Effor.com

57 States 

Obama claims he’s visited 57 states….  This should live on at least as long as Hillary’s sniper fire incident and Quail’s potato gaffe. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

gk

In reading some of the articles from major media sources regarding Obama’s “historic” speech, all I can say is thank God for the First Amendment!  To give you a sample of what I’ve seen online, take a look at this article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

The article says Obama’s “historic” speech has “elevated the discussion about the issue to the point where it has worked itself into the pews and pulpits of Bay Area churches.”

Now I don’t have a problem with churches espousing a particular political view, and I don’t have a problem with the government staying out of regulating what can be said in churches, but I do have a problem when churches want it both ways.  Churches want to be able to talk politics in church, but they also want to remain tax exempt.  Pick one.

Go ahead and endorse candidates and issues from the pulpit if you want - but you should lose your tax exempt status.  Stick to religion and there’s no problem.

I remember back in 1984 (when I still went to church) the Catholic church I attended issued “voter guides” comparing Reagan and Mondale.  The guide looked at various issues such as where the candidates stood on abortion, the death penalty, welfare, etc.  So far so good….

The problem was that the voter guide made it crystal clear which candidate the Catholic Church wanted to have as president.  From reading the voters guide, it was obvious that the Catholic Church was endorsing Reagan.

They have obviously gotten a bit smarter regarding the political processsince then, as the Catholic Church now has a guide to allowable political activity published on their website.  I would hope that any church (of any religious denomination) would do something similar.  If they cross the line, then they are no longer tax exempt.

You can’t have it both ways - either you stay out of politics (in return for the government staying out of your business) or you go into politics and the government gets to go into your business.

This distinction is not a theoretical argument - it’s what separates this country from all others in the world.  We were the first to GUARANTEE religious freedom to our citizens.  Look at what’s happening today in Tibet, Iraq, even Denmark to see what happens when the government is allowed to interfere with religion.

But you can turn that argument around too - look at what happens when religion gets involved in politics.  Iran, the Balkins, Afghanistan, and most of the Middle East are repressive regimes where you can be legally killed for worshipping - or not worshipping - at the wrong altar.

I posted my views on the Second Amendment a few days ago, and my views on the First Amendment are similar.  The Constitution does not in anyway restrict the rights of the people - it delegates certain rights to the government.  Read the First Amendment:

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.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.  I wonder if the monks in Tibet wish they had something like that as a guarantee….

gk

The story is all over the news tonight.  Here’s the Washington Posts’ take.  A few choice quotes:

“But he (McCain)declined to embrace the kind of government intervention for individuals and institutions favored by Clinton and Obama, arguing that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

It’s about time someone said that the government shouldn’t bail out stupid people.  However, I don’t agree with McCain on who is deserving of being bailed out.  McCain also said “We have a responsibility to take action to help those among them who are deserving homeowners.”

Many (probably most) of those facing foreclosure were never “deserving homeowners”, they were idiots who lived beyond their means, they took out interest only or adjustable rate loans, and they somehow act surprised when the bill for their overspending comes due.  See my post earlier tonight for a prime example of this.

So obviously I disagree with McCain on the details, but at least he’s saying that not everyone should be bailed out.  On the other hand, Obama and Clinton seem to be in a contest to see who can give away more taxpayer money.

The same story attributes this to Clinton: ”McCain’s plan, she said, does virtually nothing to ease the credit or housing crisis. “It seems like if the phone were ringing, he would just let it ring and ring and ring,” she said.”

Cool - the less the government does to “ease” the credit and housing “crisis” the better I feel about it.

And - in what has to be one of the most futile efforts ever - Obama today “outlined what he called a second stimulus package that would cost about $30 billion and include assistance to individuals and areas hard hit by the housing crisis.”

Idiot. The Fed loaned $38 billion today, and is approaching $500 billion in new money give aways since September.  That much money hasn’t headed off the current credit and housing problems - and the $160 billion stimulus package coming soon to a mailbox near you won’t make a dent in it either - so why would Obama think $30 billion will have any impact?

Let’s put it this way:  All three major candidates are wrong on these issues.  The only consolation is that McCain is less wrong than Obama and Clinton.  But none of them have a clue, and I don’t see any hope that they’ll get smarter before election day.

gk