Stop This Proposal

There’s another proposal from the Obama administration that hasn’t gotten much play in the media, but which I consider the death knell for Christian colleges, if it becomes reality.

The proposal is simply this: put the government in charge of all student loans for education. Rather than simply guaranteeing loans obtained through private banks, Obama wants the government itself to be the source for those loans.

Why is this a problem?

Well, the current situation is already a burden to private colleges and universities, with all its rules and regulations. I’ve argued for years that it’s like the nose of the camel in the tent. If the government guarantees loans, it might be able to dictate to those colleges what they should teach. That hasn’t happened yet, but if Obama gets his way, it will be much more likely.

If the majority of students attending my university, for example—an evangelical, Christian university—take loans directly from the government, it’s going to want to ensure that the money is being used in ways it prefers.

What’s the likelihood that the federal government, particularly under an administration such as this one, will look favorably on bold pronouncements of Christian faith in the classroom? Pressure will be put on those universities to moderate their beliefs, even to change them if they want their students to continue receiving the funding.

You believe abortion and homosexuality are sins? That’s inflammatory language; it shouldn’t be allowed in a government-funded institution. You believe faith in Christ is the only way to have a relationship with God? How narrow and bigoted of you!

Can you see the potential here?

The current setup is bad enough, which is why I’ve always argued that we shouldn’t take part in the guaranteed loan program. What looms on the horizon is significantly worse.

This is another Obama initiative that must be stopped.

Honoring the Government

Let me clarify something today. I can almost hear some readers of this blog thinking, “He criticizes the president and Congress so much that he can’t really have any respect for the government.”

The opposite is true.

I have the highest regard for the federal government. This comes from a reading of the Constitution, the debates over its ratification, and the character of many of those who helped bring it to pass. I believe the form of government set up by our Constitution is the best the world has seen, yet I also believe that it can work the way it’s supposed to work only if we maintain our Biblical principles.

Congress, in theory, is a wonderful institution. Initially, it allowed direct representation for the people and direct representation for all state governments. This provided balance and set up a federal system. When we changed how senators were elected, state governments lost all representation. That was a blow to the federalism essential for the Congress to function the way it was intended.

Further, as I stated in my last post, when individuals in Congress are allowed to set up their fiefdoms over which they rule imperiously, we have lost the character necessary for it to represent the people.

As for the presidency, the Constitution did not set up an all-powerful executive. It did give the president strong powers in certain areas, such as making him the commander in chief of the armed forces, but the president was not to be a monarch.

George Washington, I believe, had the proper attitude toward the office. He accepted it as a sacred trust, a responsibility thrust upon him by a people who had confidence in his leadership. Given a choice, he never would have taken the job; he would have preferred to stay at home and oversee his farms. Yet his country needed him to set the right precedents for the office.

As I tell my students, what we need today are people who don’t need to be president to have fulfilled lives. Far too many of those who aspire to the office see it as the apex of their existence. Many have been running for it [in their minds, at least] since they were teenagers. How many do so because they have the same attitude Washington had? How many do so because they simply want the authority that the office bestows? The latter are not the ones I want to entrust with that authority.

I know not everyone will agree with me that Abraham Lincoln also possessed Washington’s outlook. Yes, he was a politician who wanted the job. However, a closer look at his motives reveals a strong desire to use that office for good constitutionally. He had dropped out of politics until Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. That act, which opened a new area to slavery, incited Lincoln to reenter the fray.

As president, he bore a heavy burden. Those with Southern sympathies believe he was a tyrant. I must respectfully disagree. Although under tremendous pressure to change the nature of the country forever, he did no such thing. He merely took his job as commander in chief seriously as he tried to bring rebellious states under control. In the process, slavery disappeared. I used to be one of those who disliked Lincoln. Further study changed my mind.

We have had presidents since Lincoln who did their best to keep the nation operating constitutionally. Chief among those were Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan. Others had strong impulses for changing the government in a way that would destroy the original intent of the Founders: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have been the most prominent.

Why do I critique the current Congress and President Obama so much? It’s because I have a deep respect for the original intent of this government. It’s because I have a heartfelt desire to see us maintain our Biblical principles and build upon them.

When one sees the foundations of a once-great nation crumbling, one has a responsibility to speak up. To do otherwise would be to share in the blame when it finally is destroyed.

Pushing Toward Disaster

Are you as tired as I am of thinking about this whole healthcare issue? Obama refuses to give up. I would admire someone standing by principles this strongly if only those principles were real principles based on Biblical bases. Unfortunately, his are not.

The nice thing is that every poll says a majority of Americans either reject the Obama approach or have serious concerns about it. Of course, that’s been true for months.

How can he continue to demand something when most people say no? Well, perhaps his view of the American people is a little different.

Yet he presses on. He’s in campaign mode again (as if he’s ever left it). He’s pushing hard, making promises to Democrats who are on the fence (like nominating one’s brother to a judgeship).

He seems to think that his arguments are rock solid, and that there is no alternative. A couple weeks ago, we went through the healthcare pretend-summit. I said before it happened that it was just a show, and that Obama didn’t really care what Republicans had to offer. That viewpoint has been confirmed. Everyone else should just keep quiet now and allow his plans to materialize.

A relevant fact, though, is that a kind of mini-Obamacare has already been tried in Massachusetts. It is currently foundering. Why would we want to emulate it?

The problem: it won’t simply be Obamacare that wrecks on the shore; it will be 1/6 of the nation’s economy.

Needed: A New Strategy

Here’s something you might have missed if you watch only the mainstream media. A couple days ago, in Chicago, the so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright awarded himself (yes, you read that correctly), radical Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, and the disturbingly racist Louis Farrakhan “Living Legend” awards.

The only Chicago personality missing was Prof. William Ayers, another great American.

Now, the quiz: which American president is very connected with all these individuals?

What’s that? Not a tough enough question?

How about this one: which American president was recently caught on tape admitting his radical connections with ACORN?

Obviously, he’s going to need a new strategy.

The saddest possible commentary is that there are probably some people out there who will accept any explanation from this man.

Oh, Really?

There have been some interesting statements made by politicians in the past week. First was President Obama’s declaration that he is a believer in the free market. Either I’ve misunderstood him and all his actions throughout his entire life . . . or he was not exactly telling the truth.

I think I’ll opt for the latter explanation.

I was also amazed to hear Nancy Pelosi comment that she had common ground with the Tea Party movement. In fact, here are her exact words:

But you know we share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interests in Washington, D.C.. It has to stop. And many Tea Partiers — not that I speak for them — share the view, whether it’s — and Democrats, Republicans and independents share the view that the recent Supreme Court decision, which greatly empowers the special interest, is something that they oppose.

Someone needs to notify the Tea Party leaders—they have a new recruit.

And of course there was Charlie Rangel, chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that writes all the tax bills, claiming that he has done nothing wrong by accepting gifts from indivduals and companies that want favors from his committee. That investigation is ongoing because there’s a lot still to be uncovered [although his deception regarding his personal income and taxes he didn’t pay is pretty well established already]. The latest is that he has reluctantly, and quite belatedly, stepped down from his leadership position.

One cartoonist caught the spirit of these declarations rather well:

Second Thoughts, Anyone?

Life in the Obama universe hasn’t quite been what his admirers expected. We’re now more than one year into the “New Era” and the millennium hasn’t arrived. What to do? Well, how about reconnecting with reality?

What is the new reality we must now face?

That’s part of it. There’s also an attempt to force people into accepting something they don’t really want.

Looks pretty scary, but you know what’s even scarier?

If we can believe the polls, the president is in trouble. Now I know polls are fluid and people are flighty, but there’s a definite trend. Obama’s approval rating is below 50% in all the states he won in 2008 that had voted for Bush in 2004. That hardly inspires confidence in his political future. A lot of voters seem to be having second thoughts.

As I said, polls can be unreliable, but remorse may be setting in.

That’s the kind of explanation parents have given to their children for their foolish behavior in the 1960s when they experimented with drugs and “free” sex—an appropriate analogy for foolish behavior at the polls in 2008.