By Richard Larsen

I’ve never been a great fan of the comedian George Carlin. His politics were dubious and his take on religion was an unmitigated attack on anyone of faith. That combined with more than his share of expletives made listening to an uncensored routine by him in his later years unbearable. Those objections aside, he did provide his share of laughs over the years.

Many from my generation will recall his role as the Hippy-Dippy Weatherman from routines on The Tonight Show. One of my favorite lines from that role was his weather forecast, “Tonight’s forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning.”

Always the master of new insights to the obvious, he brilliantly captured the illogic of human theory regarding some of the most elementary truths of life. One that he nailed precisely was the radical environmental movement, and he revealed the illogic of the movement in a fashion only he could.

Quoting from his routine, Carlin said, “Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature. It’s arrogant meddling. It’s what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn’t anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. They’re extinct. We didn’t kill them all. They just disappeared. That’s what nature does. We’re so self-important. Everybody is going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?

“I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are (bleep). The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. It’s been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little more than 200 years.

“Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the conceit to think that somehow we’re a threat, that somehow we’re going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us, been through all kinds of things worse than us, been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re going away.”

That’s the inimitable George Carlin putting into perspective the arrogance of man, while at the same time, trying to maintain that we’re all simply products of nature.

When you think about it, the ideologies are all wrong here. Those who are most adamant from a secular perspective that we all evolved from the primordial slime with a few proteins adapting to form our world and humankind are the ones who think we can control nature. While those of us who believe that we were created by God seem to be the ones mostly cognizant of the fact that we are part of nature and we’re not omniscient and omnipotent and can’t control it. What a perplexing dichotomy! You would think the ideologies would be swapped.

Now let’s apply the radical lunacy Carlin identified to a real-life scenario, and voila, we have the 2008 Democratic National Convention! Vowing to make the convention the “greenest” in history, they’ve struggled to find the necessary accoutrements to make the convention environmentally friendly and politically correct. To pull this off, the DNC hired an official “Director of Greening,” longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson.

They need the balloons to be biodegradable, as well as everything else used in the convention. Ms. Robinson hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every discarded coffee cup.

They’ve ruled out fried food, and every meal must include “at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and while.” They’ve also stipulated that 70% of the ingredients should be organic, or grown locally to cut down on shipping emissions.

I have a sneaky, uneasy feeling that this is what we can expect if these clowns ever completely run the country.

It’s really too bad Carlin graduated from mortality when he did: he could have had a lifetime of new comedy routines from just this one event!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

The comprehensive “Americans for American Energy Act” (AAEA) was introduced today by U.S. Rep. Bill Sali and the other members of the House Western Caucus. The measure would open ANWR and the OCS to increase production of American crude oil and give the right incentives to boost conservation, improved efficiency and bring alternative energy online sooner.

“This measure offers real, practical, doable solutions, things that will translate into lower fuel prices and a higher standard of living for Idahoans,” Sali said. “Regrettably, the Democrats’ solution is to distract everyone with bills that just reiterate current law. Specifically, their bill to reign in speculators just gives powers to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that the Federal Trade Commission already has. Also, the Democrat’s fixation on ‘use it or lose it’ is merely rhetoric as this is already the law. Neither of the two bills considered on the floor today will increase the supply of American crude oil.

“This is standard Washington, D.C. operating procedure: Debate an existing policy, pound the podium indignantly, make accusations and then do nothing. Idahoans and all Americans deserve more, which is what the Americans for American Energy Act is all about,” said Sali.

Under the AAEA, revenue generated by increased domestic production will be used to fund the innovation and development of our next generation of energy technologies and sources. It would require that the federal revenues derived from new production of oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, in ANWR and oil shale would fund efforts to boost conservation and efficiency. The monies would also be used to fund and incentivize the research and development of the clean, renewable energy technologies needed to address America’s current and future energy needs.

Sali also signed the Declaration of Energy Independence, which petitions Congress to declare our nation one that renounces allegiance to foreign oil and makes this commitment good through effective energy policies.

Additionally, during debate in the House of Representatives today, Sali related the story of one of his constituents as she works to pay for fuel.

“Mr. Speaker, this young lady who is a CNA last week took her husband’s bicycle and a few other items to a pawn shop to get $37 so she could put gas in her car to go to work at (a) nursing home to take care of my mother and my sister. This is having a horrendous impact on real live people. Mr. Speaker, it’s time for partisanship to be put aside and it’s time for Congress to get to the real answer which is increasing American production,” said Sali.

“The Majority announced today that we (will) head back to our districts for July 4th recess a day early. It is irresponsible that the Democrats are telling us to go home without offering our constituents real solutions to loosen the stranglehold gas prices have on their wallets,” the Congressman concluded.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Republican Members of the House Natural Resources Committee walked out during a hearing today to protest the Majority party’s efforts to lock-up and further restrict energy resources in America at a critical time while also undermining the form of government instituted by the Founding Fathers.

Congressman Sali, a Member of the Committee, released the following statement:

“Americans are paying, on average, $4.06 a gallon at the pump. Energy costs across the board continue to rise, whether fuel to drive, gas to heat homes or electricity. And yet today Democrats undermined our Constitutional form of government in an effort to lock up more American energy sources.

“By using an antiquated and unconstitutional statute, the Democrats tried to seize extraordinary power elevating a single committee above the rest of Congress including the full House, the Senate and the President. Our form of government contemplates checks and balances essential to the American system. I will not stand by the Chairman’s attempt to make law by a majority vote of a single committee in the House of Representatives.

“The Resolution today brought up by Chairman Rahall (D-WV) directs the Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, to immediately withdraw, for three years, more than one million acres of federal land in Arizona. That land contains the highest-grade known uranium deposits in America, potentially holding upwards of 10 to 20 percent of America’s uranium reserves. The Democrat Majority seeks to legislatively withdraw these lands, by a vote, not of the House, Senate and signing by the president, but by the vote of 20 members of the House of Representatives,” said Sali.

This type of ‘legislative veto’ is clearly unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court case, INS v. Chadha.

Sali continued, “Nuclear energy is already a source of clean power and holds great promise in meeting America’s energy needs for the future. Uranium can be mined safely, and can be turned into a clean and abundant source of energy. We need all the energy we can get from all the sources we can access, including nuclear power. We should not be locking up American energy resources especially using a process based solely on legislative fiat.”

This was not the only bill opposing American energy development moved by the Democrats today. The committee also moved Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) H.R. 415, which designates Wild and Scenic Rivers status for a section of the Taunton River that flows through the middle of a highly developed area with a road, stop lights, street signs and all, literally on its banks. The measure would block a desperately needed gas pipeline in the New England area, which has some of the nation’s highest energy costs.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Bill Sali today, again, insisted that Congress pass legislation to end the ban on American energy exploration and production, as a bill to impose new penalities on price gouging failed to collect enough votes to pass the House.

Sali voted against H.R. 6346, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.

The bill would impose civil and criminal penalties for sales of fuel that are determined to be “price gouging” during any period in which the President of the United States has declared an “energy emergency.” Under this legislation, liability is based on the determination that fuels have been sold at “unconscionably excessive” prices and that a seller is taking “unfair advantage of the circumstances related to an energy emergency to increase prices unreasonably.”

“This so-called ‘anti-price gouging’ legislation throws a stick in the spokes of free-market competition,” Sali said, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee. “Terms like ‘unconscionably excessive’ are so vague that no one can say what they mean today. That will force people into our courts to have them tell us what those words mean. Who wants that? This measure would ultimately mandate that certain private companies sell their products within a price-range that is acceptable to a handful of federal regulators during periods the President has declared an energy emergency. That’s not what Idahoans or Americans generally need or deserve.

“Today Idahoans are paying over $4 per gallon at the pump and yet the Majority insists on bringing legislation to the floor that will do nothing to ease the strain on our pocketbooks. Gas prices vary from region to region, state to state and even block to block, for a variety of reasons such as state and local tax variations, distance to the supply, supply disruptions and competition in local markets. Federally micromanaged interference in the free-market is not a realistic or effective way to lower the prices we are paying now.

“Instead of focusing on price controls, Congress must focus on the solution – increasing American supply. When supplies are increased, no one will be in a position to engage in price gouging. Increased American exploration and production of American crude oil and natural gas need to be a priority for Congress. I will be joining my colleagues in the Western Caucus in unveiling a comprehensive plan later this week that does just that,” concluded the Congressman.

H.R. 6346 needed a two-thirds vote to pass. It failed on a vote of 276-146.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Here we are on the verge of a possible recession (we haven’t had two quarters or even one quarter of negative GDP growth), and in the midst of an energy crisis with $135 oil, and what was Congress debating this week? A tax that will hit the economy from $1.7 to $4.8 trillion, and cost the average American family up to $3,726 per year! Such legislation will, if eventually passed, virtually ensure an ongoing recession by adversely affecting national GDP by 2 to 3% per year according to Time magazine, which inexplicably thinks it’s a good idea.

The Warner-Lieberman bill, the so-called cap and trade bill would have done that, and probably more. After all, when was the last time a government program cost projection was accurate? This bill, defeated by the Senate, was heralded by mainstream media, and certain politicians, as “bold national policy” designed to reduce carbon emissions and “contain climate change.” Yet even in the best-case scenario, the potential climatic impact would be a change in global average temperatures by about 1/100 of a degree between now and 2030. Who in their right mind would think that’s a cost-effective use of tax-payer money? Apparently a bunch of Federal legislators and many in the mainstream media fall into that inane category. It really makes me wonder what has happened to common sense in politics. It obviously is a rare commodity on Capital Hill and is declining as precipitously as Congressional approval numbers.

Cap and trade legislation forcibly lowers carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by placing limits, or caps, on companies that emit CO2, and affords a mechanism for them to trade or buy credits from companies that are under those limits. By creating such a mechanism, utilities and companies emitting less than the limit could sell credits to companies over the limit, which would have to buy the right to emit more CO2. The net affect on the environment is negligible, but the potential to drive energy related costs higher and higher is significant, according to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

MIT published a study earlier this year that estimated the cost of implementing such a system would cost $3,500 to the average American family of four by creating a massive tax on energy that is then passed on to consumers including a 44% increase in the cost of electricity. The NAM estimates the impact on the cost of gasoline would be as much as an additional $5.00 per gallon by 2030. That means if this bill was in effect now, gas would cost $9.00 per gallon.

Even if the CO2 emissions are reduced as predicted, based on the “science” of the proponents, the impact on the global environment is a decrease of 0.013 degrees of “prevented warming,” according to the National Center for Public Policy Research. Look at it this way, if you were buying a car, and the salesman said it may or may not run, and even if it did, it may not function the way it was designed to, would you dish out $3,500 for that car?

What makes much more sense is to do the same thing we did last year. Global temperatures dropped by 0.7 degree Celsius last year. That decline actually eradicates the increase of the past 100 years, according to all three monitoring agencies. So what did we do to achieve such a drop in global temperatures? Aside from individual conservation, we did nothing. Could it be that climate temperatures actually fluctuate regardless of mankind’s CO2 emissions?

The fundamental premise of this kind of legislation must be rejected. That premise seems to be that we can “save the planet” by reducing our carbon footprint. There is no underlying science that proves we can do so. Secondly, we must learn from the mistakes of Europe which has implemented cap and trade policies. The three years of Europe’s experiment has been a disaster both from an environmental perspective and economically, according to the UK Times.

Let’s consider a few facts. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas in the atmosphere that is measured in parts per million, or ppm. The vast majority of CO2 emissions, about 97 percent, comes from Mother Nature, including what we humans exhale.

CO2 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor holds that distinction. An astounding 99.9 percent of Earth’s greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. If measured on a football field, man-made CO2 would amount to less than a centimeter.

The Warner-Lieberman bill has been defeated but it was a dress rehearsal for another version next year, especially if Congress moves more to the left in the November elections. These efforts amount to draconian command-and-control attacks against our quality of life under the auspices of environmentalism. The underlying premises are flawed, and the recommended measures can virtually destroy the American economy. Unilateral disarmament was wrong militarily; and cap-and-trade legislation amounts to unilateral economic disarmament.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

History oftentimes is whitewashed through the lens polished by hindsight. People and events of any given time can seem inconsequential, but in retrospect, loom large in identifying causal events from a historical perspective.
The administration of JFK has been largely whitewashed as a “Camelot” presidency due in large part to its tragic premature termination. Some of that revisionist history is justified in light of subsequent events, but some is not.

The continuing flap over Senator Barak Obama’s assertion that he would be willing to meet unconditionally, yet with preparation, with any world leader, including those who seek to harm the United States, prompted one such opportunity for historical revisionism. The Senator defended his position, “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.” He went on to state, “When Kennedy met with Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war.”

Historically, this is incorrect. The tendency is to envision a handsome, youthful President Kennedy facing the enemy of freedom, the Premier of the Soviet Union. However, the historical reality is far different. Kennedy’s faceoff with Nikita Khrushchev in June of 1961 was disastrous and actually led to an escalation of the Cold War, the construction of the Berlin Wall, led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as an escalation of the Vietnam War.

Just months into his administration, President Kennedy wanted desperately to visit face to face with the Soviet Premier. In his inaugural address in January, 1961, he declared, “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” With that as his foreign affairs theme, he was convinced that he could approach the totalitarian leader in a way not done before, and that he could have success in bridging some of the ideological chasms separating the two because of his intellect and eloquence.

Most of Kennedy’s senior advisors counseled the President not to meet with Khrushchev. Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State, queried, “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?” George Kennan, Truman’s Ambassador to the Soviet Union, counseled Kennedy to not rush so quickly without qualifications into such a meeting. He argued that Khrushchev had ramped up his rhetoric against the U.S., appeared to be more aggressively confrontational, and that the current pressing issues between the two countries should be handled by diplomats through the State Department.

As Nathan Thrall and Jesse Wilkins recently wrote, “Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, and cautioned America against supporting ‘old, moribund, reactionary regimes.’ Khrushchev used the opportunity to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was ‘very unwise’ for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.”

The face-to-face with the Soviet Premier was an unmitigated disaster. Diplomats on both sides of the table offered the same assessment. One of Khrushchev’s aides recorded that Kennedy seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev himself said of the two-day meeting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak,” and returned to Moscow elated at his newfound elevated position of advantage, and extremely unimpressed at the naïveté and seeming impotence of the new President.

Kennedy’s self-appraisal was no less severe. He said of Khrushchev, “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.”

The consequences of this humiliating diplomatic effort could not have been foreseen. Just a few months later, Khrushchev ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall, and a few more months after that, authorized the shipping of nuclear missiles to Cuba to, as he phrased it, “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants.”

There can be no doubt that Kennedy’s weakness contributed significantly to Khrushchev’s perception that he could build the wall and install nuclear missiles off our Southern coast. As a result, Berlin was divided by a wall for nearly half a century and we were brought to the brink of a nuclear Armageddon in spite of Kennedy’s intelligence and articulation. It could therefore be argued that these events were precipitated because of Kennedy’s hubris and his self-perceived ability to persuade. To counter this weakness, Kennedy resolved that he wouldn’t get pushed around by the Soviets any more, and determined to make his stand in Southeast Asia. The rest is regrettable history.

A profound reminder to those who seek political office: “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

All Idahoans who care about the rule of law and the preservation of the cultural unity of the United States have valid reasons for concern as the Mexican government proceeds with its plan to open a Mexican consulate in the state capitol.

The first line in an Idaho Statesman story on the matter says quite frankly that “one of the services it will offer is identification for Mexican citizens living in the U.S., whether they’re in this country legally or not.”

In other words, the Statesman’s writer is acknowledging in the first line of the piece that the Mexican government is both indifferent to American immigration law and intends to use the consulate to help illegal aliens evade it.

The consulate will offer matricular consular identification cards, often used by illegal aliens to open bank accounts. Said a longtime advocate for immigrant labor, “It’s an identification card.”

The Mexican Embassy in Washington admitted that the cards, according to the Statesman, “are most helpful for documented and undocumented Mexican migrants who need bank accounts.”

Problematically, immigration officials refuse to accept the matricular consular as valid identification at the U.S. border, and the FBI and Justice Department alike, according to an FBI spokesman, “have concluded that these cards are not a reliable form of identification due to the nonexistent means of identifying the true identity of the cardholder.”

(For these reasons and others, the matricular consular cannot be used to secure an Idaho driver’s license.)

The spokesman added, “It’s also vulnerable to fraud. They’re vulnerable to forgery. Even the newest version can be easily replicated.”

At last word, there has been no response to Rep. Bill Sali’s letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking her office to delay granting permission to the Mexican government for the Boise consulate until security concerns can be addressed.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

by Richard Larsen

The state of Israel this past week celebrated its 60th birthday, one that it would not have been able to observe had it not been for the leadership and tenacity of one American president. President Harry Truman, going against nearly the entire Washington establishment, made the United States the first nation to grant official recognition of the State of Israel a scant 11 minutes after they declared their state official.

Israel is the only free country in a region that is dominated by monarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships that repress freedom, oppress women, limit educational opportunities, outlaw religious and racial tolerance, and sponsor terrorism against freedom-loving people. As such, the approximately 7 million citizens of Israel, including Jews and Arabs who live within the original borders, enjoy freedoms not available to the hundreds of millions living in neighboring Muslim dominated countries. They can express their opinions, criticize their government, publish opposition newspapers, and hold free un-coerced elections. It’s an affront to logic for Arab authorities in the region, who deny the most fundamental freedoms to their own people, to criticize Israel for violating Palestinians’ rights.

On May 14, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People’s Council gathered to declare their independence. In that document, they declared that the Land of Israel “was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance.

“After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

“Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country’s inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.” This right to gather in Israel “was recognized in the Balfour Declaration (1917), and reaffirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.” This right was reaffirmed in 1948 by the United Nations.

The declaration then states the principles upon which the nation would be established. “THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Since that time, Israel has struggled for its very existence, having fought military onslaughts in seven wars of self-defense against 22 hostile Arab dictatorships, and faced a determined terror-led attack that makes those against America pale in comparison. In the 18 month period following 9/11/01 alone, Israel suffered 12,480 terrorist attacks that killed more than 400; a per-capita death toll more than six times that of America’s 9/11 attacks.

It is with this historical backdrop that President Bush addressed the world at Israel’s celebration of independence this week, where he declared, “You’ve lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms. The Palestinian Authority has rejected your offer at hand, and trafficked with terrorists. You have a right to a normal life; you have a right to security.”

The President went on to say, “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Does anyone truly believe the bellicose leaders of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad, who all call for the eradication and annihilation of Israel, can be persuaded to change their minds?

Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the primary front lines of battle in the war against terrorism. Recognizing this, and the fact that Israel is a free and democratic country, and an ally in combating the evil of terrorism, we should always maintain a resolute determination to stand by them and assure their defense, and not believe naively that Israel’s enemies can be appeased into pacifism. After all, their enemies are ours as well.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

With the Pope’s visit last month we were treated not only to great wisdom and insights, but a civic lesson that too many Americans either never learned or have chosen to forget these days. The contrast of the Pope’s comments with frequently referenced ecclesiastical sermons from Chicago is stark, and speaks volumes of the character and values of both.

Speaking at the White House to the largest crowd ever assembled there, His Holiness set the tone for the rest of his comments by addressing President Bush, “I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country.”

Too many Americans fall into the secular trap of moral equivalence. They see all countries as essentially equal: countries have people, geography and boundaries, and they have their respective political challenges and characters on the political stage. Those are the commonalities, yet it is the principles and values upon which countries are founded that distinguish them from the others. And there is no other country founded on the uniquely individualistic precepts of the inherent greatness and divinity of man, who is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights.

The Holy See articulated this uniqueness, “From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

He then placed these principles which make America great and unique into historical context. “The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time, too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideas and aspirations.

“As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more human and free society. Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, and sacrifice for the common good.

“Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling and to hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”

Insightfully, the Pope placed a challenge before all American Catholics. He expressed his desire that his visit would “strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.” I think that challenge can be equally applied to all of us, whether Catholic or not.

This vision of faith in America is far removed from the notion that we cling to our religion because we’re bitter and angry. Our nations’ religions are not crutches, but rather constitute the pillars of our nations’ strength and the fount of our nations’ values and soul. His articulation of America sounds like the true “audacity of hope,” not the hatred and bitterness spewed from the pulpit in Chicago.

These sentiments closely align with the observation of Keith Richburg, a black journalist with the Washington Post, who covered the wars in Africa for several years. He came to the conclusion that he was grateful that his ancestors came to this country as slaves, because it made it possible for him to be raised as an American and not an African. He recognized the greatness and goodness of America.

The Pope concluded his remarks, “My fervent prayer is that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America.” To which I can only add, “Amen.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Congressman Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bill Sali voted today for lower gas prices by promoting domestic oil production and energy independence.

The vote occurred during a House Natural Resource Committee hearing in which Sali supported an amendment that would have promoted development of American crude oil and allowed drilling on about 2,000 acres of “Section 1002″ lands in Alaska. The area was originally set aside for energy development by President Carter. The lands are near, but separate from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“Americans are paying, on average, $3.62 a gallon at the pump, and by early summer, we’re going to be at $4.00 per gallon. The time for Congress to act is far past due. My vote today for increasing American production reflects a commitment to my constituents to lower the price of their gas,” said Sali.

The amendment to H.R. 3094 offered by Congressman Young (R-AK) failed in committee by a vote of 18-12.

“This is Economics 101. We have higher demand than our crude oil supply can meet. That is why crude oil prices are at record levels. To lower the price at the pump and to break our addiction to foreign energy, we must increase production of American crude oil, not stifle it. Today the Democrats chose to stifle it by voting to continue the ban on development of this American oil source,” said Sali.

“More than 2 years ago, Nancy Pelosi claimed, ‘Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices…’ Unfortunately, the Democrats have apparently chosen to keep their plan a secret. Gas will likely be $4.00 per gallon soon. Unfortunately the Democrats continue to vote against efforts to increase supplies and relieve the gas prices.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.