To Impeach or Not to Impeach, That is the Question

A case is being made by a significant segment of the incoming majority Democratic Party that the leadership should ignore the crescendo of calls from their base for the impeachment of President Bush, instead, focusing on passing legislation pleasing to most Americans. Thus they could impress on their minds how much better Democrats are for the country than the Republicans have been. There’s something attractive about the idea that Democrats should win friends and secure their future power by focusing on passing popular and needed legislation. It would probably be the easier course to take and must seem less risky to the careers of incumbents.

But I believe those who want to choose the expedient path would be doing a vast disservice to our country and failing to live up to their sworn promise to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Ignoring Constitutional issues sets a precedent for future presidents, that one can violate laws and the U.S. Constitution with impunity. Is that really a good message to send to our country (not to mention future presidents)? Do we really want to say to Republicans (many of whom have been alarmed at the violations of the Constitution), as well as to Democrats and Independents, that the Constitution doesn’t matter that much? “We’ve stopped ‘em so let’s just leave it there.”?

Just consider: holding hearings on the numerous violations of the Constitution by the Bush Administration would hold accountable the person who most disrespected the rule of law and its provisions (which violate his Oath of Office). It would serve as a brake on future administrations. It would also provide a thorough, public examination of policies that have received remarkably little scrutiny so far, like denying habeas corpus to those the Administration accuses of being a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. Those policies probably could not stand the light of day, were they ever to receive the serious scrutiny they ought to have had before they were enacted into law. Public hearings also would have an enormous impact on the public’s understanding of our Constitution and its many provisions.

Christians are called to live in the light and to shun the darkness. That way we can repent where we've fallen short, be restored to live rightly and follow God's will. It's a good model for nations as well.

Will holding hearings that could lead to the impeachment of the President have a cost? Undoubtedly, and they are not without risk. Democrats currently don’t have the votes to successfully implement impeachment proceedings alone , nor do they yet have the American people solidly behind them, although polls show a majority think impeachment might be required. Televised hearings would, step by step, build the case, as it did during the Nixon era, until a bipartisan consensus forms that demands impeachment.

Should those pushing for hearings hold back lest Bush resign and Cheney become president? I think not. With the many pointers indicating the Veep has probably been in violation of many laws himself, it seems most likely that Mr. Cheney could be impeached or forced to resign first.

What happens if Democrats ignore Bush’s many violations and focus on enacting popular programs? They would do so at great cost to our country. Think of it: our Constitution would be permanently undermined. Whatever check the threat of impeachment had would lose any power in the face of being applied to an attempt to oust one president for a personal peccadillo but actively avoided in the face of numerous flagrant violations of U.S. law and the Constitution. Our country would miss the opportunity of bringing the Administration’s “dirty, little secrets” into the light of day where scrutiny could nullify their festering toxin and promote the adoption of policies that would bring healing. Most of all, Americans would have lost the opportunity to learn the lessons of how vigilant we must be to preserve our great treasure embodied in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Let the hearings begin, and let the sunshine in!

Building Bridges over Troubled Congressional Water

The American people have spoken resoundingly. They are fed up with broken government which put corporate interests far ahead of those of hardworking, ordinary citizens, failed to exercise oversight, gave a wink and a nod to the serious mismanagement of the Iraq war, squandered our treasure and the lives of many fine soldiers, and put partisan power above doing the peoples’ business. But their endorsement of Democrats is rather anemic. The mood could be characterized as determined but not very hopeful that real change will come, especially if Dems and Republicans continue to jockey for partisan advantage.

Bridging the divide and learning to work productively again - now THAT would be a signal accomplishment. A couple of simple changes might turn that skeptical attitude toward Democrats into genuine admiration.

One simple step would change how incoming freshmen members of Congress are oriented to their new position and acquire basic knowledge about how things work, including how to order supplies and hire staff. The two parties orient their own freshmen to such mundane routines separately, thus underscoring to newly-elected members how different the two parties are. which unfortunately minimizes the chances they can build a working relationship based on friendship. While I can see no good reason to continue the apartheid policy in Congress, objections to the current practice leap to mind.

What the hell are they doing? (I use the phrase advisedly.) Sending the message that the other side is so off limits that they shouldn’t socialize, that they’re so wrong-headed they might give our newcomer cooties? Must Republicans and Democrats really remain separated even while getting oriented to common daily routines of their new working environment? What harm could it do to allow the new kids on the block (and their spouses too) to hang out for awhile and get to know members who’ll be seated across the aisle?

We should be eagerly looking for opportunities to establish friendships and build bridges between members of opposing parties. Newly elected representatives need to learn to work together, work out differences, and find an acceptable compromise. If they can do that, the public’s frustration with how little Congress has accomplished might vanish as mist before the sun’s warmth.

One more simple change could go a long way to reducing the inflammatory rhetoric and creating a more positive working environment. The practice of allowing members of Congress a minute to address the body each day isn’t in itself a bad idea, but its timing couldn’t be worse. The morning time seems to encourage members of each party to lob zingers at each other. (Is it because C-SPAN’s cameras are rolling?)Then soon afterwards they are off to work in committees, often with the very people whose policies they’ve just trashed. As one might imagine, that doesn’t exactly make the other side feel warm and cooperative.

With such relatively easy steps, Democrats could go a long way to resolving the gridlock that has mired Congress, reduce the incendiary rhetoric, and begin building bridges between one another. That would be statesmanship, putting the good of the nation ahead of personal and partisan advantage.

One hopeful sign is Democrats’ announced intent to forgo retaliation for their years of being shutout from the legislative process. Rather than imitate recent GOP practices, Dems plan to allow the minority party to submit legislation and offer amendments. In so doing, they’ll begin reviving the broken democratic process to what our Founding Fathers envisioned and that served our nation well for some two hundred years.

We the people have some work ahead. Americans have a vested interest in seeing that Congress gets beyond this unproductive era of bitter partisanship and returns to the civility it enjoyed for many years. With our watchful insistence this period in American history will fade into the past as an anomaly from which we will have relearned the perils and pitfalls of unchecked power and regained appreciation for the wisdom of those who hammered out our Constitution.

Surely it does God’s heart good when we build bridges, tear down walls, and pursue reconciliation. It’s time to roll up our sleeves and begin hustling to do the hard work of democracy. That’s how government of the people works. It’s up to us, not just our elected representative, to set our House in order. So let us begin rebuilding an America where differences are respected, minority views protected, and Americans relearn the important civic virtue of a live-and-let-live tolerance as essential glue that can help hold our diverse and often fractious society together.

Can one be too political right now?

Well, I have to say I found the debate frustrating. The advantage in setting the rules of the debate always lies with the incumbent who doesn't HAVE to agree to debate at all. In order to get that forum, to allow the exchange and contrast of governing philosophies, Radnofsky ended up in a so-called debate without debate, as strange as that may seem. There was no rebuttal allowed and so the incumbent was free to ignore the many well-supported arguments that KBH has been largely ineffective, or issue a denial and move on. I am pretty sure most people who watched and were seeing Radnofsky for the first time didn't have much chance to see how brilliant, thoroughly well-informed, and competent she is and observe the contrast with the incumbent. They could glimpse something of Barbara Ann's humor and charm, but Hutchison's advisors cleverly prevented much of a real airing of the issues and personality by insisting on that format. The other limitation was allowing the Libertarian candidate to participate, which ended up splitting the limited airtime three ways instead of two as it would have been if it had been limited to the two major contenders. That wouldn't have been so bad if it weren't the only debate and the only chance for voters to hear from the candidates (unless you have over eight million dollars as the incumbent, in which case you can be heard at any other time you choose). Democracy isn't well served by not allowing a real discussion of the issues.

Then I read the Statesman's endorsements, and so far every single race endorsement of the incumbent with no real examination of the issues, the voting records, and what is actually in the public interest here in Texas and for the common good. By doing that they are supporting the status quo and saying we're doing okay as we are, that there's no real problem with all the hemorrhaging of red ink this Congress has been so eager to vote on with a complete disdain for fiscal responsibility, that it's okay to have needlessly squandered so many of the lives of our best and brightest on the remarkably poorly planned and deeply flawed invasion of Iraq and that continuing to do so is just okay with them. Their endorsement of incumbents says it's just fine with them that college tuition has become enormously more expensive on their watch and financial aid much less available, making college an out-of-reach dream for many bright and talented children. The Statesman's endorsement says it's okay that the state Legislature doesn't record their votes and so our representatives can't be held accountable. What a complete abdication of their responsibility and what a callous disregard for the well-being of their fellow citizens who totally rely on the third estate to stand up for all of us and speak truth to power and speak up for the voiceless.

I haven't scratched the surface of the myriad (and important) ways incumbents have been undoing our social contract and operating in short-sighted and remarkably greedy and selfish ways. In lots of instances there's just one political party in America, the Incumbent party. And now they've repealed protections for whistleblowers, refused to hold investigations and uphold any ethical standards or anyone accountable. Perry and I have gone from worry, to alarm, to outrage over what has happened in our country in just a few short years. Ethics committees don't meet at all (as in the case of Tom DeLay) or set such low standards that they okay candidates' listing a donation they've received as a check but not have to say if it's a gift of $10.00 or $100,000.00. It's deeply frustrating to have most Americans lulled to our danger, soothed by "reality shows", celebrity scandals, etcetara.

We really need an earthquake at the ballot box to say, "No more business as usual" when that has promoted a decline of our democracy to a state where it now is government of, by, and for the major corporations. But the media is complaisant and apparently unable and unwilling to do anything that could threaten their bottom line.

The other thing that really bothered me was a friend who dropped in briefly earlier this evening, catching Perry and I talking about how devastating the Statesman's endorsements were to us and to outstanding candidates we've been working so hard for. She wondered why we were so serious. When we answered, she made the flip remark was that we were just way too political. Perry gently challenged her with the question of "Can one be too political given what is happening in our country?" (She didn't respond.) We found that so discouraging, though I am ultimately not surprised given how little true information most of us receive from our news media.

Courage versus Smith

Until boundaries of several Congressional Districts in Texas were changed by a federal court recently, Hays County residents were represented by Lamar Smith. I’ve written him often about issues up for a vote, with disappointing results. I hoped someone who would represent what was important to me would run for that seat and was delighted John Courage announced. While volunteering for the Courage campaign, I’ve gotten to know and admire him . When the district was reconfigured and Hays County got moved out of the 21st District, I was frustrated I no longer could vote for him. I’m still an enthusiastic volunteer.

Unlike Smith, Courage has military experience, enlisting in the Air Force during the Vietnam War. As a vet and son of a vet who died after never fully recovering from war wounds, veterans’ issues are priorities for Courage. Smith’s lack of support for concerns of disabled and retired veterans outraged him. (Disabled American Veterans rated Smith at zero in the three most recent years, according to Project Vote-Smart.) My dad served in W.W.II, so providing benefits veterans earned and were promised is a sacred trust to me as well.

After military service, Courage became a special education teacher (my own field) in San Antonio, but encountered chronic shortages of educational materials from inadequate funding of federally-mandated programs. He began actively lobbying Rep. Smith on the importance of adequate funding to educate our students. But Smith has a history of rubber-stamping efforts to cut funding for public schools (as well as financial aid for higher education), while supporting charter schools. Smith’s lack of vision or support for educating all students particularly motivated Courage’s challenge of Smith.

Smith also donated $10,000 to DeLay’s defense fund, defending DeLay’s “right” to be Majority leader even after he was indicted. Smith has made no secret of his hopes to be appointed chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in the next session.

I hope area voters recognize our tremendous need for change from a Congressman who has become out-of-touch and elect John Courage. Texans need Courage!

Anna for District Judge

The 428th is a new court, formed a year ago. The governor appointed Bill Henry as its first judge. But Henry had no judicial and limited legal experience, just a short stint in the Hays DA’s office right out of law school dealing with misdemeanor lawsuits and bond forfeitures, and several years in legal practice.

Perhaps lack of experience in areas of law pertinent to the District Court is one reason the San Marcos Police Officers Association withdrew their endorsement of Bill Henry and the Fraternal Order of Police Hill Country Lodge #23 endorsed Anna Martinez-Boling, who is challenging Henry. It’s significant that two different law enforcement organizations demonstrate no confidence in the man who has held the office for a year. They’re in a position to observe the appointee’s rulings more closely than most.

By contrast, Boling has broad experience, as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, in family and civil law, and as a mediator. A former prosecutor in the El Paso Defense Attorney’s office, Boling served on the DA’s Drug Task Force. She’d graduated from SWT and returning to San Marcos, she opened a private practice in defense, family, and civil law. Later she decided to train as a mediator and specialize in family and civil law, focussing on resolving or minimizing conflicts through mediation rather than litigation.

The 428th District Court was designed to hear cases in criminal, civil, and family law. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Judge Henry chooses to hear just criminal and civil cases, leaving family cases to another judge. Mrs. Boling has a far broader background for the job than Bill Henry does. With her prosecutorial experience and her personal philosophy of defusing conflict through mediation wherever possible in civil and family law cases, she’ll be an outstanding judge for our county.

Boling is deeply respected by those who know her gifts and talents, hard work and family values, commitment to serving her community, and her personal integrity. Boling will be a big improvement over Bill Henry. Hays County needs her leadership and vision on the court.

The Golden Rule in an Age of Terror

I've been pondering why Bush and the Republicans seem to be failing so miserably in foreign policy. And it seems to boil down to the moral failure to relate to other nations by using the Golden Rule. That's surprising, really. This is a president who claims the Bible as his favorite book and dismissively says he doesn't consult with his own father because he has a higher Father. Yet when it comes to conducting his policies in light of Jesus's teachings, Bush couldn't be more off base.

It's so familiar a precept that perhaps it is taken for granted: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Religions the world over seem to have a version of it, though with a subtle difference, emphasizing refraining from doing what you wouldn't want others to do to you. That it is so universal says something of central importance to human societies: it's the key to productive, cooperative, and friendly relationships on both an individual and national level. Of course, it's not humanly possible to do it perfectly, not with our families, our neighbors, or other nations. Christians as well as other people of faith are just called to do their best to follow it. When we do, we are living righteously, and doing our part to live in right relationship with others.

Yet Bush's policy, for the most part, could not be more diametrically opposed. Beginning with unilateral withdrawal from treaties the U.S. was party to (and to which previous Congressional approval had given the force of law), the administration set a tone of superiority and disrespect for the opinions of others, both that of Congress and the other nations signatory to those treaties. Long before the "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq on a flimsy pretext that has now unraveled, the administration began leading the U.S. into a immoral morass. After 9/11. the administration decided the Geneva Conventions wouldn't apply to any possible terrorist suspect captured. Instead, they set up a system in which "enemy combatants" would have no access to lawyers, no hearings before judges, no right to hear the evidence against them (and challenge it), no checks and balances, no way to present evidence of innocence and get out. Presumed guilty, held indefinitely, incommunicado, without hope. The administration justified the use of torture by American troops and intelligence officers --a shocking development-- and assumed a right to go into foreign countries, even those of our allies, and spirit individuals away in a process called "extraordinary rendition" to other nations known to allow the use of torture.

"As you [do] it to the least of these, my brothers, you [do] it to me," Jesus said. Those who did kind acts of mercy would be welcomed by his Father, but those who mistreated the ill, poor, and the prisoner would be thrown into the fire and burned. Is the President, who claims the Bible as his favorite book, unfamiliar with this prominent passage from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25?

When one looks for fruits of the spirit in the President, the sure signs of being a Christian, one fails to see them: peace, joy, love, faithfulness, gentleness, patience, self-control. Instead Bush manifests a disturbed spirit, angry, critical, impatient, and domineering. It seems evident he has failed to be obedient in following Jesus's teachings. If he had, he would be conformed to the likeness of Christ more and more as time goes by, and would increasingly manifest love to all.

By going his own way, rather than Christ's, Bush pushed people of other nations away from himself, by demanding, bullying, and manipulating. Never once did Christ manipulate or bully or demand. He lived as he taught us to live, doing good to everyone because it was right and was the way he wanted to be treated.

When 9/11 first occurred, my reaction was as visceral and primal as most Americans. I wanted to fight back and hurt someone just as the terrorists had hurt the victims of the plane hijackings and their families. But simultaneously I felt a great longing for a call from my pastor or national leaders to repent and seek God and his ways. No one uttered that call, either at church or nationally but that feeling didn't subside. You see, I knew the President's explanation that those who'd attacked us were jealous of our freedoms was, at best, barely a factor. No, there were real and significant grievances against the United States, beginning with the coup orchestrated by the CIA's predecessor, the OSS, in Iran against their democratically elected leader Mossadeq after he decided to nationalize Iranian oil. After undermining Mossadeq, the OSS maneuvered the Shah of Iran into power. The Shah's brutal reign was much like that of Saddam Hussein's, leading to the disappearance and death of tens of thousands of his countrymen. But the American multinationals were happy, because their oil profits were secure.

Accounts reported in the foreign press abound of American power used to benefit American multinationals at the expense of native peoples in lands targeted for economic profiteering. Rarely do they make it into our mainstream media outlets. The connection between our multinationals' history of exploitation to the anger and hatred directed at the United States that motivate the terrorists is not widely known here at home, although Americans living abroad often are much better informed.

We are ignorant of evil done by those multinationals and our government and so we don't repent. We are blind to our sins, seeing only those of the other side. But we all sin. No reconciliation is possible without true repentance for our own sins and seeking to change and do better. That's part of doing unto others as we want others to do unto us. If we repent, it opens the possibility that they will repent. If we harden our hearts and refuse to see any sin but theirs, likewise they harden their hearts and see only our sin. But we Christians are called to be ambassadors of reconciliation. As a "Christian nation" with a Christian president surely those of us who ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" surely we know (or ought to) it would not involve anything but the Golden Rule.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." May it be so.

Making Sense of Joe's Defeat

Do you occasionally get emails from someone you've never met and are none too sure of how you ended up at the receiving end of their email? One came today expressing the writer's view that Old Joe Lieberman's loss was due to the drubbing he took from our "anti-Semitic media" (his words, not mine), who slam him because he's a pro-Israel Jew who supports our military's efforts against Muslim fanatics and terrorists.

But I have a different take on Lieberman's loss. I think it has much more to do with the fact that he is clearly in the pocket of corporations and has voted for legislation that favored special interests at the expense of his constituents. People around the country are fed up with crony capitalism and those who serve corporate masters rather than the people who elected them.

As far as his war stance, I suspect a huge amount of support in Congress (and, I'd hazard a guess, Old Joe's too) has been because it profits their contributors from the military-industrial complex, who show their thanks for all the business shoved their way by making big donations to those who vote for it. There is enormous spending going on beyond all reasonable requirements on weapon systems that aren't needed (as well as some that are), with no-bid contracts awarded, in a system begging for waste, fraud, and abuse (and that's getting just that, in spades).

Why do I think he's serving a corporate master rather than principle? Besides my educated guess above, just look at his vote in support of the bankruptcy bill which most of his constituents overwhelmingly opposed. The bill he helped pass lacked checks and balances and was a bad bill. It has harmed some in his own state as well as all around the nation. He wasn't the only Dem of course. Those names I recognized that I saw listed as voting with the Republicans on that one have a long, sad history of voting for the special interests.

I suspect a lot more incumbents (of either party) are in danger of being kicked out of office than have any idea of it now. If my Republican in-laws in Fort Worth are any indication of the mood of the country, many more incumbents will be packing up and clearing out their offices than usual this go round. Disgusted, outraged, and fed-up sums up their views at least as much as my own.

God and Illegal aliens

As Congress considers immigration reform, will they realize that our country's need for security should be balanced by a commitment to fair and equitable treatment, or will they bow to public pressure ginned up by the professional ranters on the airwaves?

I contend we should allow more Mexican and Central American citizens to qualify for legal work visas. The low number of work visas is a huge contributor to the issue of immigrants coming illegally. Waiting lines of up to forty years time (for some categories of applicants) are completely unreasonable and arguably cause many to give up on even applying for a legal guest worker visa. It would be much preferable to process those wanting to come by allowing more guest workers to come and get documentation so we know who they are. Having legal channels for access to the U.S. blocked to most just contributes to illegal entry. As a matter of national security, we cannot afford to make those wanting to come here have no means of coming here legally in a reasonable amount of time, if they pass scrutiny.

We should also have a way for those who have come illegally to pay fines and get in line to become citizens. Since the need to support their families in bad economic conditions in their home countries is often the reason they've chosen to come illegally after being unable to get a guest worker visa, the U.S. should have some compassion and make a way for them to eventually legally join family members already here.

I’ve travelled in Mexico and seen shantytown slums where every shack was made of trash (aluminum cans, etc.). Since NAFTA, American corn has been sold in Mexico at prices far below those local farmers can produce it. That’s because the factory farm’s production is quicker and less labor intensive. Many farmers have been driven off their land because they no longer can make a living. The towns can’t absorb so many and provide them with work, which leaves them with few alternatives to support their families except to try to make it to the U.S.

Surveys show Americans are overwhelmingly believers in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so I'm surprised at the antagonism from those who follow the Bible, whether it's the Hebrew scriptures or the Christian Old and New Testament for it is completely contrary to scripture. Here's what God says:
"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
As Christians and Jews grow in knowledge and understanding of God's Word, we are called to repent, re-think, based on learning God's perspective (and recognizing how short we have fallen). If we are obedient, we open our hearts in compassion and in hospitality to immigrants, regardless of their legal status.

That does not mean to throw wide the door and invite all who want to enter to do so. Remember the verse that we are to be wise as sperpents yet gentle as a dove. So we check each immigrant's background, which we can only do if we get them into legal lines. How're we gonna do that, you may ask? By giving them reasonable hope that they will be able to enter legally. If an immigrant can get a visa to come legally without too much effort, which one in their right mind would risk the cost and the danger to come illegally? No one!

The right thing to do is to make sure that injustices of the previous immigration "reform" efforts are fixed and people who had a minor brush with the law as a young person aren't picked up and deported or held in jail for years. There have been too many cases of that where the punishment does not fit the crime. In fact, immigrants may have already ‘paid their debt to society’ and yet be faced with deportation.

Vote tampering in U.S. elections?

Tests around the country by computer science and computer security experts keep confirming that many electronic voting machines (EVMs) are easy to tamper with. Recently a major study of electronic voting machines from the respected Brennan Center for Justice confirmed the necessity of a paper trail. Voting machines can be altered by replacing memory cards, attaching cables for remote access, or internet or wireless access. Hackers have easily altered data in test situations. Many states have had problems that look suspiciously like vote tampering. Sixty-five percent of all states now require paper trails for all voting machines. Now that a major voting machine company has been purchased by a Venezuelan company hopefully more Americans across the political spectrum will realize that the only way for all of us to be secure in the integrity of our elections is to require a paper trail as a backup.

RFK Jr. has filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Diebold, controversial manufacturer of electronic voting machines, alleging fraud when Diebold represented its machines as unhackable. Numerous tests have proved the multiple ways in which Diebold machines can be accessed and votes tampered with, all without detection. The lawsuit alleges that Diebold knowingly misrepresented its equipment. From the beginning of their entry into the electronic voting market, the use of Diebold EVMs have been surrounded by a cloud of allegations of problems linking them to voting fraud. As Kennedy points out, “The single greatest threat to our democracy is the insecurity of our voting system. Whoever controls the voting machines can control who wins the votes.”

Congress, What Will You Do About the Debt?

One hundred fifty thousand dollars apiece. That’s the debt each child born in America will owe on the $10 trillion dollar debt, mostly to the Chinese. Yes, it’s the President’s policies that have brought this disaster-in-the-making upon America, but you in Congress went along with it. I never read of any efforts you made to urge fiscal responsibility or prudence. No, you voted to enact tax cuts when we had a surplus (though we still had a lot of debt) and continued to do so when the debt skyrocketed. Now it is almost double what it was five years ago when Bush took office. The debt and our dependence on foreign lenders like China threatens our economic stability and our national security. It happened on your watch. What are you going to do about it?

Radnofsky is Outstanding Senatorial Candidate

Texans have an outstanding nominee, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, running for U.S. Senate in Texas. Go to www.radnofsky.com to listen to podcasts or watch videos of speeches and read about her and the issues. She's the daughter and granddaughter of men who served our country in the armed services, and is married to a doctor. She's brilliant, thoughtful, and knowledgeable about the vital issues affecting this country. She's passionate about veterans' issues, the health care system, and education.

On every issue I care about Barbara Ann has an unusual grasp and well-reasoned position. She strongly supports plans to put our nation’s fiscal house in order. Her opponent’s voting record shows she believes we should continue to allow reckless, irresponsible spending on credit. Radnofsky believes that all Americans benefit when our nation’s finances are strong and well-managed. ( See http://www.radnofsky.com/video/economy.wmv)

If Texans get to know Barbara Ann, I think she can and will beat the incumbent. She's that outstanding.

Immoral budget

Budgets are statements of moral values. Tragically, the recently passed budget virtually shouts that Congress is morally bankrupt. Balancing the budget is important, yes. But how it is balanced is the issue.

Congress voted, by a narrow margin, to cut funding of medicaid and reduce benefits. That is in spite of a spike in the numbers of those needing those services after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And it flies in the face of the escalating costs of medical care.

The costs of balancing the budget in light of the deficit and of the Iraq War are disproportionately harming the poor as programs that keep their plight from being totally desperate. As a Christian, I know that Jesus wants us to look out for the "least of these," his brothers. Yet this budget takes a huge step backward, at the expense of those who can least afford cuts.

When adequate care is not provided, often the patient waits until they are desperate. Then they go to the emergency room or some other acute care facility. This shifts the burden of paying for health care from a very large taxpayer pool to a smaller pool (local resients). That effectively means higher local taxes. Such a policy is decpetive, and hurts taxpayers far more than if Congress had enacted a modest raise in taxes.

We need to insist that Congress revisits the budget to make sure it shows the fairness and compassion America has always had for those at the bottom. This new "conservative" approach to governing is far from the conservative ideal which didn't keep us from our traditional caring for one another, extending a hand up where needed and sharing the burden. (Shared burdens are lighter.) The budget is not conservative, not compassionate, not Christian, and certainly does not promote the general welfare.

When the Devil Masquerades as a Christian

The Devil is never so dangerous as when he masquerades as a Christian. It’s a clever disguise. The mask is smoothly respectable, even “nice”. His words sound reasonable, at first blush. He talks about Jesus this and God that. The faithful are fooled into thinking he’s a man of faith himself. He makes the right moves, talks the talk, at times even walks the walk, for long enough to convince those he wants to seduce.

Jesus described him, saying he has been a murderer from the beginning and calling him the Father of lies, lying because “there is no truth in him.”

Satan has been terrifyingly successful. He has swayed millions of American Christians to follow him. Yet they remain oblivious of the real nature of what they have come to believe and the actions he has led them to take. They believe they are still following Christ. The Devil keeps their eyes closed with a mixture of carefully selected scripture and all the techniques of propaganda.

Christ warned against those who would come in sheep’s clothing but who are inwardly ferocious wolves. We can recognize them by their fruit, for good trees can only bear good fruit and bad trees only bear bad fruit. Pervasive lying is a hallmark of the Devil’s work. So are feelings of confusion, fear, deep anger, hatred (although we generally deny what it is to ourselves), and use of the methods and language of war instead of peace.


Perhaps the following version of the Christian classic, The Screwtape Letters, can best illustrate Satan’s machinations in our current political situation. C.S. Lewis wrote letters from the perspective of the demon Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood advising him on how to tempt Christians away from their faith so they might lose their salvation and end in Satan’s clutches. This new letter posted by a blogger know as “revscat” purports to be from Wormwood celebrating recent successes under the title, “Status Report: Wormwood to Screwtape.”

My Dear Uncle Screwtape,

It is with the greatest pleasure that I write to you today. Our successes of late have been many and profound, and your advice has helped further our cause immensely. As Our Father Below requested, I have compiled a list of our recent successes and victories. It is difficult to express in words how excited I am at our prospects.

1. We have convinced the Christians in the most militarily powerful nation on the planet to support our causes. The greatest success of this venture has been in convincing the leadership that they are in fact doing the Enemy's [Satan’s name for God] work, not ours. Without their energetic support we never would have achieved so much.

2. Support for war among the Christians is at an all time high. It tickles me to no end to write that sentence. Christians, supporting war! It was not too long ago that such an utterance would have been unthinkable. We have quietly convinced them that they are, in truth, warring against the Muslims of the world, and that their very existence is dependant upon such support. Our agents amongst the Muslims have already achieved great successes, and now the lessons we learned with those people are paying off with similar success in our efforts against Christians.

3. Support for torture among Christians is now a reality! My dear Uncle, despite our occasional differences I must say that your advice on how best to achieve this was absolutely indispensable. We have successfully played upon their xenophobia, although we would not have been so subtle in our justifications had it not been for your excellent guidance.

4. The most egregious lies are now supported and even encouraged amongst and by the Christians. We have managed to show them how the lessons learned from marketing and selective editing can twist the truth to their own cause, and they have most willingly taken it up as their own. Since for them the end justifies the means, there is no lie they will not willingly tell themselves or others. They even think themselves clever whenever they successfully lie in such a manner, and take pride in it. They take pride in their lies! Ecstasy, dear uncle!

5. Our extensive communication networks have convinced the Christians that the only morality of any value is hatred (rarely called that, of course; they find the word distasteful) towards both homosexuals and liberals. The abandonment of disinterested love has allowed gains in other areas, specifically the support of war, murder, torture, and other acts which bring us such joy. All other morality has taken a backseat. They still speak with great vigor about worshipping the Enemy, but this of course concerns us little. Their actions are what are important to us.

6. Finally, and perhaps our greatest success: we have brought into being an apocalyptic mythology which has completely distracted them from the realities immediately before them. Our precious fool LaHaye has seen untold success in the market, and has brought many under our fold. His followers have been so blinded by fear, hate, and shallow scholarship of the hated Book that mere contemplation of the notion that our Greatest Agent now occupies the White House is deeply taboo. (You can be sure that we are quick to mock, vilify, and suppress any who even suggest the truth!) In short, dear uncle, Our Father Below is right to be pleased with our progress. We have turned the Enemy's own people against him, and done so while simultaneously fooling them into believing they are doing His work. A more masterful stroke has never before been accomplished, and they are further than ever from the clutches of our Enemy. Fear is a wonderful tool.

Your affectionate nephew, Wormwood

So who is Satan using today? Many men and women in positions of leadership are unwitting pawns in his hands. Many in this administration. Some on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Jerry Falwell. Many others. Once their faith may have been real. In fact, the Devil is good at keeping them from seeing that it is no longer Christ they follow. Their lack of self-examination allows them to confidently project a Christian faith they are far from actually living. The human condition is such that ambition and a lust for power can lead individuals of any political persuasion astray. The adage, “Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely,’ reflects where Satan probes most effectively for vulnerability.

Christ’s disciples are called to pattern themselves after him. He challenged the self-satisfied and self-righteous, ministered time and again to the outcast, the helpless, and the hopeless. He spoke truth to power and the powerless. He enjoyed the company of those who weren’t socially acceptable and spent little time with those of wealth and power. He offered love, acceptance, and forgiveness to those not deserving it, calling them to go and sin no more. Note the lack of condemning words even then. He rejected worldly power, even when his followers tried to crown him. He never lied, never manipulated or coerced, never set himself above others. Instead he emptied himself of all power, prestige, and status, and acted as a servant, washing the feet of his disciples.

Contrast Jesus to Mr. Falwell in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer last fall when he said , “You've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord. “ Those remarks sound like unresurrected nature speaking, not the grace and peace of our risen Lord. Frankly, they are unbiblical and defamatory, conveying a false image of Jesus.

Did you want to believe this administration would do its best by the people? Me too. I resisted believing they were systematically hoodwinking the public for quite a while. But uneasiness niggled in the background and I started investigating for myself in a wide variety of source materials.

The words of Russ Rymer, editor of Mother Jones in "The Machinery of Mendacity," may seem shocking to you if you haven’t been paying attention, and if you’ve placed your trust in our Christian and political leaders.

...“That activity [arguing the economics of the problem], engaging in a thoughtful discussion of politics and priorities, the wisdom of one or another course of action, could be considered honorable regardless of which side one argued from. Rather, the [Administration] mouthpieces are ignobly contesting the very science itself, using any tactic, any slipshod fiction, that might throw doubt into the public mind and so deflect the dictates of hard fact. In other words, given a public policy debate, conservatives have decided to forgo real debate entirely—to adopt instead a radical course: denying reality itself.

...“Climate of Denial” could serve as a title for the political times we live in. On issue after issue, this administration and this Congress continue to pursue policies that cannot stand the test of honest debate, and require a rewriting of basic facts. The dangers to the country are evident in myriad policy debacles: the illegal, expensive, and unnecessary war we were led into under false pretenses; the “reform” of Social Security based on the unfounded assertion that the program is in “crisis” (and pursued by ideologues pretending their goal is not to end it entirely); the economy plundered by fiscal improvidence; the budget busted by grand theft billed as tax relief.

The danger is graver because the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, “news” networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line—this is the machinery of mendacity. Its products are not the cherry-tree lies of embarrassed schoolboys covering up their misdemeanors, but the agitprop of a political ascendancy that considers the manipulation of truth an essential tool. There’s no embarrassment in it. The same partisans who clucked loudly during their impeachment of President Clinton about the need for a government so transparent that the most private details of a president’s personal life should be open to inspection have wrapped such a dense cloak of secrecy around the current president that even the roster of his administration’s meetings is withheld from the citizenry, under the expressed claim that the White House can’t do what needs doing if the American people are allowed to know what that is. The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one’s enemies....The [Conservative] movement born of principle has prevailed by renouncing it, and the former apostles of reality have prospered by purveying a potent mixture of wishful fantasy and outright lie.

I write this to all of my Christian friends, especially those who believe in this administration and many of the conservative, evangelical Christians who have wielded such power and influence in American politics for the past quarter century, in the hope that no matter how skeptical you might be about my argument, you will take the time to examine, reflect, and think for yourself. Pray too to be open to God showing you the truth even if it is painful.

I write out of an urgent sense of the peril our country faces. A house built on lies cannot stand. Only one built on truth can. We face a moral crisis that threatens our constitution and democracy. Our souls may hang in the balance as well. Wake up, wake up!

War sold to America with propaganda campaign

Recognition that the war in Iraq is terribly counter-productive is long overdue. It's been badly mismanaged and was sold to the American people by a deliberate propaganda campaign filled with fabrications It is unwinnable, both because of the mismanagement and because our cause lacks moral authority, while Iraqis are fighting to oust hated foreign occupiers. They may be using despicable methods, but fighting for one's country when it has been invaded has legitimacy to it that our pre-emptive invasion lacks.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a scathing report on the illegality of the numerous instances of this administration paying journalists for favorable reports, passing off video news releases paid for by the government (using our taxes) as if they were legitimate news coverage, and other illegal acts of propagandizing American citizens. There's a law about that!

America needs to end our military presence in Iraq just as soon as humanly possible. Our troops were sent into harm's way based on a lie. Many, tragically, have lost their lives or been maimed while they valiantly served their country. Honor our troops and bring them home now.

How do Americans bridge the political divide?

When my friend MaryGail, a nurse, invited me to contribute a column on healing to our church's monthly newsletter, I was startled that she would ask me since I'm not in the medical field. In ruminating over the request (MaryGail is hard to refuse), it occured to me that some meanings of healing include mending a quarrel or broken relationship, and in that case perhaps I had something to say after all. Healing of relationships among Americans has been an increasing preoccupation of mine for several years. A disturbing trend had burst into my consciousness a number of years earlier: a sharp increase of rancorous, inflammatory, and divisive political speech that first surprised, and then alarmed, me.

Ranting diatribes seem to have become the order of the day on talk radio programming, with inflammatory rhetoric both on the right and the left that’s designed to get the blood boiling and the hearer riled up. It reminds me of the angry shouting by a constantly quarreling couple, whose relationship is at great risk of ending in divorce.

Can you remember (if you are old enough to remember the way it was before the late-eighties) when the norm in controversial public discourse on television and radio was calm, rational, and civil? Our leaders and media personalities disagreed without being disagreeable and heated invective was rarely heard on the airwaves. The “marriage” seemed a healthy and happy one. How, in a few short years, did we come to this? Why, too, didn’t it happen earlier? After all, surely Americans held opinions as firmly a couple of decades ago.

Few noticed a change in regulations of broadcast media in 1987 that removed the requirement for broadcasters to ensure a fair and equal balance of opinions be aired on issues of public importance. Without regulation, the opportunity to hear a broad range of viewpoints on any given issue declined precipitously while that of hearing a one-sided presentation increased abruptly. Perhaps our busy lives and all the choices of entertainment available distracted us from noticing what was happening to us.

So, over time we now have different background knowledge from one another and understand one another’s reasoning less and less. Our decisions then frequently fail to take into account the impact on others of a different perspective. Such decisions can chafe. How stable can laws end up being under those circumstances? Conflict and misunderstanding increase, while tolerance takes a nosedive. By contrast, decisions made after a thorough airing of all points of view often garner more of a consensus, because with understanding compromises usually are worked out.

Today many of us are distinctly uncomfortable talking about political opinions with those unlike ourselves. It feels risky; maybe we’ll spark angry retaliation directed toward us. People from across the political spectrum feel wounded and defensive. Even within a family, estrangement may be felt and the ability to communicate stifled. Are you experiencing any of these difficulties?

At a church conference in Corpus Christi a couple of years ago, one exhibit caught my eye: the Institute for Civility in Government. Could it be that others were working to counter the polarization I find so troubling? I introduced myself to Cassandra Dahnke, the Presbyterian clergywoman manning the booth, and was thrilled to find that indeed there were. Rev. Dahnke founded the Institute for Civility in Government (INSTCIG) as a ministry to promote healing and reconciliation among us in our public, political life.

And how does INSTCIG go about doing that? One way is by organizing and sponsoring debate and dialogue by two local area members of congress from opposing parties on college campuses, with the aim of demonstrating that it is possible to disagree while maintaining civility. Another is by taking groups of politically very diverse people to Washington D.C. to observe Congress, study an issue thoroughly, and come to a consensus. Dahnke says every group they’ve taken has successfully found some areas of common agreement.

In the face of a large and seemingly intractable problem, that ministry is just one small way of trying to begin the healing process. Understanding root causes of the problem is a beginning.

If you are a person of prayer, I would ask for your prayers for all of us in this country we love, for healing and reconciliation between us, and a restoration of civility and openness toward other people and other viewpoints. While it is easier said than done, our own efforts to practice and model openness to civil dialogue with those we disagree with can play a powerful role, I believe, in God using us to nurture the seed of healing he has planted.

Vigil4America was launched in an effort to span the divide and build bridges of understanding.

Come, let us reason together.