Interesting...

I took this from Neo-Neocon

Barack Obama's amazingly consistent smile from Eric Spiegelman on Vimeo.

Obama’s fixed smile is described thusly (the nearly-fixed head position, which in my opinon is even more revealing, is not specifically mentioned):

"Ladies and gentlemen, your President is a robot. Or a wax sculpture. Maybe a cardboard cutout. All I know is no human being has a photo smile this amazingly consistent."

Perhaps Obama was merely getting ready for Halloween a few weeks early, and was wearing his favorite costume: an Obama mask.

And lest you think all of this is sort of trivial, I submit that it is not. Obama is easily the most controlled president I’ve ever seen in terms of his personal style. Although supposedly cool, there is no looseness there, no moment when you think you see a glimpse into the true man in a relaxed state when he has let down his guard.

In general, politicians who would be president must exercise more public control over themselves than ordinary people. But Obama is in a class by himself in this regard; his control is more complete and therefore more eerie. Even gestures that might appear to be spontaneous (witness these) are, IMHO, carefully planned to appeal to a certain audience that “gets” it.

Some people are just naturally subdued, and I think that description fits Obama as well. But there’s much more than that going on with the demeanor of our current president. Anyone who attempts this complete a level of control is hiding something. In Obama’s case, I believe it is his essential far-Leftist self: who he is and what he means to do.

That’s the Obama mask he wears, and he cannot take it off without revealing more than he wishes us to know right now. Maybe some day.

And now let me go all literary on you and quote T.S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J.Alfred Prufrock:”

And indeed there will be time
For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,
Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.

[NOTE: One of the very few people who seems to know Obama—if “know” is defined as having had a great many dealings with him before he ran for office—is Richard Epstein, a law professor at University of Chicago. The following excerpts are from an interview Epstein gave in early April of 2009 (and remember, this is from a guy who has known him personally for quite some time):

Obama has the world’s most perfect human disposition. He can sit in a room with you, he can listen to you, and he can talk to you, and you really get the sense of a man who is in complete self control.

But, that’s the very feature that makes him so hard to read. He is so much in self control, that if he doesn’t want you to know in a conversation what he is thinking, you can be there for 30 minutes and never be able to figure out what he believes. You can only have him question you about what you believe. He keeps all of his thoughts to himself.

Robinson: So, he is like Leonard Nimoy, like Spock, the Vulcan in Star Trek.

Epstein: He basically knows how to keep that shield over his face.

Epstein also expresses little doubt about one of the questions that keeps coming up in discussions of Obama: is he an ideologue, or just a follower and/or a narcissist? From the interview:

Robinson: You are quoted in the Boston Globe, “I like Obama but I reject the suggestion that he is an intellectual. He is an activist merely mimicking the mannerisms of an intellectual.” How good is Obama’s mind?

Epstein: His mind is pretty good, but it is a clever “means-ends” mind. He has never written a scholarly article in his entire life…

His positions are not close to the middle, and so he sees no reason to compromise with Republicans unless and until they can mount a veto threat in the Senate. He is very, very dogmatic about his substantive positions. He knows what he believes and he knows why he believes it, and it is extremely difficult for people on the outside to change his mind.

]

[ADDENDUM: Stuart Schneiderman of “Had Enough Therapy?” adds some further reflections on Obama’s mask.]

Dear Mr. Obama

I pulled this off of a friend's blog... and thought it was worth posting.
_____________________________________________________________________

To Barack Hussein Obama,

The New York Times carried a story on Saturday,
October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with
Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your
relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America
about it.

The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI
records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony
Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that
you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that
you saw him weekly While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the
greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about
'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you
said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about
white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of
concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.

In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that
you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela,
Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden
repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape
from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to
the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any'
preconditions. While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the USA
without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied
to America in the debate with McCain.

On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that
the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago
show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgment
about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the
greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against
funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for
withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that
you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be
removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now
claim. While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007
is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your
previous position.

You claim to have a record of working with
Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored
with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows
that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the
most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13%
of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the
Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include
conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater
concern is that you distorted the truth.

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you
claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the
other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who
had just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.

In your debates last spring, you claimed to have
been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a
professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to
say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of
Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain
voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show
the opposite. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted
against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows
that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels,
especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at
producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of
corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like
both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year
while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you
and Joe Biden. You lied to America.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with
George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of
the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority
of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90%
of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate
since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the
Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan.
You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you
abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the
financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to
your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your
protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney
Frank, Chuch Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the
greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

You forgot to mention that you personally
represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to
you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked
millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects
that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of
voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign
contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars
to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions
to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register
thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships
with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted
important facts about your relationships with them to America.

During your campaign, you said: 'typical white
person.' 'they cling to their guns and religion.' 'they will say that I am
black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about
you as racist. You divide America.

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of
America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you
remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in
earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost
America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military
spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your economic plan
of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the
greater concern is that you are deceiving America.

The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied
oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100
Billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil
exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities.
Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear.
You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind
about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by
Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004,
2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially
George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions
of the teachers union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated
religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with
students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into
the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children.
They are in it for themselves ..... not America. Are you reluctant to
condemn their actions because

teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of
all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving
America.

Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred
years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our
leaders before anything else. Your character looks horrible. While you
make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your
rhetoric. You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.

1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You
distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.

2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your
words and in your advertisements.

3. You had associations with some very bad people
for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.

4. You divide America about race and about class.

Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions,
race bating, and associations to John McCain:

War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.'

Operational leadership experience like all 43
previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years. 26
years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time
participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only
blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years
ago.

Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that
the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false
witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your
dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than
the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton.
Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter
Libby. You should be ashamed.

Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside
our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your
dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our
political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote
for honesty.

Any people who vote for you after understanding that
you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal
political issues more important than character. Would these same people
vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would
they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire
someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of course not.
So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they
know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? because some
of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their
financial security .... and you are praying on their fears with empty
promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by
your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted
for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from
recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy
are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has
camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really
are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if
it is necessary.

Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for
you is enabling dishonesty.

Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put
America first in your decisions about the future

Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America
deserves. We cannot trust you.

Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be
commander in chief.

Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money
as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever
reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research
about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating,
lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character.
The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the
fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is
much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with
Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not
nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events ...
false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgments are bad
on their own .... but your lies are even worse.

Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this
memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late.
We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your
dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are
before election day.

Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve.
And God help America if we deserve you.

Michael Master

McLean, Virginia

Worth Watching

This is a long video, but it is well worth the time. It succintly articulates the history and causes of the economic problems in the U.S. today. It is simple and understandable; no economic jargon. It shows how the policies of those who claim to want to help poor people are, in the long term, more harmful than helpful to the working poor, and are ultimately destructive to all (as we've experienced in the last few weeks).
From a friend of mine: "McCain is far from perfect, but Obama is dangerous. After reading his books and watching the debates and both conventions, I believe his agenda is far beyond liberal, into the realm of radical. Watch the video."

Register!

You should go read This Post. seriously.

Equal pay?

Here’s Barack Obama’s website on the issue of Pay Equity:

“Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Throughout his career, Barack Obama has championed the right of women to receive equal pay for equal work.”

Here’s Obama, talking two weeks ago in Toledo about GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin:

“[She] seems like a very engaging person, nice person. But I’ve got to say, she’s opposed, like John McCain is, to equal pay for equal work. That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

And now, here’s the interesting part. Scripps-Howard columnist Deroy Murdock took a look at the Senate staff salaries of both Barack Obama and John McCain, thanks to LegiStorm, a nonpartisan watchdog service that offers the raw data to anyone who wants to dig through it. Guess what Murdock found?

Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397. Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average … on average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make …

McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams. McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878. On average, according to these data, women in McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes.

Can anyone think of a living American feminist icon who’s not openly supporting Barack Obama? Just wondering.

(thanks to deceiver.com)

more insteresting facts can be found at http://factcheck.org/

You really think it's Bush's fault?

I recently read another post by JoshuaP, That really opened my eyes. I wasn't planning on voting for Obama, but was tired of hearing how the state of the economy is so bad, and it's all Bush's fault.... But read this post that Joshua posted the other day... It is full of some key facts that I did not know, and that Obama definitely isn't going to say in any of his speeches anytime soon!

lets blame bush jr...it's easier than being honest...
Barack obama is not telling the whole truth on our current economic "state". he, in my opinion, is disingenuous. he parades around the country acting as if he is different than everyone else in washington d.c. he acts like he hasn't been sitting in the senate for the last 3 years. really, obama isn't a senator from illinois...he is just your average guy who wants to change the world. mccain...he's the insider...the career politician...the bad guy.
on top of mccain being the "bad guy"...he is also george bush III...and the current mortgage meltdown is the fault of our greedy president, the greedy republicans in congress and their greedy economic policies. seriously?

so it goes...barack obama is telling one of the biggest campaign lies this season...and you won't hear wolf blitzer talking about it. he, and the rest of the mass media are too busy foaming at the mouth whenever obama speaks...they are busy announcing the "second coming" of our new political saviour. i'll pass...

barack obama has been a key figure in the fannie mae/freddie mac "titanic" that is now going to cost our gov't billions to bail out. obama has taken more money from fannie/freddie lobbyists in 3 years than every other serving senator (outside of sen. dodd...and he (obama) has only been in the senate 3 years! they started giving money in 1989...and he has passed everyone else. read for yourself). two of obama's economic advisors (franklin raines and jim johnson) are former ceo's of fannie/freddie...men who made millions of dollars in bonuses while their companies funded sub-prime loans and were shielded from any congressional oversite by the very senators and congressmen that had been bought off. obama likes to act as if he didn't have anything to do with the current state of the economy...but he was uniqely involved with these companies and didn't blow the whistle once while speaking on the senate floor to alert us of the impending meltdown.

so it continues with obama...this string of posturing and lying about the financial industry, and questioning whether sen. mccain “gets it.” maybe mccain isn't right on all the issues but mccain was trying to deal with this issue in 2006! mccain wanted to bring greater accountability to fannie/freddie. in summary, the bill, S. 190, of which mccain was one of only four co-authors (sen. obama was NOT one of those co-sponsors), proposed to amend the "federal housing enterprises financial safety and soundness act of 1992" to establish an independent regulatory agency which would have authority over the federal home loan bank finance corporation, the federal home loan banks, the federal national mortgage association (fannie mae), and the federal home loan mortgage corporation (freddie mac). mccain was trying to fix this over 2 years ago...while obama was doing NOTHING. but then again...he wasn't, and isn't, a beltway boy. he's just an outsider trying to bring "change" to washington...which is laughable at best.

i found the following quote interesting...because democrats are blaming bush and the republicans for all of our economic woes...
"It’s possible President Bush could have avoided some of this...but can you imagine the grief he would have gotten for making houses harder to buy, especially for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, with the likes of Barney Frank and Paul Krugman on the opposing side?
This was the perfect liberal operation: The righteous cause of home ownership for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Pockets padded for fellow cronies. And the blame for the inevitable crisis going to Republicans. Perfect. Bill Clinton is a genius."

My thoughts EXACTLY!

JoshuaP once again wrote a post that says exactly what I was thinking... I am sure I'm not the only one...

Lest we forget about the issues...
i'm tired of political mudslinging. i'm tired of turning on the tv and seeing ad after ad that is all about attacking the other candidate and totally void of anything remotely resembling substance.

sen. mccain ran an ad attacking sen. obama for being a "celebrity"...likening him to paris hilton and britney spears. is he popular? sure. do people flock to hear him? sure. does it have anything to do with the issues that face us as citizens? no.

sen. obama is now running an ad letting people know that sen. mccain is out of touch with todays' voter. he can't type emails...or use a computer. for the record, sen. mccain CANNOT type emails because he was beaten for five years in a viet-cong prison camp and it is too painful for him to sit at a computer keyboard and have his arms in the typing position...he has his aides type for him. is he older than sen. obama? yes. is he out of touch because he can't type? no. does it have anything to do with the issues that face us as citizens? no.

it gets old...this back-and-forth nonsense that politicians revel in. talk about the issues. talk about the issues that are important to me. abortion. unreasonable taxation. invasion of privacy. government waste. stop running ads that are nothing more than pithy innuendo...it has already become quite unnerving..

Another great post by JoshuaP

Click here to read it.

Can you really vote for this?

I came across this blog through a friend's, and It put something into words I have been struggling with. I don't want this to become a political debate, but I just had to post this.

"it's just so polarizing..." by joshuap
I believe that you cannot be a Christian and support abortion rights. it is totally against the teachings of the Bible to be for a procedure that ends life in the unborn. with that said, how can people who claim to be Christians support someone like barack obama? this is a man who has, for his entire public/political life, supported unfettered abortion rights. first trimester, second trimester, and partial birth abortions...he has even supported ending the life of a baby who survived the horrific abortion procedure since putting limitations on that would "erode roe-v-wade". he has even been quoted as saying "if my teenaged daughter got pregnant i wouldn't want her to be punished with a baby" (since there should be no consequences for a senators daughter ever...). this man has little or no care for the unborn...the born (those babies who survived an abortion)...and has, in his entire political career, supported a murderous, un-Biblical policy.

yet "post-modern" christians are flocking to his table...flocking to his events to hear him speak...and are "energized" (according to christianity today) about the prospects of him being elected. how is this possible? how are christians flocking to a man who, from a Biblical perspective, supports murder? who has such a low view of human life? i hear time and time again how abortion is "too polarizing"..."nothing gets done by republicans anyways"..."there are other issues besides abortion"...yes, there are "other issues" but none of which dive deeper to the heart of ones character and faith than abortion. you can be a christian and be for gun control. you can be a christian and be for socialized health care. you can be a christian and be for private health care. those things are temporal...earthly...they are matters of political opinion that have very little (if anything) to do with Christ and His teaching. yet abortion is not just a temporal issue...it is a heavenly issue. a matter of ones heart. God said "before you were in the womb I knew you"..."before you were born I concecrated you"...and i could list verse after verse about God, His perfect plan (which sometimes involves pregnancy) and Him being the author of LIFE.
so this is my question for any Christian out there who is voting for obama:

how do i vote for obama when he believes that the life of the unborn is equal to the contents of the trash can behind planned parenthood?

Hyperinflation

My husband just posted this, and I felt it worthy of sharing...

OK we Americans have no idea what inflation is. Yeah it's bad and getting worse but nothing near as bad as Zimbabwe. A country of billionaires who can't afford soap. Here's a link to an article that I found really informing.

We need to stop complaining about our problems and realize that it could be worse.

We should be thankful that we can even afford to put food on the table...

Hope everyone has a safe and Happy 4th of July!

Why government isn't the be all and end all

I 'borrowed' this post from Sheila over at To Love, Honor and Vacuum.
I thought it was a really good post and worthy of re-posting. Sorry it is a little long, but worth the read!

Why Government Isn't the Be All and End All

I tried to read Lori Smith's A Walk with Jane Austen last night. I really did. I wanted to like it, because I love Austen.

And parts of her book were beautiful. Basically, Lori is a 33-year-old single woman who took off to England for a month to follow in Jane Austen's footsteps and see what she could discover. And her conclusions are quite lovely. She talks about taking delight in the little things; how one doesn't have to live a big life to be significant; and deploring the high life.

But the first chapter I found difficult, because Lori complained about Christian conservatives. Now, I'm a Christian conservative, though I wouldn't fit everybody's mold of one. I'm not even American. I'm Canadian. I'm not your regular Pat Robertson Christian, and the whole "looking like we're perfect" thing has always been an anathema to me. In fact, I wrote To Love, Honor and Vacuum sort of as an antidote to this feeling in the church that we need to look like we have it all together as wives and moms.

However, what I find so difficult is that a lot of Christians like her, including those in my family, equate Christian conservativism with not caring about the poor.

(UPDATE: I'm afraid that I'm maligning Lori here as badly as I'm accusing her of maligning me. The truth is she didn't say anything specific about the poor; what she said was that she disliked conservative Christianity, and especially political Christianity; and she was passionate about social justice issues. I read between the lines there. If I was unfair, I'm sorry. So consider the rest of this post about others I know who do equate Christian conservativism with mean-spiritedness or stinginess).

I find that this betrays a complete lack of knowledge of economics and history.

My whole life is dedicated to the poor. The majority of my time is spent in raising money to send to an African orphanage. I've taught classes for pregnant teens here at home, and have always been involved in volunteering. But that is an entirely different thing from believing the government should get involved.

Caring about the poor does not mean that the government should do it. It means we should do it! We should sacrifice and we should share.

When the government gets involved, it introduces a poisonous dynamic. It leads to entitlement, and often creates dependency rather than encouraging dignity. But what bothers me is that people can't see historically how that happened.

Just look at the welfare reforms of the 1990s that the Republican Congress forced Clinton to pass. Social activists were screaming from rooftops that this would throw women and children out on the street. Over the next decade, though, poverty decreased and more families found jobs. In other words, cutting welfare reduced poverty, just like conservatives always said it would.

A similar thing happens on the world wide scale when it comes to Africa. I would never give aid to an African government, or even to a large NGO like UNICEF. I give it to small on the ground operations which are trying to promote entrepreneurism. Because ultimately, the thing that will break poverty is small business. Give them a helping hand, and you'll end poverty. Continue to dole out aid, and you'll create it. You also set up a situation where the government controls the aid and can use it to pit one ethnic group against another, which is never good in that part of the world.

It just seems to me like too many people don't know basic economics. But they sound like they're so superior to "conservatives" who just think everybody should be like them. What I always hear from my family is that "you can't expect everyone to have it together like you do. And we have to be there for those who don't." That's not what I think. But I do want programs that actually work, not just governments handing out money so we can feel good about helping, but that don't actually accomplish anything.

A perfect example would be Hurricane Katrina. The government came down and poured money at the problem like crazy. But in Houston and all across Texas, churches (and specifically conservative churches) mobilized to take people into their homes. The Astro Dome, which was supposed to sleep 20,000, was empty because the churches had taken the people in. And many of those people chose not to return to New Orleans, but to take the help offered them to find jobs in Texas and other neighboring states.

In other stories, the government is still doling out money for other Katrina victims to live in hotels. I read a story yesterday about two women who are still living in the Quality Inn, with a swimming pool and maid service, years after the disaster, and haven't really looked for work yet. Why should they? This is the type of thing conservative Christians say isn't good for anyone's soul. We are not meant to get handouts for free. But that doesn't mean we don't care about the poor. It means we do.

A similar dynamic is at work with single motherhood. People just didn't have babies out of wedlock until welfare was extended to single moms. That's when men started to feel like they could desert their girlfriends who got pregnant. And marriage went down the toilet. I know not everyone is going to marry, and you can't legislate morality. I don't think we should. But to economically encourage a family situation which is dangerous to all involved is ludicrous. I'm not saying we should cut off single mothers from welfare, but I do think welfare should be a temporary training ground to get a job. People shouldn't live on it forever, and then maybe fewer people would be cavalier about their family situations. My mother was single, not by choice, and she never took a handout. She worked hard, even while I was young and she was depressed, so that we could have a roof over our heads. It is possible. And she advanced up the ladder until she ended up an executive.

Welfare would not have let her do that.

I think the basic difference between a conservative Christian and a liberal one is that conservatives believe in results, not in policies that express our devotion to a particular group. We don't need policies to show that we love poor people; we just need to love them ourselves. And if a government policy which sounds good has been shown not to work, then we need to get rid of it.

My liberal relatives, on the other hand, believe that we must lobby the government to end poverty, even if it doesn't work well. It's part of showing our values and living our values, to ensure that the government expresses our values. The problem is that this is usually ineffective. But it's the heart that counts to my relatives, not necessarily the results. I know that's an oversimplification, but whenever I bring up the results of whatever they're advocating, they accuse me of not caring. The opposite is true! I do care. But that doesn't mean I think we should throw money at the problem. It means I think we should fix the problem. And those two are not necessarily synonymous.

So I wish that other Christians would stop tarring me with the idea that I don't care about the poor. I do. And I know they care about the poor, too. We just disagree on how to help. That's allowed. But please stop impugning my motives, because I don't think that's very Christian behaviour.