We Meet the Governors

That was really fun.

Today, Gov. Nikki Haley came to Greenville, SC, to announce her intent to run for a second term as the governor of SC.  She has done a great job so far, leading the state to one of the best economies in the nation and demonstrating how to govern from a conservative, fiscally prudent standpoint.  And what she says, she does.

To help her make this announcement, Senator Tim Scott served as the emcee for this event.  He did a great job firing up the crowd and defining what it is conservatives should be doing.

Three of the nation's best GOP governors then came to the stage and spoke about Gov. Haley and the fine job she has done.  First was Texas governor Rick Perry:

He was followed by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal:

And finally, the governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker:

Each of the governors stayed for various periods of time to mingle with the crowd, and my family got to meet all four of them.  Governor Jindal stayed the longest, and impressed me with his talkative nature (which, admittedly, is an asset in his line of work) and the sincere enjoyment he seemed to take in meeting total strangers.  He spent more than two minutes with my own children, having a wide-ranging conversation that I caught on video: 

 (still haven't figured out how to make this work...)

I hope you listen carefully to what he said to the kids.  I found it satisfying that he encouraged my kids to read their Bibles, even though there was no obvious evidence that we were Christians (in other words, we had not explicitly said so).  I hope you enjoy the video, and if you get a chance to vote for Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, or Nikki Haley in the future, please consider doing so.

An Excellent Perspective on Israel

I am on an email list from Shalom Ministries, a NYC-based ministry to bring the good news of Christ to the Jewish people.  Craig Hartman, its founder, sent out an email last evening regarding the situation in Israel.  I am copying it here.


Greetings friends,

By now you all have, no doubt, heard about the barrage of rockets being launched against Israel from the Palestinian-controlled territories. For those of you who follow us on Facebook, you already are receiving frequent updates on what is happening through that resource. Many news outlets are covering the violence. Too much is happening to try to review it all here, but all believers should track what is happening.

In light of these events, I wanted to share a few thoughts as we watch the matter unfold together. It should be noted that within the last week over 600 rockets have been launched against Israel. This barrage is different than ones in the past because of the number of rockets within such a short period of time and especially because of the locations where the rockets are landing. Now, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem neighborhoods are being hit as well as the areas in the south near Gaza. That is new. Many of the rockets are being intercepted by Israel's Iron Dome, but sadly a number have hit, and there have been a few deaths of innocent civilians. Amazingly, some in the world community are blaming Israel and labeling her defensive actions as aggression. America has condemned the attacks and expressed Israel's right to defend herself. The recent actions are very bold, without any pretense, to the point that Hamas is actually tweeting its actions and intended targets. It is a very tense and sad time for the people of Israel and a matter of great concern for all of us who love the people and the land.

In addition to tracking the news in the region, we are also in contact with friends there. Israelis are a tough people and have a great attitude even in these times. I received an e-mail from an unsaved friend, who lives in southern Israel. He wrote from his bunker and was matter of fact about the realities of their situation. He also expressed that he was looking forward to when we are back in Israel to visit him. I have spoken with another friend in Tel Aviv, who told me that the people there are encouraging each other to celebrate their lives in the land in spite of the difficulties, and that many entertainment and other public facilities and gathering places were removing all charges for attendance. The theaters were full last night. The spirit of life and strength is always demonstrated by the Israeli people. They will not be intimidated by terror.

The timing of all of this is rather interesting in that it all started just two days after the US election, and there is a new election coming in Israel in just a couple of months. Further, the Palestinian Authority has recently reiterated its intention to raise its status at the United Nations. Interesting indeed. I am not speculating here, just noting the fascinating timing of it all. In any event, we must not be surprised by any of this, and we must remember that God is still on the throne. We know that Israel will not be destroyed (Jeremiah 31), and we know that a far worse time will be experienced by her and the entire world during the Seventieth Week of Daniel. Perhaps these current events can cause us to remember the terrible events that are yet to come in the future and motivate us to reach out to the very dark world around us before it is too late.

As Israelis celebrate the Sabbath, we should all be praying for Israel, Jerusalem, and the Jewish people. We should be praying for the salvation of Palestinian people. Their only hope is the Lord, and He is the only cure for the evil that consumes their leaders.

I also want to suggest that the attitude of the Israelis at this time should challenge us all about how we respond to living in the midst of constant attack. I have been challenged to celebrate light and life in the midst of the darkness and hatred around me.

I can only imagine that times will become more and more difficult for people throughout the world, and we know Israel will be at the center of it all. The Bible is very clear about that. My heart is aching for my people, and I am having difficulty on a personal level just hearing what is happening and the reaction of some in the world community. Please join with us in lifting up sacrifices of praise to the Lord and heartfelt prayers for the people throughout the Middle East. Please pray for the peace of Jerusalem and for our country. This is also a test for America. These are perilous times indeed, and we must hold each other up as the day approaches.

Blessings,

Craig Hartman

Why I'm Voting for Rick Santorum in the SC Primary

Tomorrow, in the South Carolina GOP Presidential Preference primary, I will be voting for Rick Santorum.  Here’s why.

I need to start out by saying that I haven’t been totally thrilled with any of the four remaining candidates.  All of them have obvious weaknesses of character and/or policy which will make their race against Obama less of a lock than it ought to be.  The Republican Party needs a leader of the Reagan type, who, like him in 1980, would win 40+ states and carry a mandate with him to Washington.  But since we have four remaining candidates from whom to choose, and since any of them will be an improvement over the current president, I must choose from among them.

Rick Santorum, on the whole, represents my views the most consistently.  He has been consistently and passionately pro-life, and wrote the bill that ended partial birth abortion.  On social issues, he and I are of one voice.  He is also a firm believer in the Second Amendment (The NRA rates him A+).  He opposed TARP, voted against McCain-Feingold and Frank-Dodd, and receives low ratings from both the ACLU and the AFL-CIO.  While I am concerned about the trouncing he took in the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate race (and, for that matter, the trouncing he may get here in SC tomorrow, if the polls are valid), he is more demonstrably opposed to Obama than either Romney or Gingrich.  His biggest liability in my eyes is that he does not come across as a leader.

Newt Gingrich, at the moment, would be my second choice.  I agree with him on most issues—but he occasionally throws one out there that makes me scratch my head.  His personal character history is a serious problem and, even if he has sincerely repented and stays on the right track, will be a detriment in the race.  (Obama, for all his flaws, has no hint of marital infidelity.)  I am also concerned that his ego may become a liability.

Mitt Romney seems to be a conservative now, but my gut just doesn’t like the fact that he wasn’t while he was the governor of Massachusetts.  I think he can be a great executive, and if he is the GOP nominee, I will vote for him in November.  But for now, I’m going with the most consistent conservative.

Ron Paul is problematic.  His voting record is often meritorious and often puzzling.  The ACLU rates him pretty favorably—that's a problem.  His vicious and untrue attack ads concerning Santorum (being shown ad nauseam this week on SC TV stations) trouble me.  His foreign policy ideas are dangerous to the future of our country. 

Please educate yourself on the candidates and then take the opportunity to vote.

Thinking Like a Christian: An Introduction

This Sunday, November 14, I will be beginning a series of lessons from the book Thinking Like a Christian by David Noebel. Each week I hope to add to this blog a summary of the lesson for those who are unable to attend Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Taylors, South Carolina, to hear it in person. The topic is of primary importance to Christians. The series will recess in January and, God-willing, be resumed later in 2012.

The introductory lesson discusses the importance of the topic. The textbook defines "worldview" as any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement, or religion that provides an overarching approach to understanding God, the world, and man's relationship to God and the world (p. 6). Furthermore, every worldview has an answer to the three most basic questions:

Where did we come from?

What's wrong with the world?
What is the solution to man's basic problems?

The worldview promoted by the book (and by me, of course) is biblical Christianity: The worldview that comes directly from the Word of God. It answers all three questions clearly, and does so in a way that offers hope and eternal security to every man and woman.

Everyone has a worldview. Most can't explain their own worldview clearly or concisely, but everyone has one. Many Christians today are not taught, and frequently do not even consider, the importance of thinking biblically...which is probably why most Christians are not functioning as salt and light, and most are having little influence on the world around them—some, sad to say, have little influence even among their own families and friends. Most Christians today are more impacted by the world's worldviews than by the Bible's. If we are to reach the world for Christ, this must change.

The textbook divides a biblical worldview into ten categories, around which the text and the lessons are organized:

Theology
Philosophy
Biology
Psychology
Ethics
Sociology
Law
Politics
Economics
History

We will forego any discussion of whether a more suitable organization exists, except to say that many of the topics do overlap in our world, and all are important for the Christian to understand and discern. I think this organization works well.

Each of these ten categories is addressed in the Bible. Each has ramifications in our own lives, and demands that we understand how to biblically interact with it. Each impacts the others, and each demands some basic assumptions about the nature of reality—the reality of the creation in which God has placed us. We will see in subsequent lessons that each of them is dealt with even in the earliest chapters of Genesis and throughout the Bible; furthermore, Christ is manifested in His Word as having significance in each area.

Once upon a time, America, for the most part, had a biblical worldview. That is clearly not the case today. Every topic in the list above, in our country today, is dominated or under attack from perspectives which eminate from non-biblical worldviews. We Christians lament this. But we shouldn't just whine and lament: We need to educate ourselves, our fellow Christians, and the world about what the Bible says on these things! Sure, the world needs Christ, and we need to share the Gospel with everyone, as Scripture clearly teaches. But we also need to be making clear what the Bible says about the other aspects of life; the Holy Spirit can use this kind of teaching, too, to impress upon the hearts of the unsaved the truth of His Word and the need of His salvation. Think of it as teaching the "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).

1 Peter 3:15 says that we must "sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." Understanding and having a Christian worldview will help you to do that. Remember, too: There is no difference between the sacred and the secular in the Christian's life; all of life is sacred to the Christian.

The other worldviews do not provide satisfaction. Colossians 2:4-8 reminds each of us that the "wisdom of this world" will "spoil" you—literally, it will carry you away captive! Only in Christ and His Word can mankind find joy and happiness, as well as a rational, adequate, and consistent explanation of reality. It doesn't require a Ph.D., nor immense intelligence. Even a child can understand the teachings of the Bible.

Learn the biblical worldview. Live it. Share it with others.

Christianity and Islam: A Quick Comparison

For weeks now I have had it in the back of my mind to post a blog entry on this topic. And without delving too deeply into the theology of either, let me identify some starting points:

On Your Enemies:

Islam—Kill them in any way possible.

Christianity—Jesus said, in the Sermon on the Mount, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (Matt. 5:44)

Regarding Wives:

Islam—You can have several. You may divorce them for virtually any reason. To use western terminology, you can abuse them and not be concerned with the judicial system.

Christianity—Paul wrote, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25) That's a tall order, by the way.

Sharing Your Faith:

Islam—Submit to Allah, or be an infidel. Infidels must be killed.

Christianity—We are to spread the glorious Gospel message to all the world (Matt. 28:18-20), yet must remember what Christ told his disciples in John 15:18-21:

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.

The world will hate Christians, but Christians are to love the world.

Political Observations:

Islam—If you know of any country where Islam is the dominant religion (you may go back to the 7th century AD for this one) that simultaneously had a system of government where people had freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and anything resembling full democracy ("full" in this context includes women and those who are not Muslims), please identify that country in the comments below. I'm drawing a blank.

Christianity—America, for instance, was founded on Bible principles applied to law, freedom, liberty, economics, justice, and the like; and it has since become the greatest nation on earth. Other countries which have mimicked our founding political principles have been successful and allowed their peoples a large degree of freedom and justice.

As Perceived by Other Americans:

Islam—Nobody seems willing to criticize Muslims for fear of getting firebombed. Even something essentially harmless, like a political cartoon, is cause for riots.

Christianity—Nobody seems afraid to criticize and mock Christians, knowing that if they are true Christians, they will probably not reciprocate. (That whole "turn the other cheek" thing.)


Anyone have any additional comparisons? I'm willing to update the post if you have a good one.

The Republican Presidential Field: A First Look

It's good to be back blogging again, after a busy few weeks.

The GOP presidential field is forming and evolving, as various individuals dive in or bow out. I want to discuss my thoughts on who these folks are and whether they are the "kind of people we want" in the White House. Starting from the top:

My Favorite so far: Tim Pawlenty. Two-term governor of a liberal-leaning state who managed to keep a wayward budget under control and generally be conservative without compromising core principles. As long as he doesn't get to DC and get grandiose ideas about how government can "help the people," I think he'll do a pretty good job.

Other Big Names:

Mitt Romney: He worries me. I can't get "RomneyCare" out of my head. He's Mormon...not sure how that will affect his decision making...if at all...or should it? He looks and talks presidential, but almost without passion.

Newt Gingrich: I like him, but his negatives are enormous. For every two good ideas he has—and he has many—there seems to be a lemon. I always have my doubts about those whose marital infidelity has become so, um, public. His tenure as House Speaker, however, was superb.

Rick Santorum: I like him, too. He's quite conservative and votes with a conscience. I don't think he has much of a chance, but mainly because so many of my GOP friends/family in PA don't like him. And if you can't do well in your home state....

Jon Huntsman: The man began running for president against Obama while still serving in the Obama administration. I call this bad ethics. He's an incredibly rich man—he didn't need the day job. So why did he take it?

The Rest of the Pack:

Michele Bachmann: Four words: Sarah Palin on steroids. Thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, and her positions on the issues are consistently on the mark. She comes across as less-than-presidential, though, and will be portrayed as (you heard it here first) Sarah Palin on steroids. This demonization will deep-six her campaign. And like Santorum, if you can't win your home state—Pawlenty will win MN, I'm sure—you are toast.

Ron Paul: Good on fiscal issues. Libertarian streak is too strong. Occasionally comes across as a crackpot.

Herman Cain: I lack research. Is he a bona fide, conscience-driven, Bible-believing Christian? Is he another loud-mouthed, egotistical, radio talking head? I honestly have no idea yet.

Gary Johnson: Leading nominee at present for the 2012 "Who??" award.

Thankful they dropped out: Huckabee, Trump. (Although Trump may do a Ross Perot and jump back in. I can see this scenario. I don't like it.)

Still haven't committed, and looking doubtful they will: Palin, Christie

And there are others out there as well. Start your research, everyone; I'll keep you informed about mine.

Book Review: Colonel Roosevelt by Edmund Morris

This book is the third book of the trilogy of Teddy Roosevelt's life, preceded years ago by The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and Theodore Rex. Like the first two books, this one is well-written, informative, and interesting.

This volume covers the period of TR's life from his Africa trip in 1909, immediately after he left the presidential office, until his death in 1919. The book contains copious endnotes (as the first two volumes did) which augment the basic storyline with a variety of details and source information; for those of us who enjoy that sort of thing, it is a great resource. For those who do not, you can simply enjoy the text, unencumbered with that "stuff."

Three things struck me about TR's life in particular. First, it was amazing to see how wide his circles of acquaintance were. His correspondence is legendary; it is estimated that in his lifetime he composed 150,000 letters, etc. to people. He knew people all over Europe and America, from royalty to scientists to authors.

A second thing was how his six children turned out. One son, Quentin, died heroically in World War I. His other five children all married and had varying degrees of success in this world, but at least three of them did not lead lives I would hope for my own children. His eldest child, Alice, had a rocky marriage and both she and her husband were apparently not faithful to each other. I cannot help but wonder if his extended absences from his family were directly or indirectly related to how his children turned out.

The third thing was his position on spiritual things. Despite his enormous breadth of reading and his ability to plow through a 300-page book in an evening (with legendary recollection), he admitted to not reading substantial portions of the Bible until his post-presidential years. He was an ardent follower and promoter of the theory of evolution, and tried to apply it to various fields of science. Although his personal moral code was above reproach, he rarely attended church or showed signs of piety. His writings on religious topics (his pen generated much of his post-presidential income) show that his views on righteousness and eternity were quite different from the teachings of the Bible. Indeed, if Morris's research is accurately presented—and I have no reason to believe it is not—it appears Theodore Roosevelt lived his life without accepting Christ as his personal Savior.

Despite that sad thought, the book is a fitting capstone to the Theodore Roosevelt trilogy. If you have the time to read the 2,000-ish pages in all three books, I encourage you to do so.

What Does "As a share of GDP" Mean?

From the top story at Foxnews.com at this hour, dealing with Standard & Poor's lowered outlook for U.S. sovereign debt:

"Both political parties now agree that it is time to begin bringing down deficits as a share of GDP," Mary Miller, assistant secretary for financial markets at the Treasury Department, said in a written statement. "We believe S&P's negative outlook underestimates the ability of America's leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation."

"...as a share of GDP..." What does that mean to you? Let's convert the numbers (presently in the trillions) to ones we more commonly understand. Suppose the "gross domestic product" of your household—for this example, all of the income generated by all the people in the household—is $50,000 in the year 2011. Because you spend like the government, you have spent $60,000 and generated $10,000 debt this year, which is 20% of your household GDP. [This would be in addition to the many years of debt you've been racking up prior to 2011.] As the leaders of your household come together for a meeting, they all agree that annual debt consisting of 20% of household GDP—up from, say, 12% in previous years—is pretty high, and that something needs to be done about it. After all, it's getting harder to make all the credit card, car, vacation home, jet ski, timeshare, home alarm system, and charity payments to lazy neighbors simultaneously.

So here's what one of them says:

We need to rein in our debt by keeping it at the level of 20% of household GDP.

And the rest of them? They all should look at the speaker and, as politely as possible, point out how stupid that is and how utterly ineffective it is in dealing with the problem...and once the speaker understands that, they should point out that in the long-term, this will only make the problem worse.

What the speaker is implying is this: That if next year's household income rises to $60,000—a very optimistic forecast in the current economy—it will be OK to incur $12,000 (that's 20% of $60,000) more in debt, to add to all those prior years' worth of debt. For that matter, even if one of these people should recommend that the debt be limited to 12% of household GDP, it's still a bad idea; the way to get rid of debt is to reduce spending to below the level of income!

And this the federal government does not yet seem to understand. Our leaders in Washington DC need to determine what needs to be done, as soon as possible, to get the level of government spending to less than the level of government income.

If they want suggestions, I will be happy to offer them.

Who Voted for the Ryan Bill?

Today the U.S. House passed a bill on a 235-193 vote for a budget plan which was spearheaded by Paul Ryan (R-WI). It likely won't even see a vote in the Senate, but even if it got through there, it is likely the president would veto it.

Every single D in the House voted against it. Every Republican except four of them voted for it. (Not sure what those four—Jones, McKinley, Paul, and Rehberg—were thinking.) Feel free to contact your Congressman and let him know what you think about his vote.

Full details on the vote can be found here.

Who Voted for the Budget Bill?

Earlier today, the House and Senate passed a budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. President Obama is expected to sign the bill on Friday, April 15. [Ponder the irony for a moment.]

It did, however, receive bipartisan opposition. In the House, 108 D's opposed it while only 81 supported it; 59 R's opposed it while 179 carried the bill to passage. The Senate saw it passed by a 81-19 vote, with 3 D's and the quasi-democrat Sanders (I-VT) in the "Nay" column.

The bill, if looked upon as a serious attempt to deal with annual federal spending, is actually a joke. Consider this quote from the afore-linked FoxNews article:

Conservatives in particular were disappointed after a Congressional Budget Office report showed the package only saves $352 million from non-war accounts this year -- compared with the $38.5 billion in cuts Boehner had claimed.

The CBO study confirmed the measure trims more than $38 billion in new spending authority relative to current levels, but many of the cuts come in slow-spending accounts like water-and-sewer grants that don't have an immediate deficit impact. Other cuts come in areas where the government was unlikely to spend the money anyway, CBO suggested.

$352 million?? At the rate of the past two years, that's about 2 hours' worth of deficit!! And it's slightly less that 1% of what was "claimed" as a $38.5 billion cut. In short, this is merely a token. It should not be claimed as any sort of serious effort at reducing federal spending.

I am happy to say that my U.S. Representative, Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th district), and both my U.S. Senators (Jim DeMint and Lindsay Graham) voted against the bill. Had I still lived in MI today, my U.S. Representative, Fred Upton (R-MI 6th district) and one of my U.S. Senators (Debbie Stabenow, D-MI) voted for it. The other senator, Carl Levin (D-MI), voted against it.

Find how your U.S. Representative voted here.

Find how your U.S. Senators voted here.

How Democrats Historically Respond to Losing

Earlier this year 14 Wisconsin senators and a bunch of Indiana representatives, who found themselves in the minority party in their chambers, decided to hightail it to Illinois [formerly known as "Land of Lincoln" but new nicknames like "Land of Democrat Refugees" should be considered] to simply stop business from occurring in the legislatures of their states. In so doing they showed contempt for their offices and the citizens who voted for them. They also showed deep contempt for the democratic process. We live in a country where "We, the People" elect representatives to our government. These people—like it or not—were the elected representatives. But instead of doing the honored job which they were elected to do, they behaved like the pouting 5-year-old who takes his proverbial ball and heads home. It probably goes without saying that if Republicans tried something like this, they would be publicly demonized for years to come. Now rewind to the years 1860-1861. Democrats had been the majority party for about a decade due to the demise of the Whig party and other events. The 1850's saw multiple pieces of legislation which the Democratic party supported—and the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, the second worst decision of the Court in our nation's history—passed and signed into law by democrat presidents. These pieces of legislation infuriated many who saw them as contrary to the principles and freedoms which America was founded upon. Members of other parties stayed in their seats and dutifully voted, even when in the minority. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was elected president. Before he even took the oath of office, seven entire states—commandeered by democrats—seceded from the Union. Within weeks after the inauguration, four more entire states—also commandeered by democrats—seceded also. I'm predicting that if our current president gets voted out next year, we may see members of the Democratic Party try similar stunts in Washington in 2013.

What To Do In Wisconsin

The short version of the story: Newly-elected GOP legislative majority and GOP governor begin to follow through on campaign promises to cut state spending. Teachers in the public schools are included, and will be expected to receive less generous compensation packages. Unions are outraged; democrats wail and howl.

Then, the 14 remaining democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate flee. Away. To Illinois. Since a quorum of 20 is required, and since there are only 19 Republicans, Senate business has come to a halt.

The fugitive legislators deserve strong criticism for their cowardice and irresponsibility. But they deserve more than that. In the "real world," those of us who don't show up for work—nay, refuse to come to work!—get the axe.

The Wisconsin constitution (I found it here; see p. 63) provides a way for elected officials to be recalled from office. I would encourage everybody who lives in a district represented by one of these fugitive legislators to begin the process by signing petitions to get these folks removed from office. They have abdicated their responsibilities, and therefore, they should be removed from their posts.

Whether or not these 14 like the legislation being debated, and regardless of the number or opinions of those protesters, they were entrusted with a responsibility. If they don't care to fulfill that responsibility, they should no longer hold office.

Rich Rodriguez: Republican vs. Democrat Perspectives

Rich Rodriguez is the third-year head football coach at the University of Michigan. He arrived as something of a foreigner, having left his previous job under a cloud of controversy. Nevertheless, when he arrived in Ann Arbor to take his job, he was greeted with much jubilation and high hopes for success.

The results: His football team, since 2008, has an overall record of 13-19. Big Ten Conference record: 4-16. He is 0-3 against Penn State and 0-2 against Ohio State; two of those four wins came against Indiana. He has lost home games to Toledo, Purdue, and Northwestern...but did get a 63-6 win over Delaware State last season. Furthermore, his mostly-ethics-free approach to the coaching profession has brought NCAA investigations to U of M. In short, his time as leader has been something like a train wreck.

Republican Perspective: Rich Rodriguez has had the opportunity to lead successfully and he has not. He has demonstrated poor ethics. He does not seem to grasp the magnitude of his, or his team's, failures. He has displeased his constituency. In short, he needs to be replaced at the next appropriate opportunity.

Democratic Perspective: He's beaten Indiana twice! And wasn't that a great game against Delaware State!?! Let's elect this guy as governor!

So given the liberal atmosphere in Ann Arbor, he might just be there for years and years to come, much to the delight of Nittany Lion and Buckeye fans.

Get Out And Vote!

Elections are on November 2. Plan to vote on that day at your local polling place.

This is the time of year when we are all reminded that elections have consequences. That every vote counts. That they who do not vote should not complain about the results. One of the [inaccurate] retorts is that "My vote doesn't make a difference." Baloney!

Every vote counts. We, the people, need to send a very loud message to those whom we send to Lansing, Columbia, every other state capital, and Washington D.C.: Repudiate, Repeal, and Renounce the foolishness of the past two years! Repeal Obamacare! Get the budget under control! Reform and/or remove entitlement programs!

Your vote for candidates who support these positions just makes the collective voice a little bit louder. Together, all of us can scream loudly and clearly that we are severely displeased with the unconstitutional direction our government has taken, and that we expect our elected officials to turn it back in the right and constitutional direction.

It is only an educated, moral, active electorate that can be trusted to choose leaders of integrity, honesty, and competence. Do your part.

Who I'm Voting For, Part 2

80th House District: Aric Nesbitt

There are two candidates in this six-way race that stand out to me: Aric Nesbitt and Frank Thompson. I think that both of them can be fine representatives for the people of Van Buren County.

Frank's background is business-oriented. He has been a small-business owner in our county for a long time; he's a family man (married for 42 years); he takes a good stand on the issues. I certainly won't begrudge anyone who wants to vote for him.

Aric's background is somewhat different. He is much younger; I believe he is still single. He has spent most of his working life in the political world. He also takes a good stand on the issues and shares my values. His one liability, in my book, is that he has spent most of the past decade working outside of Michigan and in DC, which is not necessarily an asset.

But Aric has one big advantage in my book, too: He has demonstrated that he will reach out to others. He has both called me personally and visited my house last Saturday (disclaimer: I think he was just working his way through my neighborhood, as opposed to seeking me out individually) and discussed the issues with me. And if you know me, you probably realize I would ask him straight questions. I liked his answers, and I like his energy.

Governor: Pete Hoekstra

As in the state House race above, I see two candidates who stand out above the rest: Pete Hoekstra and Mike Bouchard. I think either one would make a good governor for Michigan. I give Hoekstra the nod in my book.

A word on the other candidates: I have not been pleased with Rick Snyder's avoidance of taking good positions on social conservative issues. His economic ideas seem sound (something that's true for all five GOP candidates), but I can't say too much else in his favor. Mike Cox has demonstrated a penchant for "being a politician" and has already behaved badly with some of his misleading advertisements against Hoekstra. Tom George, who is from Kalamazoo and whom I know personally, has not convinced me of his fiscal conservatism, demonstrated oh-so-terribly with his tax hike vote a few years ago--a vote that helped swing the critical Senate vote to the democrats.

Bouchard has a lot going for him. His stands on the issues are solid, and his experience in Oakland County will be valuable. Pete Hoekstra, however, has demonstrated a very strong friendship with pro-family and pro-life groups, including reaching out to homeschoolers and supporting local control of public education. He also has a long record in Congress; most of it is very good.

The other races in my precinct are uncontested. Make sure you vote on August 3!

Who I'm Voting For, Part 1

Very soon I will be voting, probably for the last time, in a Michigan election. There are several important primary races where I live:

U.S. Representative, 6th District
State Senate, 20th District
State Representative, 80th District
Governor

Here's who I am voting for, and why:

U.S. Representative: Jack Hoogendyk

Hoogendyk is looking to upset incumbent Fred Upton, and I hope he does. Hoogendyk has a record, from his six years in the Michigan House, of sound fiscal and social conservatism. He is a Christian man who has shown that he will vote as he speaks. He is predictable; he does not seek which way the wind blows before deciding how to cast a vote. You know what you are getting...and in his case, I like it. A lot.

Upton, on the other hand, has been a case study in political expediency. He is not reliably conservative. He has voted with the democrats too many times on issues that matter, such as the surge vote several years ago, the TARP bailout, and the Cash for Clunkers bill (a failure of which he was one of the leading cheerleaders).

Republicans have a clear choice, and they need to make the most of it.

State Senate, 20th District: Tonya Schuitmaker

Tonya is another politician who has put her votes where her mouth has been. She is consistently conservative, pro-life, and fiscally sound. She has done a great job, worked hard, and reached out to her constituents (including me) during the past six years she has served in the State House. In short, Michigan needs her and 147 similar people in the Legislature.

I have not been impressed with Lorence Wenke's credentials as a conservative, although he (or Larry DeShazor) both would be vastly superior to the candidate running on the other ticket. DeShazor seems like a good guy but for the most part his record is not as long as Tonya's.

Next post: Thoughts on the other two races

Who Was Obama's 2nd Biggest Donor in the Presidential Campaign?

The politically naive may be surprised, but when we realize all the favors the Obama administration has done for this company, it does make a lot of sense.

Some may say, "But his administration is threatening to fine them a lot of money!" Whatever. I think it was mostly hot air and PR for the financial "reform" Obama wants. The fine wouldn't hurt them all that much anyway.

Who is this donor? Click here to learn.

A Math Teacher's Thoughts on the Census

Today is April 1, 2010, so I dutifully filled out my census form today and will mail it in the morning. Despite what the media and the U.S. Census Bureau tell me, I don't think I need to fill it out ahead of the official day—indeed, if some tragedy had befallen my family, say, two days ago, and I had already mailed in my form, it could have been inaccurate.

Two things really rub me the wrong way about the Census this year.

1. The Cost. It's outrageous. According to the NBC News (note: credibility warning), the U.S. Census Bureau is spending $14,000,000,000 for the decennial count. Think about this: That works out to about $45.60 per person (if we assume 307,000,000 people will be counted). That means the government is spending $273.60 just to count my family of six!

The commercials and advertising are excessive. The reminders that the census helps determine which communities most heavily contribute to future budget deficits add to the annoyance.

We can only imagine what healthcare will look like. And that happens more than once a decade.

2. The ridiculous efforts "to count everyone," while also ignoring whether those counted belong in this country at the moment, while assuring those counted that nothing "bad" will happen to them because the census data is confidential. This will give lopsided representation to those states with lots of illegal, countable immigrants, while denying it to states which have few. This is inconsistent with the intent of the Constitution and the census.

People who are not legally in this country, and people who are not citizens, should not be counted for the purposes of determining representation. And really, that's the purpose of the census, isn't it? Isn't it??

From irs.gov....

When you make money doing other people's tax returns and read information from the IRS, sometimes you encounter facts like these [data is the most recent available]:

Individual income tax returns reporting a tax liability in 2007 faced an average tax rate of 13.8 percent, the same as in 2006. Taxpayers with AGI of at least $410,096, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, accounted for 22.8 percent of AGI in 2007, an increase of 0.8 percentage points. These taxpayers accounted for 40.4 percent of total income tax reported in 2007, an increase from 39.9 percent in the previous year.

Points to note:

1. "reporting a tax liability" means that all those people who did not make enough money to owe the IRS are eliminated from the statistic. In other words, their "taxable income" was zero.

2. Does it bother you that 1% of the taxpayers are paying 40.4% of all the income taxes? On the other end, over 40% of "taxpayers" are paying no income taxes...and in many cases, claiming credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, that provide them with robust refunds anyway.

Obama's 2011 Proposed Budget: An Interactive Look

I'm not a big fan of the New York Times, but someone there did a fabulous job with this interactive display that shows the 2011 budget proposed by the President, along with a neat comparison with 2010. It also allows you to distinguish mandatory from non-mandatory spending (a distinction which would surprise nearly every American citizen—and not necessarily in a good way) in each year.

The total numbers of dollars is still overwhelmingly bloated, but this gives us a better "picture" of where the budget is and how large its parts are relative to one another.

I encourage everyone to take a few minutes to look and learn.