Berlin and Moral Certainty

Tomorrow, November 9, marks 20 years since the Berlin Wall came down. The wall stood for 28 years and was the most potent symbol of the separation between the free world and the Soviet Bloc. This anniversary means more to me than some others, perhaps, because I worked in Communist Eastern Europe from 1979-82, and I spent a lot of time in East Germany and Berlin.

The Soviets caused plenty of difficulty prior to erecting the wall, such as totally blockading West Berlin in 1948 and necessitating the Berlin Airlift (at its peak, more than 1,300 flights per day were bringing in supplies). But the Wall itself drew the battle lines more closely and tangibly than ever in the Cold War.

As I view the Berlin speeches of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, I am struck by the moral certainty in their text (and demeanor). To them, there was no question as to the superiority of the free world and the leadership role of America. There was no equivocation. You can check out their speeches for yourself. Reagan's is particularly moving and worth the full 25 minutes.

Kennedy in 1963, two years after the wall was erected, separating East and West Berlin:



Ronald Reagan in 1987, two years before the wall came down:



And then there's Barack Obama, on the campaign trail in Berlin, 2008. Do you hear a difference?



Unfortunately, our President is too busy to go to Berlin tomorrow for the commemoration. Apparently, it does not rise to the importance of an Olympic bid, so he's sending Hillary.

Meanwhile, if you'd like to know more about the Berlin Wall, its construction, life, and final demise, you'll find no shortage of videos on YouTube. Simply enter these search terms (or click on these links): "Berlin Wall" or "Berliner Mauer."

We Have More in Common With The French Than You Thought

President Obama, sightseeing with French President Sarkozy at this week's G-8 summit in Italy.

Hair to the Chief

In all the inaugural excitement, you may have missed the Chia Obama. Thankfully, it's not too late to order. Check it out here, then place your order and contribute to the Greening of America.

1 Timothy 2.1-4

"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

Barack's New Bling

Click here for a full size view of the second picture.

More from Africa

Here's a two-minute video about the celebrations in Kenya after Obama's election. Although I didn't vote for him, I nevertheless love seeing the hope and inspiration these people are feeling. I suppose my own travels to Africa and friends from there (including a former roommate from Kisumu, where this video was filmed) add to my own emotional response as I watch this.

News You May Have Missed: Already, Obama Brings Electricity to Rural Africa

Barack Obama's African relatives come from the Western region of Kenya. Here's a fun article from the Kenyan press about how they are responding to their kinsman's election. Although Obama hasn't even been inaugurated yet, he's already getting things done in his relatives' village. As they say, it helps to have "connections." (pun intended)

The family of the US President-elect Barack Obama was elated at his victory.

Mama Sarah Anyango Obama described [her] grandson’s victory as a "defining moment for the world".

"Nyocha amor to sani karo amor moloyo," (I am excited more than ever before) she told a battery of journalists in reaction to the US historic elections outcome.

She added: "We thank God for answering our prayers. Barack has won and we wish him well in the more demanding and challenging office."

She disclosed that the family would attend the swearing-in, in January next year, and that they were expecting a call from the President-elect anytime.

"We will plan how to attend the vital celebrations in the US," Sarah said at her home in Nyangoma, Kogelo village.

A carnival mood engulfed the home as residents broke into song and dance to join Americans in celebrations.

Obama’s sister Auma Obama told the media that though their kin had been elected the President of US, Kenyans should not expect too much.

"Remember, he is a US citizen. The only advantage that will come with his leadership is business, improved tourism circuit, trade and bilateral relations," she said.

Kenyans, she said, would benefit from the knock-on effect of the Obama presidency through association.

Auma, who accompanied the grandmother during the Press briefings, was frenzied as they handled questions from the Press.

Asked how they intended to celebrate his win, Mama Sarah replied, "We will eat all kinds of edible food in the world."

She spoke as the stepbrother to Obama, Malik Hussein, who spoke to the Press earlier, announced they had slaughtered a bull and several chicken for the party.

Sarah said she would travel to America with a tripartite message to her grandson — devote your leadership to deliver your promise to Americans, improve bilateral trade and help Africans realise faster development.

As they addressed the Press a team of Kenya Power and Lighting Company streamed into the compound to install electricity at the home.

The family has been relying on solar panel. But yesterday, the expeditious manner KPLC engineers were pulling power from the main line along the Ngiya Road to the home was an indication Nyangoma village would light up soon.

The Outcome is in God's Hands . . . But the Coffee Can Be in Yours

No one from the east or the west
or from the desert can exalt a man.
But it is God who judges:
He brings one down, he exalts another.

- Psalm 75.6,7

Here's another sure thing on Election Day: show up at any Starbucks today (Tuesday) and tell them you voted. You'll get a free drip coffee.

When Abortion Fails - Obama's Disingenuous Response

OK. Now I'm angry. Yesterday, I told you about Gianna Jessen, the aborted baby who didn't die and is now a grown woman. And I gave you a YouTube clip of her ad.

Now, rather than admit that he might actually have been wrong on this issue, Obama has fired back with this own ad in which he indignantly makes several false claims in only 30 seconds:

1. The McCain attack ad is the sleaziest ad ever (interestingly, the voiceover says "the sleaziest," but the text on the screen says, "one of the sleaziest"). Actually, Gianna's ad wasn't paid for by the McCain campaign, but by her own organization.
2. Even the bill's sponsor said the claims about Obama are untrue. Actually, you can read below the entire letter the sponsor wrote (not just the single quoted sentence) and see that Obama has intentionally quoted him out of context.
3. "Obama has always supported medical care to protect infants." But he has not ever supported the medical protection of aborted babies born alive. The voting record on this is clear, and the facts clearly contradict his contention that he would have voted for wording that matched the Federal statute. It did, and he didn't.

Watch Obama's 30-second ad below, and then read the rejoinder from Real Clear Politics, which is a Time/CNN blog and not a partisan site:

Now, here's what Real Clear Politics had to say. I've bolded the sentence Obama uses in his ad, just so you can see how he misrepresented the writer:

The Obama ad cites a September 5 letter to the Chicago Tribune written by the Republican co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Rick Winkel, in declaring, "even the bill's Republican co-sponsor said it wasn't true." To put this in context, here is Winkel's letter reprinted in full:

A storm of controversy has risen in the presidential race concerning Barack Obama and legislation I sponsored in 2003 ("Obama's '03 abortion vote on forefront," Eric Zorn, Metro, Aug. 21). I introduced Senate Bill 1082 because of a nurse's claims that abortions at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn resulted in living infants whom hospital personnel then allowed to die without medical or comfort care.

SB-1082 defined born-alive infants and required that courts recognize them fully as persons and accord them immediate protection under the law—including statutes outlawing infanticide. Opponents of the bill believed it was an attack on Roe vs. Wade, so I added neutrality language identical to the 2001 federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act that the United States Senate approved 98 to 0.

On March 12, 2003, I presented the neutrality amendment before the state Health and Human Services Committee chaired by then state Sen. Obama. All 10 committee members voted to add the amendment. Nevertheless, during the same hearing, the committee rejected the bill as amended on a vote of 4-6-0. Obama voted no.

I was stunned because the neutrality amendment addressed the concerns of opponents. It was the same neutrality language approved by U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in the federal bill.

None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide. Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.

In 2005, I joined 116 state representatives and 54 senators in voting for HB-984, which contained the same born-alive definition and neutrality language as Senate Bill 1082, plus some extra language to satisfy the most zealous pro-choice legislators, yet harmless to the bill's purpose. No one voted against it. We had finally accomplished what we had set out to do - protect a newborn baby's life.

- Rick Winkel, Former state senator, Urbana

I used to think Obama was a person of integrity, but I'm over that now. I would like to start calling him all manner of contemptuous names, but I'll save that for another time.

When Abortion Fails

My friend David put this on his blog recently. It's an appearance on Hannity & Colmes by a woman who was aborted at 7-1/2 months. Gianna Jessen lived, obviously, and her story is engrossing. (Yes, there's an obvious political aspect in this election year.) Take 5 minutes:



There's a longer video on YouTube of her speaking at an annual Right to Life rally, in which she shares more of her story and more of her heart. If the lousy introduction annoys you, skip the first minute.

Jessen's website is bornalivetruth.org.

“Do you want to win, or are you more interested in your principles?”

Tony Jones is a leader in the emergent church movement. He supports Obama for President. In a blog post of a couple days ago, he tells of a teleconference that he and seven other unnamed "Christian leaders" (his term) had with members of Obama's religious outreach staff.

Of course, the issue of abortion came up, and there was some disagreement among the eight "Christian leaders" as to whether Obama should tackle this head-on or try to do an end run. Some felt that if Obama jumps in, he's letting the religious right set the agenda. Jones writes:

The Five continued to protest, saying that abortion is not an issue that O should deal with much. To which I replied, “Do you want to win, or are you more interested in your principles?”

Does anybody have a problem with that question?

We all know that politicians find ways to "shift" their positions in order to gain more votes. They could even be accused of changing their principles in order to win. But "Christian leaders"? Should they employ a similar approach to life?

The principles by which we live our lives define who we are. The principles by which Christians live their lives determine whether they are truly followers of the Jesus whom they claim. Fidelity to Christ and His kingdom must trump all other principles, wouldn't you think?

So when Bell asks, "Do you want to win, or are you more interested in your principles?", he is, in effect offering a conflicting principle: that winning is more important than integrity and fidelity.

Somehow, I see a tie-in with the emergent church movement. Doctrine, creeds, history, and dogma all fall to the wayside in the search for conversation, not conversion. I'm not sure what is won in the process, except a "good time had by all." Becoming all things to all men is a Biblical principle, but the driving force underlying it is that men and women would be won to Christ - not to conversation, coolness, relevance, or anything else.

.

Are we willing to stick with our principles, even if that makes us "losers"?

"At What Point is a Baby Entitled to Human Rights?"

If you didn't see the discussion Rick Warren had at Saddleback church last night with Barack Obama and John McCain, this 3-minute excerpt video does a good job of showing one significant difference between the two candidates. Helpful hints: Notice Obama's nonanswer to the question, "Have you ever voted to limit . . . " [the accurate answer would have been "No"], and notice McCain's answer to the question that is the title of this post.

Some Confused Catholics (and Protestants)

In my blog a couple days ago, I referenced a Wall Street Journal piece about Planned Parenthood and their murderous practices.

The next day, there was an opinion piece in the WSJ about Barack Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council. It referenced Planned Parenthood, as well.

For my Christian friends who are also Obama supporters, I'd encourage you to think about the issues here. If abortion is truly the taking of innocent life - and what else can it be, if life begins at conception? - then is there any issue that can outweigh this one?

If Obama were running for mayor, I'd consider voting for him. Mayors don't do much, if anything, to set abortion policy. But Presidents are another matter, altogether.

Here's the article, excerpted for brevity (you can read the whole thing here). I've bolded a few passages for emphasis.

NARAL Catholics Line Up for Obama
William McGurn
June 24, 2008; Page A17

You are the Democratic candidate for president. You want to reach out to Catholics. So what do you do when the majority of the elected officials on your National Catholic Advisory Council have the seal of approval from NARAL Pro-Choice America?

That's the position Barack Obama now finds himself in. . . .

This council does indeed include some Catholics whose pro-life credentials are impeccable, including Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar. But let us also stipulate the obvious: Of the 21 senators, congressmen and governors listed on the council's National Leadership Committee, 17 have a 90%-100% NARAL approval rating. . . .

It's not as if these NARAL scores are outliers: Sen. Obama himself boasts a 100% NARAL rating, and for good reason. In a speech before Planned Parenthood, he declared that the right to an abortion is at stake in this election, and vowed that he would not yield on appointing judges that would uphold Roe v. Wade.

Mr. Obama is for using tax dollars to fund abortions, and against restrictions on partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation protecting a child who was born alive despite an abortion. In sum, if you want to know what Mr. Obama's policies mean, it's this: taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

Not fair, complains the Obama camp. They point to statements supporting adoption. They cite the story about how he removed language about "right-wing ideologues" from one of his Web sites after a pro-life doctor complained. Above all, they say he has acknowledged a moral dimension to abortion, that he's willing to listen, and that he wants to work for fewer abortions.
. . .
The problem is that abortion is not just any issue. In the language of the church, abortion is an "intrinsic evil," always and everywhere wrong.

That is what Catholics for Obama have to get around. . . . Already Kathleen Sebelius – governor of Kansas and one of the Catholic co-chairs – has been asked by her bishop to refrain from Communion because of what he says is her support for abortion. . . .

It's not that Catholic Democrats lack a moral language. Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), for example, is another Catholic council member who also enjoys a 100% NARAL approval rating. During recent Senate hearings, he accused oil company executives of having "all the compassion of Burmese generals."

When Mr. Durbin is willing to use similar language to describe the taking of innocent, unborn life, we'll know we have change we can believe in.

No Calvinists in the Presidential Race

It's become common in my Presbyterian circles to point out that we all have "gods" and "idols" in our lives, things we think we need in order to be happy and fulfilled. Usually, however, they are less literal than what our presidential aspirants are carrying in their pockets. Time Magazine tells us that Senator Obama, for example - a professed Christian - carries "a bracelet belonging to a soldier deployed in Iraq, a gambler’s lucky chit, a tiny monkey god and a tiny Madonna and child." Does that make Obama a Hindu-Catholic-Pagan Christian, or just a confused man?









McCain and Clinton have their lucky charms, as well, though apparently not in the same quantity. See the Time web page for more details.

At this point, I'd really like to throw some stones, especially at Obama, who's shown on several occasions now that his claim of allegiance to Christ doesn't include much in the way of spiritual discernment or an understanding of the Scriptures. But I've got my own idols, too, just better hidden than his.

Nevertheless, I really don't believe there's such a thing as "luck" in life. Events may appear random, of course, and they may fail to meet our expectations or hopes, but they can never be divorced from the One who runs the universe.

No one from the east or the west

or from the desert can exalt a man.
But it is God who judges:

He brings one down, he exalts another.

- Psalm 75.6,7

Vote For _____________________

I have a bit of a problem. Maybe you're in a similar quandary.

• Next week is Georgia's primary. I plan to vote. But for whom? The candidate compatibility test I referred to in my post last Friday says that my best-match candidate is Mitt Romney. The problem is that I don't like Mitt Romney. At the risk of being overly partisan (but hey, this is a blog, right?), it shakes out like this:
  .
  
• * Romney 91.9% match. I like his policies, apparently, but he seems too slick to be real.
• Huckabee 90.9%. I like his religious beliefs and his sense of humor, but not his economic populism.
• Ron Paul 86.9% Huh?
• McCain 80.5% He seems like the kind of guy who should be president, but I'm a little concerned about his temperament.
• Giuliani 76.0%. Even if I like many of his positions, I don't vote for lunatics.
• Obama 61.8%. I like his engaging, inquisitive style, but face it: he is a flaming liberal.
• Clinton 55.2%, Edwards 54.5%. They'll say anything to get elected. Scary people.

So, do I vote for the guy I like (McCain), the brother in Christ who tells good jokes (Huckabee), or the executive whose positions I mostly agree with (Romney)? How do you decide whom to support?

The Best Candidates Money Can Buy

Thanks to my friend Bob, who pointed out on his blog that there's a quick test you can take to find out which presidential candidates best align with your positions on the issues. Go here to take the test.

According to the results, I seem to be a Republican. All 6 Republicans scored above the 4 Democrats. My best fit is with Romney; the top Democrat is Obama. My full results are here.

.

If you take the test, please share your results. Just for fun. No vitriol allowed.