Virtual-News.us

In his Hearts & Minds blog at www.GodsPolitics.com, Jim Wallis attacks mostly the Republicans for their role in the ongoing debate over the U.S. budget and deficits. He wrote: “The debate we have just witnessed has shown Washington, D.C. to be not just broken, but corrupt. The American people are disgusted watching politicians play political chicken with the nation’s economy and future. In such a bitter and unprincipled atmosphere, whoever has the political clout to enforce their self-interest and retain their privileges wins the battles. But there are two casualties in such political warfare: the common good and the most vulnerable.”

While it sounds like he may continue with a fairly balanced attack on politicians in general, he does not. He proceeds to aim his attack most directly at the Republicans, suggesting that it is morally corrupt to make decisions in favor of corporations in order to encourage economic growth and increased jobs (put in much less favorable verbiage), and that the more caring Democrats have the moral high ground in this debate because they care for the poor and downtrodden.

I wish the economic debate were this simple. I don’t believe it is. The “moral default,” I believe, has occurred over the past 40 years as politicians from all parties voted to buy the favor of special interests from every direction — from corporate executives to farmers to welfare moms — with our tax dollars AND the tax dollars of future generations. Our growing deficits over the past 40 years now make all decisions very difficult.

I don’t believe that following an honest economic strategy that helps businesses increase jobs is a moral issue, it is a strategy that worked well under Reagan to raise the U.S. out of the Carter malaise. I happen to believe corporations should not be taxed at all but rather that benefits enjoyed by an executive, a stockholder or an employee should be taxed. A corporation is not a human entity; it is a vehicle to create progress and wealth for humans (from top to bottom). Taxing corporation frequently leads to essentially double-taxation of investors. And I believe the growth of business provides “real” long-term jobs for those willing to work. That’s an honest opinion from someone with virtually no corporate investment.

However, whatever their divergent opinions on governance may be, I do consider it morally corrupt to pass greater and great debt on to future generations without very, very compelling (and infrequent) reasons. That has been done for 40 years under both parties, which makes me believe that constitutional amendments such as a balanced budget amendment, a terms-limit amendment and a new amendment to reinforce the 10th Amendment may be needed to prevent such a situation from ever occurring again.

Problem is, the worldwide impact of the decisions made over the past 40 years may be felt for the next 40 years and beyond.

With all the economic woes in America, a knee-jerk reaction is occurring that would cause greater damage — the idea of re-instituting tariffs on foreign goods to help U.S. manufacturers.

I would offer an alternative proposal that doesn’t punish consumers nor ignite international trade wars. If we re-institute tariffs, other countries will do the same. We may regain a larger share of the U.S. market but lose a greater amount in the world market.

So, instead: (1) Eliminate all corporate taxes. Tax people, not corporations or associations. Ultimately, what should be taxed is that which goes into someone’s pocket or is spent for individual benefit. With no corporate taxes, more corporations would keep their operations in the U.S. and more foreign entrepreneurs would come to the U.S. (2) Immediately revise our immigration laws to encourage the world’s best and brightest to come to America. In the world economy, the U.S. will ultimately lose any effort to compete in manufacturing if our laborers want to make 10 times more than foreign workers unless we do it smarter and better, not cheaper. To do so, we need the best and brightest people to join our American economy.

The executive vice president of Microsoft says they had to build a plant in Vancouver, B.C., because U.S. Immigration would not allow them to import the world’s top scientists and engineers. That situation must be reversed immediately or our economy is truly doomed. We should invite the world’s best and brightest students to study at American universities, and we should then open the doors of immigration to all highly qualified people who achieve employment with U.S.-based companies and organizations.

The “best and brightest” will not take jobs away from American citizens. They will help to create more jobs for our less-qualified citizens. Clearly our educational system must also work harder to develop more of the “best and brightest” from among our own citizens. But numerous world assessments have demonstrated that U.S. students are lagging behind foreign students especially in math and science. But, regardless, America can never have too many of the “best and brightest.” Their innovations would create jobs and help America compete more effectively in the world economy. In addition, the synergistic innovations they would create together within the American brain centers would bless the entire world with cheaper, greener energy; new technologies; enhanced world communications, etc.

The Founding Fathers did not envision a country controlled by professional politicians.

“An evidence of this is the Electoral College. Citizens were not to elect the president; they were to vote for electors to go to the Capital to find the best possible candidate. The Constitution forbids these electors from holding any other office.

“The following email about a specific constitutional amendments to restrict people to just 12 years in Congress maximum. While I might change the amendment a little if I were authoring it, I can still support this version very strongly.

“The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18-year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 . . . before computer, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

“Of the 27 amendments to the constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land . . . all because of public pressure.

“I’m asking you to forward this e-mail to a minimum of twenty people; in turn, ask each of those to do likewise.

“In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

“Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits

12 years max, some possible options are below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms

B. Six Two-year House terms

C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

“2. No Tenure / No Pension

“Members of Congress receive a salary while in office,
that salary ends when they leave office.

“3. Congress members (past, present & future) are to participate in Social Security.

“All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.

“All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
and Congress participates with all Americans.

“4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan,
just as all Americans do.

“5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

“6. Congress loses their current health care system
and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

“7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws
they impose on the American people.

“8. All contracts with past and present members of Congress are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make the contract members of Congress enjoy,

“Congress made all these contracts for themselves.

“Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.
“The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators,
so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

“If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

“THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS ! ! ! ! !

“If you agree with the above, pass it on.”

I am not an apologist for Mitt Romney, but neither am I a basher. Many conservatives have recently become Romney-bashers because of the health care program passed in Massachusetts while he was governor. I think critics are forgetting some important points.

Speaking at the University of Michigan’s Cardiovascular Center, Romney used a slide presentation to deliver what the Associated Press compared to a college lecture on health care. But in comparing the Massachusetts plan with ObamaCare, his main point was this: “Our plan was a state solution to a state problem. And his is a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits plan across the nation.”

Conservatives sometimes forget their key issue in national politics, and thus undermine their own efforts. The key issue is or should be exactly what Romney addressed — the need for the federal government to let state and local governments handle their own affairs. And over the years I have found great public support for that position — even among liberals.

It was during the last great economic crisis — the Great Depression — that FDR did the expedient and unforgivable. He used a constitutional loophole to overturn close to 150 years of Supreme Court decisions supporting the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Because the Constitution failed to stipulate how many justices should be on the Supreme Court, he added two more of his liking so the federal government could suddenly strip the state governments of their constitutional rights and powers. As a result, social-welfare programs went from being state issues to federal issues based on very flimsy constitutional arguments, and, more honestly, blatant political expediency.

Frederic Bastiat witnessed the collapse of an early French effort to establish democracy and argued eloquently in “The Law” that the only purpose of government is to protect individuals’ life, liberty and property from being taken or destroyed by others. Bastiat concluded that the law cannot defend life, liberty and property if at the same time government itself uses the force of law to plunder one group to give to another. As philanthropic as we may want to be, as soon as well-meaning officials begin using government as a method of forced philanthropy, democracy is in jeopardy because every special interest will fight to gain political power to legally steal from others to benefit itself.

If you look at the track record of both major political parties since FDR essentially overthrew the 10th Amendment and the federal form of government, you will see that Bastiat’s prediction was dead on. And he also warned that it was this struggle between special interests that led to the collapse of the earlier French democracy and predicted that the same thing could happen to other democracies. In our case, the effort by the two parties to placate special interests has led directly to the current economic crisis. Many of our largest deficits before Obama came under Republican presidents who were trying to straddle the fence — rebuilding the military and cutting taxes while still maintaining the social welfare programs fostered by the Democrats. They were afraid to take on special-interest spending because of the liberal-leaning news media they feared would help remove them from power. And thus the federal deficit has grown steadily for about 40 years under both Republican and Democrat regimes. Is it worse under Obama? Yes, but the Republicans are hardly innocent.

But more to the point is that original FDR “revolution” that changed the nature of American governance and made it susceptible to the political trap Bastiat foretold. Once that Pandora’s box was opened, the result was almost inevitable.

The beauty of the American system pre-FDR was that America essentially created a free marketplace competition of ideas even within the political system. If we still had that system intact and liberal states like California or Massachusetts wanted to go Marxist (I’m taking an extreme example), so what? States like Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Idaho could counter with extremely conservative governance, low taxes and great business freedom. What would be the result in the free marketplace of state-initiated programs? Businesses would start abandoning the liberal states and moving to the conservative states. The free marketplace of a true federal system that bestowed most governmental power on state and local governments helped America achieve its status as the greatest nation in history. But once the central government overthrew this key principle of federalism, all special interests needed to do was gain control of that one government in order to legally plunder the public. And federal taxes and mandated programs — like ObamaCare — made all states essentially the same.

So, let’s go back to “RomneyCare.” How many of the current crop of conservative presidential aspirants could have EVER been elected governor of a liberal state like Massachusetts? None. How could any Republican govern that state without working under the agenda of the liberal Legislature, press and public? To try to do so would mean the Republican would never survive. An Evan Mecham-like lynch mob would be rallied within weeks.

But if Republicans will focus on the key principle of conservatism, it can win public support. They should not be “anti-charity,” for example, they should argue that charitable welfare-type programs are most efficient when they are developed and operated by state and local government. The federal deficit itself is the proof of the central government’s inefficiency. It should be the Republican argument that all of these programs, if they are to be established at all, should be the responsibility of state and local governments.

Romney governed perhaps the most liberal state in the Union, governed it well, but was subjected to the liberal agenda that exists in that state. But Romney is exactly right that there is a HUGE difference between that state honoring the demands of its citizens — however unwise you and I might consider them — and what he called correctly “a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits plan across the nation.”

If I could propose anything to save the nation, it would be to essentially re-institute the 10th Amendment and to repeal the 17th Amendment that instituted the popular election of U.S. senators. Before the 17th Amendment, the state legislatures elected the U.S. senators, making then obligated and answerable to their respective state governments. Taking away the states’ voice in Washington, D.C., was the first step toward ending the federalist system that had served the nation so well. Without the 17th Amendment, FDR may have never gotten the votes he needed to stack the Supreme Court with his supporters and overthrow the 10th Amendment.

Have you ever been caught in a credit card trap where you had to use one credit card to make the required payment on another? That’s what the federal government is now doing. And soon the debt payment will become the largest cost in the federal budget — even bigger than the military.

Former New York Governor George Pataki has formed a new organization called No American Debt to influence the federal government to stop adding to the American debt crisis and start solving it.

Pataki told NewsMax.com that President Obama this year alone wants to increase the national debt another $1.65 trillion deficit — that’s another $5,000+ for every man, woman and baby in America on top the the $46,000 the federal government has already obligated each citizen to repay in the future already. And at the current rate of economic improvement and with the current federal spending levels, it will take another 10 years before American can hope to stop increasing the debt by at least $1 trillion ($3,000+ per citizen) each and every year.

Pataki has some suggestions.

When he was governor, Pataki cut the New York state workforce by more than 15 percent, and he says similar cuts are needed at the federal level in order to save hundreds of billions of dollars. He also suggests shifting Medicaid to a state block grant program to save 10-15 percent of those costs, raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 for those not yet in the workforce, and closing some of the 153 military bases the United States has around the globe. He notes there are 15 just in Germany.

Here are some more cuts I suggest that could help the federal government cut more than 15% of its payroll. First, for many reasons the IRS should be abolished. It not only is a bloated bureaucracy, but it demands billions of dollars every year in private expenditures to comply with its complicated set of rules and regulations. The so-called “Flat Tax” type of consumption “sales” tax is designed to eliminate the income tax but to meet the typical American desire to lessen the proportional burden on the poor by providing a rebate for taxes paid by the average household for food and other basics.

The tax would relieve Americans of all the stress, energy and expense of filing annual tax forms, and it would allow the federal government to eliminate most of the nearly $12 billion it spends to operate the IRS annually. A billion dollars here, and a billion dollars there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

Other departments can also be slashed drastically. Even the smallest of the federal departments — the Department of Education — has 5,000 employees. It needs no more than 2,000 — No more than 1,000 to track the practices of state and local education systems and 1,000 to share best practices with the 50 states and thousands of school districts to help them improve. Educators are needed in the classrooms, not in the federal bureaucracy.

Everyone has their own pet projects they want to protect. But spending 40% more each year than your income does not work for your family, and it can’t work for the federal government, either. No matter how charitable we want to be, all of us — including the government — are not acting responsibly to spend money we don’t have and have little hope of paying off. How many of us would feel good about borrowing money to help even good causes if we knew we would have to pass that debt on to our children? That’s what the federal government is doing on our behalf.

Each baby today is being born with $46,000 worth of debt obligated to him or her by the federal government — and that presumes that the babies’ parents and grandparents pay off their own share of the debt before they die, which right now is considered unlikely. Instead of paying it off, President Obama wants to continue adding more and more — another $5,000+ per citizen this year and perhaps $3,000 per year indefinitely into the future, using new credit to pay off old debts.

Pataki and many economists are saying this cannot work and is the kind of thinking that is leading to the debt default by entire nations. It could cause an economic meltdown, and it could soon topple the U.S. as the mightiest economic power in the world. The decisions are not easy, but officials should be elected who are willing to confront this issue rather than hide from it.

By Ken Harvey
A young mother strained to see through the torrential rain as she drove toward home with her two small children seat-belted in the back seat. As the roadway took a dip, suddenly the pavement in front of her disappeared.

What was usually a dry ravine had turned into a rampaging river across the road. When she saw the flooding, it was already too late to stop. The car splashed into the water and came to a stop.

As the water surged higher and began carrying the car downstream, the mother knew she had to get the children to safety. After unbuckling the children and pulling them over the front seat, she pushed the door open and stepped into the flooding waters.

Repeatedly she fell and struggled back up again, still holding her two crying children. For every step forward, she was washed back almost as far. Progress was slow, but inch by inch she neared shore. She was almost out of strength, but she had to save her children. A man on shore spotted her and shouted encouragement as he waded toward her.
The stream was gaining strength as the mother’s own strength waned. With one last desperate effort of love, the mother thrust her children toward the rescuer as she herself was swept away to her death.

What a tragedy! But what love those children should remember. Their mother could have escaped the watery death. All she had to do was drop one of her children. But she would not – no matter the consequences. I clipped this Associated Press story from a newspaper and kept it in my file for many years. To me it was a near-perfect analogy for Christ’s sacrifice for us.

As Jesus took upon himself our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, he sweat great drops of blood and would that the Father could find another way. Yet there was none. Only the Son of God could withstand the pain caused by the cumulative sins of mankind. Only the unblemished Lamb of God was worthy to make that sacrifice. Only the son of an earthly mother and a Heavenly Father had the power to lay down his life and take it up again to open up the way for all mankind to live again. Gethsemane was the beginning of Christ’s “spiritual death” for us, as he took upon himself our sins and felt the spiritual consequences of God’s spirit withdrawing, leaving him feeling desperately alone with a spiritual agony no one has ever felt and no one can fully imagine. Indeed, there is evidence that while Christ may have foreseen most of what he was to experience during his mission, including his own crucifixion, he had not comprehended the magnitude of the pain he was going to suffer. This is demonstrated in part by his cry to the Father to remove the cup if possible, but it was also evidenced by later events on the cross.

Following the pain of Gethsemane came the illegal nighttime trial before the high priest and the Sanhedrin. They whipped him, slapped him and spat upon him. Yet the bribed witnesses could not agree on their accusations. Finally Jesus confessed to the truth – he was the Son of God. And the high priest declared it blasphemy worthy of death.

The mob continued to brutalize Jesus as it made its way to Pilate’s palace. There the soldiers scourged Jesus with a multi-lashed whip with bits of bone and metal attached to the end of each lash. The whip dug into Jesus’ back time after time after time. Then the crown of long, sharp thorns was placed on his head and pushed into his skull. As the mother in the middle of the flash flood, Jesus could have abandoned us and escaped his fate, but love drove him on toward his ultimate destiny.

Pilate initially refused to condemn Jesus, but his fear that the Jewish leaders would send word to Caesar that he had failed to condemn the alleged “King of the Jews” caused him finally to consent. Jesus’ strength was waning as he struggled under the weight of the cross through the streets of Jerusalem and up the hill called Golgotha.

Pain then surged through his body as the soldiers pounded spike after spike through the flesh, bones, tendon and nerves in his hands, his wrists and his feet. The soldiers pounded and pounded and pounded the spikes, crushing the tendons and severing the nerves. At any time he could have called down legions of angels, but Jesus still refused to save himself. And the spikes dug deeper and deeper as the soldiers pounded and pounded and pounded.

Then the soldiers pushed the cross upward to an erect position as the spikes tore against the flesh. They had dug a deep hole in which to place the base of the cross. As the cross was pushed upward, it suddenly slipped downward into the hole, falling several feet before slamming to the bottom. With the jolt, the spikes again tore into the quivering tendons and sensitive nerves.

Jesus hung on the cross hour after hour; his weight pushed down on the spikes. From time to time he had no choice but to shift his position and to stand, as it were, on the spikes driven through his feet. But still Jesus would not give in.
Satan, realizing that Jesus would not submit to physical pain, made one last attempt to stop Christ’s victory. As if he were whispering his words into their ears, one Jewish leader after another walked by to mock the King of Kings, to spit on him and to tempt him to react in righteous indignation. “You who would save others, save yourself first. Then we will believe!” Even one of two condemned thieves at his side joined the chorus: “If you are the Son of God, save yourself and us, too!”

To react in anger would have been so easy, so justifiable in the minds of men. But all eternity hung in the balance as Jesus remained true to his mission. Jesus had been abandoned by essentially everyone – the crowds that had shouted hosannas just a few days earlier, as well as his disciples who were afraid they might have to suffer a similar fate as his. Only his mother Mary, some other women, and his youngest disciple, John, dared appear in public to witness the end. Jesus had foretold this. In the upper room he told the disciples, “Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” (John 16:32). But again on the cross, as in the garden, his Heavenly Father was NOT with him. God withdrew all light, all sustaining spirit and abandoned his Son to claim the victory alone.” And the Redeemer of the World cried out in unanticipated agony, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani. My God, my God, why hast THOU forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

Jesus made his last proclamation of love even for those who had tortured him through the night and during his final day of mortal life: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). And as the price of our sins was finally paid in full, he declared: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46).

When the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side to make sure he was dead, a mixture of blood and water gushed out. Doctors have said this is evidence that he died from a massive coronary.

As I prayerfully pondered this scene in my imagination, it came into my mind that during his ministry Jesus repeatedly challenged his disciples to figuratively take up their cross and follow him, and, indeed, he led the way and died on the cross for us. But while still in his spiritual state as Jehovah of the Old Testament and later in modern Scripture, Christ more frequently challenges his disciples to offer up “a broken heart and a contrite (repentant) spirit.” As I prayed that morning, I suddenly saw in my mind Christ on the cross and realized what he himself apparently did not fully comprehend while in the flesh until that final hour. There are levels of comprehension – a vague intellectual definition, the stronger empathetic understanding, and then a kind of “aha” realization and complete immersion into that new reality that the cross did not kill the Savior, the Jews did not kill the Messiah, the soldiers were not ultimately responsible. As I entered that third stage of comprehension I gasped, “Oh my God!” I reprimanded myself briefly for a proclamation that is normally considered inappropriate, but then realized it was at this moment totally appropriate as I completed my sentence in tears: “Oh my God, my God, why has thou forsaken me!” realizing in an indescribably profound way that Christ literally died of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, as his loving heart burst from the contrite acceptance of our combined sins and the subsequent withdrawal of God’s supportive spirit. We killed Jesus.

When Christ was first starting his ministry, he was walking along the seashore when he called out to two fishermen – brothers Simon Peter and Andrew – who had fished all night and were now coming to shore to rest from their fruitless labor. “Cast your net on the other side,” he shouted. Not wanting to argue but with no real hope of catching any fish, they cast the net on the other side of the boat. To their surprise, as they pulled in the net, it was filled with fish.

When they arrived to shore, Peter fell to his knees and told Jesus, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Instead, Jesus challenged Peter and his companions, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” They walked away from their boats, their nets and their occupation that day and followed Jesus faithfully until the very end of his three-year ministry.

After Christ’s arrest, however, Peter’s courage faltered as those in the courtyard of the high priest three times accused Peter of being a follower of the man who had just been sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin. As Jesus had prophesied, a cock crowed as Peter denied he knew Jesus for a third time with a curse, “I know not the man.” Jesus then looked up from where he was bound, and his eyes met those of Peter. And the man Jesus called, “the Rock,” fled from the courtyard in tears.

Even after Jesus resurrected, Peter felt like a failure. He felt unworthy and didn’t know what to do. He finally told the other apostles: “I’m going fishing,” and he returned to his trade. Peter, Andrew and their former partners James and John went back to the sea to fish. They fished all night without catching a thing, when a man called out from the seashore. “Do you have any fish?” “No,” they replied, “we’ve been fishing all night and haven’t caught a thing.” “Cast your net on the other side,” the man shouted. Reluctantly they did so, and the net filled with 153 fish.” John realized this was no coincidence. “It is the Lord,” he said. And Peter jumped into the sea and swam to shore, where he found a fire with fish already cooked and ready to eat.”

After they had eaten, Jesus walked apart with Simon Peter and asked: “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” “Yea, Lord.” “Feed my lambs.” And again, “Peter, lovest thou me?” “Yea, Lord, thou know knowest that I love thee.” “Feed my sheep.” And a third time, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” Grieved because Jesus asked three times, and remembering his past weakness, Peter responded: “Lord, thou knowest all things. Thou knowest that I love thee.” And Jesus said again: “Feed my sheep.”

Despite our spiritual failures – whatever they might be – Jesus calls out to us: “Follow me, and I will make YOU fishers of men.” And he urges us to always remember, despite our weaknesses, to feed his young lambs and even his old goats.
Peter had been ready to give up on himself. He felt unworthy. Many of us feel that same way sometimes. But while we think of ourselves only in terms of our mortality and sometimes focus on our failures of each day, God sees us in terms of eternity. So while we are ready to give up, God never will. And there is no greater evidence of that than the sacrifice of his only begotten son, who suffered the pains of spiritual death and physical death, that the demands of justice might be satisfied so our Father could freely embrace us in his arms of mercy.

Even at his time of greatest pain and deepest despair he refused to abandon us, and still he calls out to us to come, follow him. Follow him to peace. Follow him to true happiness and joy. Follow him in helping save others. And follow him to glory.
Jesus asks us to do what would seem so very easy, under the circumstances — to love him with all of our heart, with all of our soul, with all of our mind, and with all of our strength.

I pray we will remember Christ’s great sacrifice every day, how he loved us unconditionally in spite of our weaknesses, and that we might all likewise resolve to demonstrate our love for HIM by sharing his love with others. In the Savior’s sacred name, Amen.

I am presenting something at a BARcamp Conference at KIMEP University today. Just in case I cannot access the Internet, I want to show how to embed a YouTube video into my WordPress blog. I have had poor success with using the YTube command, but the “CODE” command works fine. Such as here:


Be sure to hit the /CODE button once you’ve put in the EMBED code from YouTube.

Len Downie Jr. — former executive editor of the Washington Post and the editor who worked directly with Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters Woodward and Bernstein when they brought down the Nixon Administration — has some dire concerns about the future of investigative reporting as newspapers lose their advertising base. Listen to his lecture presented at Stanford University and then tell me what you think.

The great collaborative efforts we already see on the part of citizen journalists and professional journalists makes me think the future is not so bleak, but I believe it will require some further innovation and journalists like the late great investigative reporter Jack Anderson, who learned how to tap into the very infrastructure of government to access information sometimes even before the President received it. This kind of investigative reporting can, in essence, create a cadre of citizen journalists to support the dwindling number of professionals, and could yield even greater results.

In America it is now Christmas morning. Many of my Facebook buddies are not of my religion; indeed, many are not Christian. However, This Christmas gift is from my heart and is for all of you.

Many of my students, my friends and even some of my children are wrestling with their future, wondering what they should do. Some – particularly those of my faith – have been taught that God will answer specific prayers, and so they have prayer powerfully for guidance. They see decisions about where to live and what education or profession to pursue as being so pivotal in their lives that they are almost paralyzed by indecision, wanting God to tell them clearly what to do.

I urge you to watch Apple/Pixar CEO Steven Jobs’ address to Stanford graduates. He also is not of my faith (I don’t think), but I believe he has discovered what I have discovered in my life – that God is much more involved in such decisions than we think. Indeed, he may have programmed them into our minds or at least may be bombarding us with his light and manifesting his hand in our lives all the time with such important decisions.

Jobs challenged Stanford graduates to trust their instincts. He acknowledged that some of the decisions he felt led to make in his life that seemed most illogical turned out to be of vital importance, and some of the doors that slammed closed in his face forced him onto new paths that were absolutely critical to him becoming the person he is. Apple, which he founded, by the way, fired him about 20 years ago, forcing him to become more creative again. He then founded Pixar and made it very successful. Then, as Apple looked like it was about to collapse, it asked Jobs to return and save the company. What has happened since then? Last year it surpassed Microsoft as the largest technology company in the world. He credits a number of things in his life – some of which were not choices he would have voluntarily made but made out of necessity. Other decisions where he just followed his feelings.

The early Christian apostle Paul taught the Greeks about God’s interaction with us as individuals:
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

There are many important ideas in this scripture, but I want to focus on how God “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of our habitation.” I feel I am supposed to be in Kazakhstan teaching at KIMEP and working with our church, but there was an unseen hand that got me there. I had to be willing. I had to be somewhat courageous, I suppose. I had to want to serve. And I had to seek inspiration through prayer about how I should serve once I arrived there. But God put me into a position where there was really no other decision to make – as he has in the past. Part of my regular prayers is that God will open the appropriate doors for me and close others, and that he will use me as an instrument in his hands. So, while it was a hard decision, I knew going to Kazakhstan was the right decision, even though it meant leaving my family behind and even though it seems to contradict even some teachings of our church to make the family a higher priority than worldly success. Of course, God has sent people on long missions in the past without their families, and the truth is that God has to be the No. 1 priority. Sometimes we have to trust him to take care of other priorities when we are following his promptings.

So, for those of you struggling over what you should be doing in life, have more faith that God will open the right doors. He will be involved. Indeed, invite him to be involved. Then trust your instincts. You may be making your decisions more difficult than they need to be, for God will be involved in such decisions – sometimes even if you don’t want him to. He will put you where he needs you. But he will be more involved if you promise to do whatever he wants you to do – whatever good things you feel prompted to do.

Another person not of my faith, St. Francis of Assisi, I feel was inspired at least in writing this prayer:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace, 
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; 
to be understood as to understand; 
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive; 
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; 
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

If we have this attitude toward life, we can count on God to lead the way. This is my Christmas gift to you. This, I promise, will lead to happiness in this life, despite all difficulties that may come your way.

Merry Christmas, and may you allow God to lead the way into this new year.

All my best,
Ken

U.S. needs more immigration, not less!
Nation already losing jobs for lack of educated workforce,
system to import top scientists, engineers to keep U.S. No. 1

By Ken Harvey

Largely because of the knee-jerk reaction of conservatives, Congress has again rejected the DREAM Act that would encourage top high school students whose parents brought them into the U.S. illegally to go to a university and become part of America’s efforts to retain its top billing in the world economy.

Contrary to common thinking, in order to remain No. 1, the U.S. doesn’t need LESS immigration but rather MORE. Yes, we need to be smart about it. Yes, we need to “recruit” the best and brightest people in the world to come to the U.S. and, thus, remain the brain center of the world economy. Yes, we need to seal the borders to both provide greater security and to reduce the drag on our social welfare programs. But after spending billions of tax dollars on educating the children of illegal immigrants, we also need to reap the rewards of that investment.

I am saying this as a conservative Republican who teaches journalism at an overseas university located very near to the two nations about to overtake the U.S. and very possibly reduce our nation to the No. 2 or No. 3 economic power in the world. KIMEP University, located in Almaty, Kazakhstan, is less than 100 miles from China and just a little north of India — the two nations positioning themselves to take over world economic leadership.

National pride is good, but to think the U.S. cannot lose its world status is dangerous. The world economy is ever more flat, and the dollar currently is in danger.

India has now has the largest English-speaking population in the world, and China wants to overtake them. India has more English-speaking university honors students than America has total university students. The U.S. should be recruiting the best students from throughout the world to come to our universities and to STAY in the U.S. We could still have millions of world applicants to choose from if we offered foreign graduates of U.S. universities a pathway to citizenship. But that window of opportunity is closing quickly.

Regardless, we certainly need to keep the honor students who are already here — whatever their parents’ status. But if we could deport all illegal aliens tomorrow, we would throw our own economy into a full depression. We would lose millions of valuable workers, not to mention consumers. The debate should be about how we can best cull the wheat from the chaff. How can we legalize productive illegal aliens and deport those who are unproductive, committing crimes or harming our society in other obvious ways.

Republicans are idiots for not catering to the fastest-growing segment of our population and appealing to common values that could help the party regain and maintain control over the next century.

Hispanics – if they retain the values of their older generation – are either Catholic or Evangelical. In either case, they tend to be anti-abortion and would side with Republicans on many other issues.

Hispanics are naturally entrepreneurial. It seems like nearly every Hispanic family has come up with some business to help enhance their income. Many are starting more formal establishments, such as restaurants and mechanic shops.

Hispanics believe in the American Dream, and they want a chance to achieve it. They should be Republicans.

It was President George W. Bush who brought them the No Child Left Behind Act that seriously forced the so-called liberal teachers to stop ignoring the ethnic kids sitting in the back of the room. As much as the liberal teacher’s union wanted to criticize the Bush Administration, once the Democrats got control of Congress, the migrant and bilingual educators rushed to Washington, D.C., to plead with the Democrats NOT to undo the positive aspects of the Republicans’ education reform.

Before the Bush reforms, researchers were able to show that despite BILLIONS of dollars in federal education aid, there was NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE – I repeat: NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that any of it did any good. Graduation rates had not improved. National test scores had not improved. NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE.

All that money did not good – until Republican reforms demanded statistical evidence that federal funds were actually helping children achieve success. The biggest complaint by the liberals who control education in the U.S. was that the Republican rules set the standards too high. But student achievement did begin going up all over the country. Most schools are able to show some achievement – just not as much as new regulations demanded.

But under the Democrats who controlled Congress most of the 20th Century before the Republicans’ Contract with America in 1994, nothing got done except money spent and Democratic union supporters rewarded.

The ethnic kids, whose parents trusted the Democrats to help the poor and struggling students, were falling further and further behind.

But despite these failures, who are Hispanics and other ethnic groups looking to for help? The do-nothing-but-throw-money-at-problems Democrats! The party that tends to be anti-business, pro-tax, pro-abortion – the opposite of what Hispanics want as they settle in the U.S. – and who can’t even develop welfare and education programs in ways that help rather hurt their own claimed constituency.

A major reason the Republicans are losing the Hispanic vote is immigration reform and the “ship them all back” stance taken by many Republicans.

If you want to see the current Great Recession turn into another Great Depression, send all the hard-working Hispanics back. To even talk about sending the 15-20 million illegal Hispanics back makes no pragmatic sense.

It may be in line with Republicans’ pro law-and-order values, but it is really anti-business. I grew up the son of a struggling farmer. If hard-nose Republicans could have done want they want to do now, they would have put Dad and many other small farmers out of business.

Such Republicans want to refer to limited anecdotal evidence that some non-Hispanics would actually take jobs picking apples, cutting asparagus, hoeing weeds, and working in the agricultural packing plants for what the ag industry can afford to pay.

Farmers are probably 80 percent Republican, but if you asked them if they think they could replace illegal farm laborers with legal ones, I guarantee that over 90 percent would not only say “no,” they would laugh and declare “hell, no!”

The federal government estimates that in order to replace the retiring baby-boomers, not only should the U.S. NOT “send them all back” but should import nearly another million immigrants every year.

Many of those million should be the best and brightest. According to a senior vice president for Microsoft, the U.S. is losing thousands of jobs already for lack of enough employees educated in math, science and technology.

His company has imported employees from 144 different countries, but the lack of a trained workforce and the inability of Congress to pass immigration reform have forced Microsoft to open a plant in Vancouver, B.C., says Brad Smith, the company’s senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary.

“The reality is, we’re having to move jobs,” Smith says, “because this country is not producing enough engineers and the immigration laws are tightening.”

In talking to people throughout the computer industry it is clear, he says, that “many of our best jobs will leave this country” if the U.S. fails to prepare a new generation of people who have those skills or opens its doors to immigrants who do.

Improved technological skills are needed throughout the economy, says Smith. Today, even mechanics and construction managers need technology skills to succeed.

If Republicans are going to continue supporting free trade, the U.S. to find its niche in the world economy. Our niche will not longer be manufacturing. Those jobs will go to countries with cheaper labor.

America’s future must be to lead the world in education, research, and the information industry. To avoid losing our position as the world’s greatest nation, we MUST begin actively importing the best and brightest from all over the world because despite our ethnocentric self-deception that the best and brightest are all in American schools, Smith and other business executives have had to face the hard reality that it just isn’t so.

And which is the fastest-growing group in American students who have a chance to replace at least some of those retiring baby-boomers? The Hispanic kids. That’s why Bush’s education reform was so essential to ALL Americans. We need those kids to become productive adults – no matter what color or ethnicity they may be.

American children will increasingly have to compete for employment with the children in India, China and other parts of the world.

His is a company that has to “re-invent” itself every few years in order to survive. He notes that new products frequently “fail” and lose money for seven years before they achieve success. Like Microsoft, he says, the U.S. has to be willing to invest in its future.

“Change requires a commitment and requires a vision. If our kids aren’t worth it, nothing is. All of us need to stand up together for our kids and for our future,” Smith says.

Washington congressman promotes immigration reform
He’s a Democrat, but Republicans need to think real hard about what U.S. Rep. Adam Smith of Washington State has to say about immigration reform.

“I don’t agree with those out there who think America can’t compete. … I don’t believe that for a second,” he says. “We still have the best economic system the world has ever seen. The global economy is much more competitive than it used to be. So we have to be smarter about where we have a competitive advantage.”

While U.S. schools and colleges need to provide the skills people need to compete, he says that won’t be enough.

“We need to recognize the importance of immigration. What makes our country great and has made it great for so many years is that people from all over the world, representing all sorts of countries and all colors, ethnicities and religions want to come here. They love this place. They see this as the land of opportunity,” Smith says.

“Our entire country benefits from the energy, enthusiasm and work ethic that immigrants bring to this country,” he says. “They work hard and help make our society and our communities better places to live.

“People complain about illegal immigration, but we do not have enough immigration at this time,” Smith says. “If we allowed more of it and had an easier system to get into this country, we wouldn’t have as many undocumented problems as we do.

“The economic opportunity in this country, in contrast with the lack of economic opportunity in other countries, makes people want to come here. We have a lot of undocumented people now in this country, but we need to get it into our minds that, by and large, these people aren’t doing anything much different than citizens. They are students; they are workers. Some of them do bad things; a lot of them do good things. They are part of our community and part of our society,” he says.

Congressman Smith adds that one of the biggest problems in fixing the immigration law is the large and vociferous segment that has declared essentially that unless the U.S. gets every undocumented immigrant out of the country and doesn’t allow any more to come in, there can be no reform.

“To begin with, that’s impossible,” he says. “You simply can’t take 15 million people in the United States who you can’t identify and send them back anywhere. Also, it wouldn’t be good for us. It wouldn’t be good for anybody. A whole lot of those 15 million people are doing very vital, very important things in our community. So it would be bad for the rest of us if they left. We have to get that message through.”

In addition, the U.S. has essentially already invested billions of dollars in preparing the children of the undocumented immigrants to replace the baby-boomers.

“These children have lived in our society, gone to school and played with neighborhood children, and then after they’ve been educated and get out of high school, we tell them, ‘No, you can’t be part of our society. We aren’t going to let you go to college.’ That is not smart policy,” Smith says.
“That is a detriment to this country, not to mention a detriment to the children who worked so hard to get to the point where they could go to college.”

America’s successful history was due to the most hard-working, innovative, daring people of the world coming here. Yes, we have a lot of natural resources in the U.S., but our most valuable resources have always been our human resources – the Jamestown settlers, the Pilgrims, the Founding Father themselves, the pioneers, the risk-it-all gold diggers…

And our ability to attract the best and brightest has been more due to the magnificent system of freedom and opportunity our Founding Fathers gave us than our natural resources.

Republicans should be the Hispanics’ best friends – legitimately and sincerely. The fact that Hispanics will soon make up 25 percent of the American population makes it a smart move, but it’s the right move anyway.

At http://Virtual-Institute.us are stories about some of those Hispanic immigrants. Read and hear their stories and ask yourself if they shouldn’t be Republicans, if they’re not already.