A poor economy and out-of control gas prices

A poor economy, or the perception that the economy is poor, is usually a bad omen in American politics for the party in power. Andrew Jackson is perceived as a military hero and a champion of democracy, but his relentless attacks on the national bank sent this country into an economic panic that rivaled the Great Depression, only not on a worldwide scope. His successor and former Vice-President, Martin Van Buren, was easily defeated by the candidate of the new Whig Party, William Henry Harrison, because he was seen as an uncaring, fancified dandy who didn’t care for the lot of the common people. And, of course, the classic case is that of the Republicans who, after presiding over the “Roaring 20’s,” were cast from power by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 because Herbert Hoover was perceived to be unwilling to take any steps to involve the federal government in jobs creation, relief and other welfare programs, and social security. Conservative icon Ronald Reagan refused to accept that runaway inflation and skyrocketing interest rates were an inescapable fact of life, and although his economic program was mocked as “Reaganomics,” by lowering spending and cutting taxes, the US economy got back on its feet.

It should be apparent that economic trends are typically used by the party out of power to convince Americans to change direction. It also should be no surprise that in the state of Michigan, where the economy is (arguably) the worst in the nation, Republican candidates for governor (Dick DeVos) and US Senator (Mike Bouchard) are running on the premise that Granholm’s and Stabenow’s policies and records are causing Michigan’s economy to stagnate. Similarly, Democrats nationally are trying to convince the voting public that the economy is bad nationwide and that things will only get better when Democrats control congress.

The big problem with that whole scenario is that, unlike America of the Great Depression or of the Carter years, and unlike Michigan, whose unemployment rate really is 150% of that national rate, the American economy has been experiencing continuous growth, including jobs creation and nearly full employment (4.7% nationally). The single factor, however, that has fed the perception that the economy really isn’t as strong as all the leading indicators would show, is the out-of-control rise in gasoline prices. Aren’t you sick of paying $3.00 per gallon for gas? Then vote Democrat because “we have a plan” and “by the way, I invented the internet while my friend here was fighting in Vietnam.”

Oh-oh. Problems with this scenario. Gas prices are in precipitous decline. Some even predict that the price of a gallon of gas will fall as low as $1.15/gallon. Of course, some commentators accuse the big oil companies of manipulating prices to get their Republican buddies re-elected, and then they’re going to stick it to us again. Other commentators say that lower gas prices are horrible for the environment and for planet earth because we will never learn to use mass transit and go green if we get gas cheaply. Some are even surprised that, after a month of descending gas prices, that Americans haven’t run right out to the local Ford dealer and bought a new SUV so they can guzzle gas again.

Conspiracy theorists need to take off the tinfoil hats and face reality. We operate in a free market, where prices are determined by the law of supply and demand. In commodities like crude oil, the cost of a barrel is often set by speculators and futures traders, who buy delivery contracts at a high price when they suspect an interruption in the supply chain. That’s why occasionally we will see gas prices shoot up by 30 cents in one day. Maybe it was tension in the Middle East over Israel’s fight with Hezbollah, or the asinine president of Iran shooting his mouth off about threatening to wipe Israel off the map (sorry, the “Zionist entity”). At times, the threat and the reality of the destructive force of hurricanes (Katrina, Rita) which temporarily put oil refinery operations in the Gulf region on hold, threaten supply. This summer, BP had to shut down one of its Alaskan pipelines over deterioration and lack of proper maintenance, and prices went up on the basis of futures speculation. But now what do we see? Tensions in the Middle East recede. Despite every attempt by anti-American and freedom-hating jihadists and their allies in the media to prevent it, Iraq continues to march toward democracy. No hurricanes so far this season. And a new discovery of a huge oil deposit deep in the Gulf of Mexico offers hope that American domestic production of oil will increase by 50%. So all those futures traders who bought oil at a high price, counting on supply interruption, now must sell to get rid of their contracts, because there is MORE SUPPLY than DEMAND.

If this issue is of particular interest to you, or if you want to explore in greater detail the issues behind gas prices, here is a link to a Department of Energy site that will explain it all. Just remember that any politician who claims that they will be able to “lower gas prices” has only one real course of action—to remove taxes on gasoline as a temporary relief measure until the markets, and the law of supply and demand, self-correct.

The non-apology apology

I apologize for what I have done. I have sinned against heaven and against you and am not worthy to be called your son. God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

The Bible encourages us and reminds us to confess our sins. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. A true apology is one which sincerely admits wrongdoing and guilt on our part, and perhaps includes an expression of regret for the hurt we have caused the other person.

Politicians are good at what has become known as the non-apology apology. This is when someone’s words or actions cause offense, and the offended party demands an apology. The offender is not really sorry, but says something like “I’m so sorry that you were offended by my words. I certainly didn’t mean any harm by them. I regret that you were hurt by them.”

A classic example of this non-apology apology was issued by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) in the summer of 2005. Durbin had compared the US military responsible for guarding the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Nazis, Communists in charge of the gulag, or Pol Pot and his slaughter of Cambodians. When an apology was demanded, Durbin said, “I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: Our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support." In other words, I’m sorry that you were too stupid to understand my perfectly valid choice of historical parallel properly.

Another classic non-apology apology is when someone declares with the passive voice “Mistakes were made.” Not, “I made mistakes” or “I’m going to hold ___ accountable for his mistakes.” No personal guilt, no responsibility, no apology—no good.

Often a non-apology apology is an evasion, an attempt by an obviously guilty party to appear as if he is satisfying demands for an apology but in reality does not regret his choice of words at all. In this light, consider this weekend’s flap over Pope Benedict’s remarks, issued in the context of a scholarly presentation at the University of Regensburg on the need for tolerance and understanding among people of faith in different religious traditions.

The Pope, quoting a 14th-century Byzantine (Greek or Eastern Roman) Emperor, said the following: “The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war. He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

Can you guess what the reaction has been among the practitioners of the “religion of peace?” How about this one? Report: Rome tightens pope's security after fury over Islam remarks. Or how about killing a nun? Or bombing Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches in the Middle East (notably, not Catholic)? Or Somali’s leading cleric declaring that it is every Muslim’s duty to kill anyone who insults Islam and that means that the pope should be assassinated? Or the picture that caricaturizes the Pope with his mouth filled with blood, demanding his beheading, and declaring “Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross, hateful evil man, stoned Satan, may Allah curse him, blood-sucking vampire." Just check out Little Green Footballs and Michelle Malkin’s blog for even more reaction from all quarters of the Muslim world.

Today, Pope Benedict issued a non-apology apology. He said “At this time I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims."

What do you think? Does the Pope need to stop obfuscating and issue a real apology? Many Muslims aren’t buying it, and recognize a non-apology apology when they see one. Or should he declare that the vicious and violent reaction to the quotation prove the point, and that the real apology needs to come from another quarter, namely, from the violent and murderous jihadists?

The path to 9-11

ABC and its parent company Disney are broadcasting a two-part mini-series on Sunday and Monday evening entitled The Path to 9-11. It was primarily based on findings of the 911 commission, with certain gaps filled in with speculation and dramatic license. Will anyone really know, for example, what the terrorists said to one another as they boarded the planes? From the reviews I have read, the movie will emphasize who the true enemy of our nation was in the years 9-11, and point out governmental failures to take the possibility of such an attack seriously. In short, it reflects bias neither toward Clinton nor Bush, but does a service to our nation’s people by reminding us just how long these assassins have hated us and considered themselves at war with America, Israel, and the West.

The airing of the movie has sparked a huge controversy. 200,000 signatures have been collected on petitions gathered by the Democratic National Committee urging ABC not to air the miniseries. Bill Clinton, through his lawyer, wrote a four-page letter in which the former president accused the film’s producers of filling their tale with fabrications and lies. Not to be outdone, Senate Democratic leaders, including Michigan’s own Debbie “Now Bouchard can’t say I’m a do-nothing senator” Stabenow, sent a letter to ABC threatening to pull their broadcast license unless they cancelled the showing of the 9-11 docudrama. One observer puts it succinctly, “Democrats are showing more anger over a movie about 9-11 than they are about 9-11 itself.”

Liberals and progressives claim to be defenders of free speech. It certainly is within their constitutional right to circulate petitions and to express protests over the film; if ABC would cancel the movie, it would be within their rights to do so as well, if they determined that the market demanded it. But to essentially say, “If you show a film which we consider critical of a Democratic president, we are going to cancel your license,” is a clear abuse of governmental authority and a potential threat to free speech about which Americans ought to be vigilant.

Why are Democrats so adamantly opposed to “The Path to 9-11?” With congressional elections a few weeks away, they are clearly fearful that Americans will see through their “Bush lied, people died” chanting and their “Give peace a chance, end the Iraq war now” mantra as evidence that they are not to be entrusted with the defense of our nation.

Posting will update after film’s airing.

submit or die

Fox news journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig were recently released from their captivity. It seems that Fox was the only network that continued to have a team in Gaza after Israel withdrew not only its armed forces but also abandoned its settlements and forced their people to move to other locations. Centanni wanted to continue to “tell the story of the Palestinians” whom he praised as a very lovable people—right up until the time he was released and found safety within Israel’s borders.

Centanni and Wiig were also forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint as a condition of their freedom. At first glance, the conversion appears to be coerced rather than voluntary, and thus of obvious fraudulent value. But I have been watching and waiting for the newsmen to renounce their “conversion” and state their true beliefs. So far, interviews with them avoid the subject like the plague, preferring to talk about the kind and gentle treatment afforded by their captors, or the efforts of the brave Fox News production staff in compelling the Palestinians to procure the hostages’ release.

On the one hand, any sane person with a sense of self-preservation can understand and sympathize with Centanni and Wiig. Many western hostages have been coerced into reading a statement condemning the US or something similar, and everyone is fully aware that those are not the true sentiments of the prisoner. If they are not Christians, it hardly seems to be a big deal to them to say “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” in order to avoid beheading.

On the other hand, what if they are (were) Christians? Peter denied knowing Christ and it grieved his Lord and Savior. Yes, Peter was restored and called to apostleship, but suffered a martyr’s death rather than deny Jesus ever again. Because Jesus said “Whoever confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father in heaven, but whoever denies before men, him will I deny before my Father in heaven,” Christians have risked and suffered death rather than deny their faith. One church historian spoke of how “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church,” a commentary on the unexpected result of persecution. Christianity increased in numbers as people saw how brave souls went to death for their faith. Such persecution and martyrdom is not just a thing of the long-ago past. Consider this article from 2002, which reports that the 20th century saw the deaths of 65% of the total number of Christian numbers in all of recorded history. If Centanni and Wiig were Christians who renounced their faith and truly became Muslims, they are lost. If their conversion was phony, let them boldly say so. If it was the act of the frightened and the weak, may God have mercy even as he had on Peter and lead them to repentance. As Jesus himself prayed, “ Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

UPDATE: Read this column by Mark Steyn. In it, he makes the salient point that, although a gunpoint "conversion" may be "no big deal" to Americans, the jihadists view it as evidence that Westerners have no core convictions worthy dying for. Couple that with the propensity toward cutting and running from Iraq as displayed by the liberal side of America, and his case is well made.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. In a new tape released by Al Qaeda number 2 al-Zawahiri, Americans are extended the “invitation” to submit to Allah or suffer the consequences. Read the whole tale of how American Adam Yehiye Gadahn refers to Christianity as a

“hollow shell of a religion, whose followers cling to an empty faith and a false conviction in their own salvation."
"It is time for the unbelievers to discard these incoherent and illogical beliefs," he said. "We invite all Americans and other unbelievers to Islam, wherever they are."

Christians invite unbelievers to believe and trust in Jesus for salvation all the time. What is different about the invitation from Al-Qaeda? The difference is found in Mohammed’s directives to his forces:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

So there are the three options: Submit to Islam, become a tribute-paying dhimmi and agree that you will never publicly express your faith, or die. When Al-Qaeda “invites” America to submit to Allah, they are merely following the steps demanded by the prophet. Obviously free Americans are not going to give up our cherished freedoms in order to live in a Muslim theocracy. Therefore, according to the principles of jihad, there must be war. Read this whole article that demonstrates, from history, how this was exactly the approach taken by Muslims over against the Byzantine (Eastern Roman empire after 476) Christians and anyone else who would not submit. This has vital ramifications for the security of the civilized world. Islamic fascists, including those who currently rule the nation of Iran, are not interested in sitting down and making nice and singing Kum-ba-yah. Islam is a religion of “peace” only for those who submit to Allah, for the name of the religion itself means “submission.”

Michigan has a significant Arab population, particularly in the city of Dearborn. In this story from Sunday’s paper, many of the subjects complain how they are the targets of prejudice. I think I read the story pretty carefully, and I fail to see how anecdotal evidence of people muttering under their breath indicates widespread abridgment of civil liberties. It’s like somebody screaming “racism” because a passerby withheld eye contact. Moderate Muslims such as those described in the story ought to vocally and visibly condemn every act of murder perpetrated in the name of jihad. Rarely, if ever, does that occur. Apologists (defenders) for Muslim evil abound. Even this Saudi man convicted of sexually abusing his Indonesian housekeeper defended and exonerated his actions, saying that he was being persecuted for basic, traditional Muslim behaviors. How are non-Muslims able to recognize the “moderate, peaceful” person and differentiate from the jihadist? To me, if you defend or exonerate or justify evil, you are an accomplice to it.

Having said that, evangelical Christians ought to welcome the opportunity to witness our faith to Muslims. Yes, they are enemies of Christ. But so is each and every unbeliever up until the moment the Holy Spirit works in his heart and he is led to believe and accept Christ as Savior. But in order to reach them with the Gospel, we need to be open to building respectful relationships, even as a global war on terror rages. As a clever person once put it, “People don’t know care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

Welcome back to school. I’m looking forward to being your guide once again in this fantastic journey called “His-story!”