not compassion?  If ten  starving poor people presented themselves to you, five of which were victims of injustice and five of which were not, would you only feed the victims?  Compassion is a much better motivation.  The emphasis on justice makes people feel like victims, whether they are or not, and leads to bitterness.  Compassion leads to gratitude.

7.   7.    Why do you often suggest that the year of Jubilee was for the purpose of redistributing wealth?  In the four passages of Scripture where Jubilee is mentioned, there is no hint of redistribution of wealth.  Jubilee was for the purpose of keeping the promise land divided among the Jews as God had originally done it, thus land went back to original owners every fifty years.  According to the Jewish Encyclopedia it was seldom observed, and only then when all the original tribes were in possession of Palestine.  After that is was mostly ignored or only observed nominally in anticipation of the return of all tribes to Israel.  It was all about the Promised Land and not at all about violating people’s property rights as you suggest.

SARAH PALIN VS BARACK OBAMA IN 2012

What if Barack Obama ran against Sarah Palin for President in 2012?  I have done an exhaustive survey – two people.  The first voted for Obama in 2008 but is quite disenchanted and he said that he would vote for Palin in this imaginary race.  The second voted for McCain last time but would vote for Obama because Palin is an ideologue.

MY DISCLAIMER

I am not a huge Palin fan.  In a Republican primary I would very likely not vote for her.  I hope she does not run.

FIVE REASONS TO VOTE FOR PALIN IN THIS CONTEST

1. Yes, Palin is a conservative ideologue.  Obama is a liberal ideologue.  Which is better for the country, conservatism or liberalism?  Conservatism encourages freedom, personal responsibility, human flourishing, and substantial opportunity for the poor to rise out of poverty.  Liberalism squelches freedom with regulation, creates state dependency, diminishes human flourishing, and hurts the poor.
2. Honesty.  Palin is honest about her idealism.  Obama is not honest about his liberalism.
3. Who will work with the whole government?  As governor of Alaska Palin consistently worked with the Democrat minority.  Obama has worked with the minority about as little as any president in 100 years.
4. As Christians, we want to minimize abortion.  Palin is pro-life and would work to stop abortion funding where possible.  Obama is strongly pro-abortion.  A Palin presidency would save hundreds or perhaps thousands of babies.
5. Conservatives help the unemployed get jobs.  Liberals help the unemployed get a government check.

Our economy is on an unsustainable path to bankruptcy.  It was started on that path by George W. Bush.  But most of the push down that path has come from Barack Obama.  Palin, much more than Obama, would reverse that course.

SHOULD ABORTION INFLUENCE OUR USE OF RESOURCES

A person could be completely pro-life and yet feel like abortion is the law of the land and that is not going to change any time soon.  It's a done deal for the foreseeable future so perhaps Christians should put their resources (their time, energy, votes, money, etc.) into other issues.

I agree that abortion is and will be the law of the land for the foreseeable future, however, I think Christians can save the lives of defenseless infants by investing heavily in pro-life things.

EXAMPLE 1


 In 1996 the Presidential race was between Bob Dole (pro-life) and Bill Clinton (pro-abortion.)  A Christian could have said that since Dole would be unable to change abortion laws he (the Christian) would consider giving his support to Clinton.  Here is why that turned out to cost human life.

In 1996 and again in 1997 Bill Clinton vetoed partial-birth abortion bans.  Bob Dole would not have.  When George W. Bush became president partial-birth abortion was banned.  Thus the election of Clinton gave four extra years of partial-birth abortion.  Since there were about 2,000 such abortions per year, the election of Dole would have saved 8,000 human lives.

EXAMPLE 2

Pro-life legislators are inclined to pass parental notification laws which undoubtedly reduce the number abortions.  Helping elect such legislators and pass such legislation saves babies.

EXAMPLE 3

Pro-life legislators are inclined to disallow using public funds to pay for abortions and again, this must diminish the number of abortions.  The number of abortions is probably reduced by thousands but what if it is only dozens.  Those dozens of helpless children are worth saving.

There are many other pro-life issues from which we could make examples.

So even if we cannot change the fundamental law of the land, we can pour our resources into saving some.  Relative to a million abortions per year, saving a few thousand does not sound like much, but we must remember that a few thousand human lives are a huge thing.  9/11 took 3,000 lives and we were rightfully outraged.  So Christians should pursue the pro-life agenda with full enthusiasm.

THE KORAN AND THE MOSQUE

 BURNING THE KORAN AND THE MANHATTAN MOSQUE

BURNING THE KORAN IS WRONG

1.      Yes, of course, it is bad because it angers soldiers fighting against our soldiers and thus imperils our men and women in combat.

2.      But, it is wrong more fundamentally.  As Christians we should want to win Muslims to Christ, not offend them.  So the Florida pastor is being very foolish.

SO WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS?

1.      Christian extremists form in small groups, like the thirty followers of the Florida preacher.  This compares to Islamic extremists who form in groups of thousands.

2.      Christian extremists burn books as compared to Muslim extremists who kill innocent people.  Even moderate Muslims are harsh by Christian terms.  Imam  Feisal Rauf is said to be a moderate who wants to promote harmony.  Clearly this is not true.  He is creating massive disharmony with the proposed Manhattan mosque.  This “moderate” Muslim has also refused to condemn the terrorist group Hamas.  “Moderate” for the Muslim community does not seem to be so moderate.

3.      Since 9/11 some people have tried to establish moral equivalence between the Islamic religion and the Christian religion.  It just ain’t so.  I know it sounds arrogant to say it, but Christians seem to be morally superior to Moslems.  Not spiritually superior.  We are sinners just as bad as they are.  But the crimes against humanity are much greater in the Islamic world.

Imagine two remote African villages untouched by the outside world.  Now missionaries appear at each village, Christians at one and Muslims at the other.  Fast forward three years.  In the village influenced by Christian missionaries you will likely see a medical clinic, linguists working on putting the local language into writing, and a few converts who have freely chosen Christianity.  In the other village all the natives are forced to eat a particular diet, follow a strict dress code, and pray five times a day to a God they might not even understand.  In this illustration we see the difference.

THE FOUR MEN WHO CAUSED THE RECESSION

1 & 2 BARNEY FRANK (D) AND CHRISTOPHER DODD (D)

Frank is head of the House Financial Services committee and Dodd is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

These two men used their substantial power to press banks to make subprime loans to lower income people.  The result was that people got mortgages who could not afford them.  This led to a massive default rate and the mortgage meltdown that started the dip that led to the recession.

Are you doing a low-income person a favor if you saddle him with a huge debt that he cannot pay?  Of course not.  As a Christian my heart breaks for the poor people badly hurt by these loans.  Frank and Dodd ought to be ashamed.  They acted like they were helping but they were hurting.

Subprime loans are made at interest rates below the rates the market dictates.  This is one more instance where the poor would be better off if markets where not interfered with and government intervention had not happened.  (I am not saying government should never interfere – just that it interferes too much.)

Much of the pressure for banks to make subprime loans came through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two private financial institutions with government backing.  Their irresponsibility was seen for many years prior to the recession.  In 2002 and again in 2003 the Bush White House tried to get legislation for greater regulation of these two entities.  Both times the regulation was blocked by Democrats.  Again in 2006 they tried.  This time Republicans got the bill out of committee but did not have the votes to pass it on the floor.  Fannie and Freddie went recklessly on.  For more on this, watch the video.

3 & 4 GEORGE BUSH (R) AND HENRY PAULSON (R)

The mortgage problem was serious and should have caused a dip on or economy.  But our economy was strong and this should have been nothing more than a dip.  BUT enter George Bush and Henry Paulson.

Bush did the one thing a leader should never do.  He panicked.   He said things like “… our entire country is in danger.”  Paulson persuaded Bush that disaster was looming if he did not do something.  Bush passed bailout dollars for banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and car makers.  At this point we can say that these measures did not help.  Government spending seldom does.

The public observed this desperate behavior and followed the administration into panic.  It is no surprise that the recession followed.

FINAL THOUGHT:  Okay I admit it.  It is a little over the top to blame the recession on just four men.  But it is not exaggeration to say that these four men played a huge role in what followed..