American Democracy Project at UM-Flint : Blog

3rd Annual Civic Skills Conference

Kristi — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:57:17 +0000

On November 21^st 2008, approximately 100 people; community members, college students, faculty, staff, and students from local high schools, gathered for the 3^rd Annual Civic Skills Conference.

The day began at 7:45am with the Box City Project. Box City is a nationwide community-based education project created by the Center for Understanding the Built Environment. It teaches students, as well as adults, the importance of city planning and land use by allowing them to design and build their own city with cardboard boxes. There was an air of excitement and innovation in the Michigan Rooms that morning and each group shared a similar theme of how they wanted to “green” their community.

Box City concluded at 11:15am and everyone was invited to the North Bank Center for the Luncheon and Keynote Speakers, Ashley Atkinson, Director of Project Development and Urban Agriculture for The Greening of Detroit, and Flint’s own Erin Caudell, Outreach Program Coordinator for the Ruth Mott Foundation at Applewood.

At 12:45 the afternoon program began and the participants had 6 different sessions to choose from to hone their civic engagement skills. The options were:

· Making Your Case: Argument Construction 101, presented by Marcus Paroske;

· Taking Action: Personalized Politics and Social Change, presented by Dr. Heather Laube;

· Spreading the Word: The New Media, presented by Jonathan Jarosz, Assistant Director of University Outreach, and Christine Waters, American Democracy Project Faculty Fellow;

· Focus on Your Assets: Plug and Play Flint, presented by Gary Ashley, Joel Rash, and Mona Younis, University Outreach;

· Creative Collaboration: Multiple Organization Partnerships, presented by Erin Caudell and Franklin Pleasant, LINK Coordinator; and

· Layers of Local and Statewide Government, presented by David Lossing, University Government Relations Director.

At 2 pm, the High School students boarded their buses with their newly gained knowledge and those who remained had the option to attend another session as the first sessions were repeated and would conclude at 3pm.

The Civic Skills Conference is a great opportunity to refine one’s skills, learn what is new or cutting edge in the realm of civic engagement, and find out what others have been doing that has been successful. The slide show photos demonstrate that this was a great experience for all.

You Wanted Change? It’s Time To Help

Kristi — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:33:08 +0000

“In a nation of 300 million people with intricate, dizzying global connections and information networks, it is juvenile to think that ‘change’ that endures can come from one man, one administration or one coalition. It is naive — not earnest — to think that civic improvement is primarily ‘top down.’”

NPR.org, November 6, 2008 by Dick Meyer

If you’re not in the mood for earnest, this column is going to bug you: Fair warning.

Remember what John Kennedy said in his inaugural address in 1961: “My fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

I think this is a question Americans should be asking of themselves in the wake of Barack Obama’s victory. Let’s not wait until Obama puts the question in his own words when he’s sworn in on Jan. 20.

And, for the record, I would be writing the exact same column if John McCain had won.

If the political history of America for the past five years teaches anything, it is this: What voters give, voters taketh away. Often quickly. A mandate doesn’t come from an election; it is earned and built with governing and leadership in office. For all the glow of this moment, the path ahead is uncertain.

So we ask: Can Obama deliver? Are expectations too high? Who will be the chief of staff? Will he be able to balance the party’s left wing as well as its conservative Blue Dogs?

Why not ask — or at least ponder — what we can do to help? Let’s get out of citizen-as-victim mode and think of giving as well as taking.

I am not talking about joining the Peace Corps or the Marines, or volunteering to pay higher taxes.

I am talking about striving in our own professions and civic lives for what we ask — what we demand and expect — our elected leaders to deliver: more integrity, less phoniness and more consideration of the community.

I’ll volunteer my vocation as an example. Perhaps 95 percent of the American public thinks the news media are “part of the problem.” The other 5 percent work in news or don’t own televisions. Our craft is seen as tabloid, divisive, serially obsessive, and gluttonous for the trivial, argumentative, biased in sneaky ways and distorted. And the market seems to be saying to us, “Go away, we won’t pay!”

Is there a meaningful way for practitioners and leaders in journalism to “ask what you can do for your country”? After all, most news outfits are struggling just to survive. Doesn’t that justify doing whatever it takes to grab an extra buck? Doesn’t that justify MSNBC going liberal, CNN going with attitude and Fox going conservative?

These are all complicated equations, and I am simplifying. But all I am suggesting is that there are tough and unselfish questions that need to be asked in my field. Should we fight the rise of argutainment? Will we cover government with the same resources we threw at electioneering and horse-race politics? Are we using new technologies with integrity, or just looking to exploit them? I don’t know any of the answers. I do know that not asking the questions is wrong. I said this was going to be earnest.

You can go through this exercise with virtually any profession, any slice of the economy and culture.

The law: Will a Democratic regime friendly to trial lawyers, combined with colossal economic wrongdoing, lead to a destructive boom in litigation? Finance: Will society’s most well-compensated professionals find new ways to bottom-feed? Medicine: Will managed care continue to strangle common sense, caring care? Political parties: Will they reform themselves and the 23-month-long election process?

Parenting: Will parents be more careful rationing the time kids spend with gizmos and screens, and think more about manners, sportsmanship and reading? Being a citizen: Will we all think twice before posting angry epistles online, before complaining about politicians while being disengaged from our own smaller civic life, and before continuing to see the country as red/blue and divided — even though few people experience their communities that way?

In a nation of 300 million people with intricate, dizzying global connections and information networks, it is juvenile to think that “change” that endures can come from one man, one administration or one coalition. It is naive — not earnest — to think that civic improvement is primarily “top down.”

Margaret Thatcher once said, “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

I don’t quite agree, but her point is profound. Right now, despite the extraordinary economic conditions, the election of a new president should inspire us to ask small questions about big matters. Because it is the small stuff of people and families that do make and direct that big thing called society.

Sorry if that’s too corny for you.

A New Deal New Deal

Kristi — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:38:00 +0000

Now that the people have voted and we have a new President-Elect, let’s get down to business!

Time Magazine, Thursday, November 6^th, 2008

By Michael Grunwald

We’re all supposed to be keynesians now, so we should understand that government spending creates short-term economic stimulus, which is one reason the Bush-era bubble took so long to burst. But not all government spending is created equal. Obama needs to pump serious cash into the economy in a way that promotes his long-term priorities. That means billions for energy-efficient and climate-friendly infrastructure like wind turbines, solar panels and mass transit, but nothing for new sprawl roads that ravage nature and promote gas-guzzling. That means stronger levees and restored wetlands that will help protect New Orleans from the next storm, but no more traditional pork-barrel water projects that destroy wetlands and waste money. Mostly, it means revamping Washington’s dysfunctional method of selecting and funding infrastructure projects.

America’s infrastructure is broken, with more than 150,000 structurally deficient bridges, 3,500 unsafe dams and antiquated sewer systems that need an estimated $400 billion worth of improvements. That’s a big long-term problem for America’s economic competitiveness. But the Federal Government’s two basic approaches to infrastructure are broken too. The most notorious is known as “earmarking,” the stashing of pet projects into larger bills by members of Congress, and while Obama was correct to remind John McCain that earmarks are only 1% of the budget, they’re a lousy way to decide what gets built. An example: the $23 billion water-resources bill crammed with 900 projects for the already overloaded Army Corps of Engineers. These projects won’t be funded according to need, cost-effectiveness or relation to national priorities; they’ll be funded according to congressional clout. The same goes for the 6,300 earmarks — including Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” — stuffed into the $286 billion transportation bill.

Profligate as that sounds, earmarks made up less than 10% of the bill’s cost. The rest of the cash went to state transportation agencies to spend as they pleased — often on their own roads to nowhere, which is why the bill is usually called the “highway bill” in Washington. Most states consistently favor roads over mass transit, building new roads over repairing old ones and building those new roads in rural rather than metropolitan areas. That means more sprawl, more traffic, more smog, more foreign oil and more carbon emissions, but the feds don’t seem to care. In fact, the current archaic federal rules encourage all these biases; strict cost-benefit analyses are required for transit projects, but for highway projects, you can pretty much just roll out the asphalt.

To jump-start the economy, Obama needs to spread around hundreds of billions of dollars, and he’d be wise to start with the currently underfunded efforts to restore the Everglades, coastal Louisiana and the Great Lakes; to repair crumbling dams, dikes, sewer pipes and bridges; to promote high-speed rail, light rail and other transit systems besieged by skyrocketing demand; even to accelerate research into renewable energy and alternative fuels. But first he should repeal the old water and highway bills — two of the most popular pieces of legislation on pork-obsessed Capitol Hill — and demand a new approach. He can call it a New New Deal or a Green New Deal, but it needs to be a deal, not just a spending spree. How it would work is simple: the feds would supply cash but only to promote federal priorities. So funding decisions would be made by technocrats rather than congressional ribbon-cutters — like similarly hyperpolitical military-base-closing decisions — and strings would be attached.

To his credit, Obama has proposed a “national infrastructure bank” designed to depoliticize these decisions, but he has also proposed a $25 billion bailout for fiscally strapped states, which sounds like more of the same. In the Clinton era, welfare reformers successfully argued that federal aid is not a right and that recipients have responsibilities. Now the Bush era is ending with gigantic few-strings-attached handouts to banks and talk of new bailouts for automakers who won’t even be required to increase fuel efficiency. Obama needs to make it clear that while Big Government might be necessary right now, the era of Big Government that doesn’t insist on intelligent returns on its investment is over.

Michigan calls emergency meeting on GM-Chrysler talks

Kristi — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:55:23 +0000

As published in the Lansing State Journal

October 30, 2008

Staff and wire reports

The mayor of Michigan’s third-largest city says state officials have called an emergency meeting of local governments to discuss General Motors Corp.’s possible acquisition of Chrysler LLC.

Warren Mayor Jim Fouts said today the meeting will take place at Warren city hall Friday morning. He said the Michigan Economic Development Corp. contacted him Wednesday.

Officials from cities with Chrysler or GM facilities have been invited to discuss the impact if the automakers merge.

It was not clear if Lansing and Delta Township officials would be represented. The city and the township have four GM facilities between them — the Lansing Grand River and Lansing Delta Township assembly plants, Lansing Regional Stamping facility and the Lansing Service Parts Operation.

Fouts said today the short notice for the meeting leads him to believe an announcement could be coming soon.

Detroit-based and New York’s Cerberus Capital Management LP, which owns Chrysler, are in talks to combine the automakers in order to survive, but financing is one of the biggest obstacles.

GM has been lobbying in Washington for the federal government to put money into the deal.

Meanwhile, the governors of six states have sent a letter to federal officials asking they take “immediate action” to help the troubled domestic automakers.

In their letter, the governors of Michigan, Delaware, Kentucky, New York, Ohio and South Dakota remind Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the domestic automakers are “particularly challenged” in the down economy.

They warn that the financial well-being of other major industries and millions of American citizens are “at risk.”

In Downturn, Families Strain to Pay Tuition

Kristi — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:11:17 +0000

New York Times

October 17, 2008

By JONATHAN D. GLATER

In difficult dinner-table conversations, college students and their parents are revisiting how to pay tuition as personal finances weaken and lenders get tough.

Diana and Ronnie Jacobs, of Salem, Ind., thought their family had a workable plan for college for her twin sons, using a combination of savings, income, scholarship aid and a relatively modest amount of borrowing. Then her husband lost his job at Colgate-Palmolive.

“It just seems like it’s really hard, because it is,” Ms. Jacobs, an information technology specialist, said of her financial situation. “I have two kids in college and I want to say ‘come home,’ but at the same time I want to provide them with a good education.”

The Jacobs family may be a harbinger of what is to come. Ms. Jacobs pressed the schools’ financial offices for several thousand dollars more for each son’s final year of college, and each son increased his borrowing to the maximum amount through the federal loan program. So they at least will be able to finish at their respective colleges.

With the unemployment rate rising and a recession mentality gripping the country, financial aid administrators say they expect many more calls like the one from Ms. Jacobs. More families are applying for federal aid, and a recent survey found that an increasing portion of families expected to need student loans. College administrators worry that as fresh cracks appear in family finances, they will not have enough aid money to go around, given that their own endowment returns are disappointing, states are making cutbacks and fund-raising will become more difficult.

“We are looking ahead and trying to be prepared for what might be coming,” said Jon Riester, associate dean of financial assistance at Hanover College, a private institution with about 1,000 undergraduates, including Justin Keeton, one of Ms. Jacobs’s sons. “We’re looking internally at our own budgets to see what we may be able to do in terms of providing additional assistance to students under various situations.”

The concern is widespread, even though college officials say it’s too soon to quantify how many students will face a shortfall. Even at wealthy institutions, financial aid administrators have begun weighing contingency plans. “Part of the conversation that’s going on now in many institutions is, do we want to put a dollar figure on how much we are willing to extend ourselves,” said L. Katharine Harrington, dean of admission and financial aid at the University of Southern California.

Ms. Harrington said she opposed setting a limit on aid, but added that the university’s pockets were not bottomless. “If we start seeing massive layoffs,” she added, “we may be in for a real bumpy ride.”

The credit crisis has made it harder for students and their parents to borrow, even as their needs grow and their savings accounts dwindle. In plenty of cases, students who had been borrowing on their own have had to ask parents — and in some cases, other relatives and friends — to help cover tuition or to cosign loans, both aid officials and lenders say.

Officials at most four-year colleges say that they have not seen rampant problems so far, because students have found alternatives. The financing for the fall semester was mostly in place many months ago, before the severity of the credit crisis and the economic downturn became apparent.

Others wonder privately whether there will a rebellion by parents about paying so much for education if the country’s economic distress is prolonged. A survey of nearly 3,000 parents by Fidelity Investments released earlier this month found that 62 percent of parents planned to use student loans to help finance expenses, up from 53 percent last year.

Ms. Jacobs said that with a family income of more than $100,000 a year, they had been counting on some loans to help pay for college for her 21-year-old sons, Justin and Jacob Keeton. Tuition, room and board add up to just over $32,000 at Hanover College in Hanover, Ind., which Justin attends, and nearly $29,500 at Franklin College, in Franklin, Ind., which Jacob attends.

Then, in December, Colgate-Palmolive closed its Jeffersonville plant, where her husband worked.

“I said, ‘This year the loans are going to have to be in your name, I’m not going to be able to pick up as much as I have before,’ ” Ms. Jacobs recalled. “They said they would be willing to put the student loans in their names and continue on. We all came to that consensus, but I hate it because I hate for them to come out of school with $20,000 in student loans,” Ms. Jacobs added. “To me that is so much money.”

She also called the two colleges, and each contributed about $3,000 more in aid, she said.

Financial aid administrators have been scrambling in a rapidly changing market, as many companies have decided that student loans are just not profitable enough. Many student loan providers, citing reduced profit margins and greater difficulty selling loans, have stopped making federally guaranteed loans, private loans or both.

Federal loans account for about three-quarters of student borrowing, and the government has assured that money will flow uninterrupted by agreeing to buy those loans, even if fewer companies are in the business. Federal loan volume is likely to grow this year; the number of applications for federal aid so far this year has risen to 13.5 million, up nearly 10 percent from 12.3 million a year earlier.

Private lending, which helps families plug the gap between federal aid and the total cost of attendance, has been the fastest-growing segment over the last decade but has been undergoing rapid changes. Some of the biggest lenders, like Sallie Mae, have tightened their credit standards and raised their interest rates yet again in recent weeks. “The current financial markets provide no other choice,” Sallie Mae wrote to colleges last week. “When conditions improve, we hope to relax our underwriting criteria and serve more students.”

Tim Ranzetta, the founder of Student Lending Analytics, posted the lender’s letter on his blog, where he called it “extremely bad news for students.”

Michaela Rice, now a sophomore at Plymouth State University, is one of the students who had to redesign her borrowing after she learned in the spring that a student loan she had taken out with her father as cosigner would evaporate because the lender was getting out of that business. A financial aid specialist at Plymouth State, which has about 4,300 undergraduates in Plymouth, N.H., suggested the family switch to federal parent loans.

That led Ms. Rice to ask her mother, who is divorced from her father, to take on $17,000 in debt. The new loan, called a Parent Plus loan, has a more flexible repayment options and a fixed 8.5 percent interest rate. But it also puts her mother at risk if Ms. Rice does not earn enough as a teacher to cover repayments.

“We haven’t really sat down and talked about how am I going to pay for it,” said Ms. Rice, 19. “My senior year we’ll probably sit down.”The subject touched on other sensitive issues — in this case, the question of how Ms. Rice’s biological father might continue to help pay for her college education and what her stepfather’s role should be.

Ms. Rice’s mother, Judy Krahulec, remarried to an American Airlines pilot who already had children of his own, and she did not want to saddle him with debt for children who were not his. She and Ms. Rice hesitated over the parent loan.“If I sign papers, who am I really indebting? My husband,” Ms. Krahulec said. “That’s who I’m indebting. It’s not my loan, it’s his.”

“It would be in my mom’s name,” said Ms. Rice, who said she would repay her mother, “but it’s my stepdad’s money if anything went wrong.”

Still, she was lucky, because not all students’ parents qualify for Plus loans. To satisfy companies that make private loans, more students have had to find cosigners.

Kiara S. Holiday, a sophomore this year at High Point University in High Point, N.C., learned just weeks before classes were to start that her mother had not qualified for a Plus loan.

“It threw me for a loop,” said Ms. Holiday, who is 19. “Person after person, they just denied, like my mother, my aunts.”

Ms. Holiday said she investigated the options. But even taking advantage of larger maximum federal Stafford loan amounts available to students whose parents are denied Plus loans, she did not have enough to cover about $31,000 in tuition, room and board at High Point.

So she called her great-grandmother, an octogenarian in Boston. Ms. Holiday, who wants to go to medical school and become an immunologist in a laboratory, said that despite the poor economy, she was not worried about being able to pay her debts after graduation.

“I’m pretty sure something will work out for me,” Ms. Holiday said.

Constitution Day 2008 Wall of Expression

Kristi — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 15:40:06 +0000

Constitution Day 2008 invited students to express their thoughts about pressing issues of our time and this is the result divided by the question asked:

1.) After 9-11 the United States passed several laws that allowed the limited freedoms of individuals in order to protect the country from future terrorist attacks. (Including, but not limited to, phone tapping, unrestricted searches, etc.) Seven years later these laws are still in effect. Which is more important in 2008, National Security or Individual Rights?

Answer:

· You can’t win a game if no one follows the rules of the game.

· Individual Rights.

· Individual Rights because such a law can create Marshall Law which will allow people to harm and/or further oppress others.

· Individual Rights because we’ve been with National Security and it hasn’t done us much good.

· Individual Rights because I am a women.

· What’s more important is how many people and who are let into the U.S.A.

· I believe that at this point in our history, individual rights is more important, because the last time we jumped to National Security we ended up losing some Individual Rights.

· Individual Rights are more important. We should not give in to the fear that resulted from the attackers and because of it infringe Americans’ rights.

· I think that Individual Rights is more important than National Security.

· I think Individual Rights is more important right now because there hasn’t been a terrorist attack for a long time.

· Individual Rights are more important. We should not give in to violence.

· Individual Rights because we don’t have as much need for National Security.

· I believe Individual Rights is more important! As long as it’s not harming anyone, you’re fine.

· I believe 9-11 was an awful time for people.

· I believe Individual Rights are more important.

· Individual Rights are more important. We should not give in to villains.

· I believe that we can be secure while still offering Individual Rights to the people, unless they offer us reason to be critically suspicious of them.

· I believe in a smaller, centralized government with more freedoms for all.

· I think it is National Security!!

· I would say both. As Americans we shouldn’t have to choose just one.

· Individual Rights, people need to be protected by the government sometimes more than terrorists.

· They are both important. Which would be a greater good?

· I believe Individual Rights are more important. National Security matters, but there are limits to the rights that are given to people.

· I believe that we should have Individual Rights.

2.) The Constitution was written in the late 1700s. Over the years it has been amended to give additional rights to protect various groups of citizens. Currently, immigrants and same-sex couples have argued for Constitutional protection. Should the Constitution be amended to protect these new groups?

Answer:

· I believe people should have equal opportunity.

· I believe all people should have equal opportunity.

· A living document should reflect the lives of those it affects. 1787 was a long time ago…

· Of course!

· OK Duh…we’re all citizens.

· I think it should be amended to protect its people. Denying rights to people allow for more oppression!

· I believe that the Constitution should not be amended. It may need to be revised but not amended. We need some kind of structure.

· Yes, they can have new groups.

· Yes, I do think so.

· I think the Constitution should be amended. We are all Americans and should have equal opportunities.

· I think the Constitution should be amended to offer an equal opportunity to every citizen.

· It depends, but you have to be fair.

· These groups aren’t “NEW”. Lesbian, Gay, Bi people and immigrants have been a part of our country and every country forever. Denying them rights because we’ve never considered them equal before is ridiculous, immoral, and against the Constitution.

· No, because there shouldn’t be same sex marriages in the first place, it should only be man and women.

· I agree^.

· These groups should be protected because they are just doing what they feel is right.

· Anyone who believes that a document crafted 225 years ago can accurately capture the needs of the present, are delusional.

· Yes, because it should protect all.

· Yes. With society constantly evolving, our Constitution and policies must be adapted accordingly to ensure equality in our increasingly diverse world.

· The Constitution should be amended to protect these groups. They are still American citizens.

· Yes, it should protect the new groups because this is the United States, so if you live here I believe you should be protected no matter your race, religion, sex, or choices.

· Yes, I do agree.

3.) Free speech is protected by the Constitution but hate speech is prohibited. Should comments made on the internet (chat rooms, facebook, MySpace) be protected or prohibited by the Constitution?

Answer:

· I think they should be protected and prohibited.

· I think they should be protected as long as they are not blatantly calling for an act of violence.

· They should be protected because you wouldn’t want someone to see your comments, messages, etc.

· I think it should because you’ll be protected.

· It should be protected.

· I think it should be protected because I don’t want anybody reading my stuff.

· I think it should be protected.

· I think that the comments should be protected. People should be able to say whatever they feel.

· No, hate speech should not be prohibited on the internet. It violates our rights to free speech. People don’t have a right not to be offended. The internet is for free exchange of views and opinions.

· I think hate speeches should be protected too. Even though people might not want to hear it, it’s still their right.

· I think that hate speeches should be protected too, because either good or bad we have freedom of speech, so I believe it’s only fair.

· Both should be protected. We can’t outlaw ways of thought just on the majority opinion.

· I think even though some words are extreme all the thought should be protected.

· I think that comments should be protected and people should be able to say what they want.

4.) Citizens today have a more global view of the world than the writers of the Constitution. The Constitution states that a person is eligible to run for President if s/he is a natural born citizen (born on U.S. soil). Should foreigners or naturalized citizens be allowed to run for PRESIDENT?

Answer:

· I believe foreigners should be able to run for president because America is a melting pot of cultures and everyone should have equal choices.

· No, because they don’t live here.

· Yes, because you should be able to if you’re a citizen.

· No, because the Constitution states the facts and it is how it should be.

· In my opinion, I think that they shouldn’t be allowed to run for president due to they are from overseas and across countries. The question is what do they know about the U.S. to be our president?

· Yes, they should be allowed as long as they understand the issues in the U.S. Maybe they can bring their worldly knowledge to an ethnocentric nation!

· They should be allowed. They know we have issues in the U.S.A.

· Yes, because they could make a good president.

· Yes, a U.S. citizen should.

· I think everybody should be able to vote.

· Yes, because maybe they are better.

· No, they shouldn’t be able to vote.

· Yes, because in Michigan it does not matter what color they are.

· Naturalized citizens should be allowed to become president. They are Americans whether or not they were born here. In my opinion YES they should be able.

What do you think?

Does “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Violate IRS Code 501(c)3?

Kristi — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:55:12 +0000

The following article is from the Alliance Defense Fund that includes information regarding the urging of pastors to violate their non-profit, tax-exempt status and advise their congragates on what their interpretation is about todays issues, how to vote on the issues and who to vote for. Does this throw the seperation of ‘church and state’ out the window?

September 9, 2008
You may be aware of a special project we’re undertaking here at the Alliance Defense Fund, culminating in an event on Sunday, September 28 called Pulpit Freedom Sunday. We are excited about this opportunity that will, God-willing, give us the opportunity to restore now missing aspects of the First Amendment to our nation’s spiritual leaders. It’s no surprise that not everyone agrees and we have recently come under attack.

Many Americans’ attitudes and actions toward slavery, child labor, civil rights, and even the American Revolution itself started in the pews of our nation’s churches. As pastors preached and taught Biblical principles related to those issues and evaluated the politicians who promoted or decried them, their parishioners could decide their own stance in light of Scripture. Starting in 1954, that most basic right was ripped away from our pulpits.

The U.S. Congress amended IRS Code 501(c)3 without debate or analysis to restrict the speech of non-profit tax exempt entities, including churches. So, for the last 54 years, out of fear of losing their tax-exempt status, our nation’s pastors and priests have largely remained silent. Rather than risk confrontation, pastors have often self-censored their speech, ignoring blatant immorality in government and too often pronouncing their aversion from speaking about public policy. Those pastors who have longed to be relevant to society, to preach the Gospel in a way that has meaning in modern America, have studiously ignored much that has gone on in every tumultuous election season lest they drew wrath from the IRS.

On Pulpit Freedom Sunday, pastors from 20 states will reclaim their constitutional right. From the pulpit, they will advise their congregation what scripture says about today’s issues apply those issues to the candidates standing for election just like their forefathers did for 150 years. This week, the Washington Post reported opposition to Pulpit Freedom Sunday spearheaded by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Those who oppose us publicly demand “separation of church and state” when it suits their agenda. They claim to defend “free speech,” when, actually, they want the government to monitor, censor, and control what happens in our churches and punish those whose speech violates their dark vision for America’s future.

At ADF, we do not welcome attacks but understand they will come as we humbly seek to do God’s will to defend these pastors who love God and want to serve Him. We expect complaints will be made to the IRS. We will pray and stand firm. We will represent these pastors should they come under fire and we will fight this battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. It is just that important. As theologian Dr. John Frame notes, initiatives of this type are part and parcel of our constitutional legal system:

“In some systems of law, including the United States, the only way to establish the unconstitutionality of a law is by means of a test case. Someone must break that law, undergo trial, and then use as a defense that the law is unconstitutional. Such test-case lawbreaking is not a violation of the overall system of law… but rather attempts to purify the system by eliminating inappropriate legislation.”

We will fight this battle because it is the right thing to do. Our pastors and priests should be able to use their knowledge of Scripture to advise us in all areas of life, even in politics. By God’s grace, we will win this battle, but we cannot do it alone. We need your prayers, your support and the Lord’s blessing and protection. John 15:5.

Where do they stand on the issues?

Kristi — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:24:39 +0000

By The Associated Press,

Associated Press writers Ann Sanner and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this story.

-A look at where Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain stand on a selection of issues as the national party conventions affirm their presidential nominations and launch the fall campaign:

ABORTION

McCain: Opposes abortion rights. Has voted for abortion restrictions permissible under Roe v. Wade, and now says he would seek to overturn that guarantee of abortion rights while being open to a running mate who supports abortion rights. Would not seek constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

Obama: Favors abortion rights.

AFGHANISTAN

McCain: Favors unspecified boost in U.S. forces.

Obama: Would add about 7,000 troops to the U.S. force of 36,000, bringing the reinforcements from Iraq. Has threatened unilateral attack on high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan as they become exposed, “if Pakistan cannot or will not act” against them.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

McCain: The co-author of McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, he plans to run his general campaign with public money and within its spending limits. He has urged Obama to do the same. He applied for federal matching funds for primaries but later turned them down so he could spend more than the limits. Federal Election Commission belatedly approved his decision to bypass the primary funds, but rejected McCain’s claim that he needed no such approval. McCain accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists.

Obama: The presidential campaign’s fundraising champion has brought in $390 million. He plans to raise private money for his general election, despite his proposal last year to accept public financing and its spending limits if the Republican nominee does, too. Obama refuses to accept money from federal lobbyists and has instructed the Democratic National Committee to do the same for its joint victory fund, an account that would benefit the nominee. Obama does accept money from state lobbyists and from family members of federal lobbyists.

CUBA

McCain: Ease restrictions on Cuba once U.S. is “confident that the transition to a free and open democracy is being made.”

Obama: Ease restrictions on family-related travel and on money Cuban-Americans want to send to their families in Cuba. Open to meeting new Cuban leader Raul Castro without preconditions. Ease trade embargo if Havana “begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change.”

DEATH PENALTY

McCain: Has supported expansion of the federal death penalty and limits on appeals.

Obama: Supports death penalty for crimes for which the “community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage.” As Illinois lawmaker, wrote bill mandating videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases and sought other changes in system that had produced wrongful convictions.

EDUCATION

McCain: Favors parental choice of schools, including vouchers for private schools when approved by local officials, and right of parents to choose home schooling. More money for community college education.

Obama: Encourage but not require universal pre-kindergarten programs, expand teacher-mentoring programs and reward teachers with higher pay not tied to standardized test scores, in $18 billion plan to be paid for in part by delaying elements of moon and Mars missions. Change No Child Left Behind law “so that we’re not just teaching to a test and crowding out programs like art and music.” Tax credit to pay up to $4,000 of college expenses for students who perform 100 hours of community service a year.

ENERGY

McCain: Favors increased offshore drilling and federal money to help build 45 nuclear power reactors by 2030. Opposes drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed suspending the 18-cent a gallon federal gasoline tax but idea got no traction. Global warming plan would increase energy costs.

Obama: Now would consider limited increase in offshore drilling. Opposes drilling in Arctic reserve. Proposes windfall-profits tax on largest oil companies to pay for energy rebate of up to $1,000. Opposed suspension of the gas tax. Open to tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for short-term relief from high energy costs. Global warming plan would increase energy costs.

GAY MARRIAGE

McCain: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Says same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal agreements for insurance and similar benefits, and states should decide about marriage.

Obama: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Supports civil unions, says states should decide about marriage.

GLOBAL WARMING

McCain: Broke with President Bush on global warming. Led Senate effort to cap greenhouse gas emissions; favors tougher fuel efficiency standards. Favors plan that would see greenhouse gas emissions cut by 60 percent by 2050.

Obama: Ten-year, $150 billion program to produce “climate friendly” energy supplies that he’d pay for with a carbon auction requiring businesses to bid competitively for the right to pollute and aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. Joined McCain in sponsoring earlier legislation that would set mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Supports tougher fuel-efficiency standards.

GUN CONTROL

McCain: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. “I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control.”

Obama: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

HEALTH CARE

McCain: $2,500 refundable tax credit for individuals, $5,000 for families, to make health insurance more affordable. No mandate for universal coverage. In gaining the tax credit, workers could not deduct the portion of their workplace health insurance paid by their employers.

Obama: Mandatory coverage for children, no mandate for adults. Aim for universal coverage by requiring employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering coverage similar to that in plan for federal employees. Says package would cost up to $65 billion a year after unspecified savings from making system more efficient. Raise taxes on wealthier families to pay the cost.

HOUSING

McCain: Open to helping homeowners facing foreclosure if they are “legitimate borrowers” and not speculators.

Obama: Tax credit covering 10 percent of annual mortgage-interest payments for “struggling homeowners,” scoring system for consumers to compare mortgages, a fund for mortgage-fraud victims, new penalties for mortgage fraud, aid to state and local governments stung by housing crisis, in $20 billion plan geared to “responsible homeowners.”

IMMIGRATION

McCain: Sponsored 2006 bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., work and apply to become legal residents after learning English, paying fines and back taxes and clearing a background check. Now says he would secure the border first. Supports border fence.

Obama: Voted for 2006 bill offering legal status to illegal immigrants subject to conditions, including English proficiency and payment of back taxes and fines. Voted for border fence.

IRAN

McCain: Favors tougher sanctions, opposes direct high-level talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama: Initially said he would meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions, now says he’s not sure “Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now.” But says direct diplomacy with Iranian leaders would give U.S. more credibility to press for tougher international sanctions. Says he would intensify diplomatic pressure on Tehran before Israel feels the need to take unilateral military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

IRAQ

McCain: Opposes scheduling a troop withdrawal, saying latest strategy is succeeding. Supported decision to go to war, but was early critic of the manner in which administration prosecuted it. Was key backer of the troop increase. Willing to have permanent U.S. peacekeeping forces in Iraq.

Obama: Spoke against war at start, opposed troop increase. Voted against one major military spending bill in May 2007; otherwise voted in favor of money to support the war. Says his plan would complete withdrawal of combat troops in 16 months. Initially had said a timetable for completing withdrawal would be irresponsible without knowing what facts he’d face in office.

SOCIAL SECURITY

McCain: “Nothing’s off the table” when it comes to saving Social Security.

Obama: Would raise payroll tax on wealthiest by applying it to portion of income over $250,000. Now, payroll tax is applied to income up to $102,000. Rules out raising the retirement age for benefits.

STEM CELL RESEARCH

McCain: Supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.

Obama: Supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.

Taxes

McCain: Pledged not to raise taxes, then equivocated, saying nothing can be ruled out in negotiating compromises to keep Social Security solvent. Twice opposed Bush’s tax cuts, at first because he said they were tilted to the wealthiest and again because of the unknown costs of Iraq war. Now says those tax cuts, expiring in 2010, should be permanent. Proposes cutting corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Promises balance budget in first term, says that is unlikely in his first year.

Obama: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes. $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. Eliminate tax-filing requirement for older workers making under $50,000. A mortgage-interest credit could be used by lower-income homeowners who do not take the mortgage-interest deduction because they do not itemize their taxes.

TRADE

McCain: Free trade advocate.

Obama: Seek to reopen North American Free Trade Agreement to strengthen enforcement of labor and environmental standards. In 2004 Senate campaign, called for “enforcing existing trade agreements,” not amending them.

—

Associated Press writers Ann Sanner and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this story.

Where do the Presidential Candidates stand on the issues?

Kristi — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:47:23 +0000

The election is moving like a freight train toward November, we have finally learned who Barack Obama has chosen for a running mate; the Senator from Delaware: Joseph Biden as well as John McCain’s pick, Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. We thought the Olympics ended in Beijing and but news coverage was transformed from China to Denver for the DNC Convention and then to Minneapolis-St. Paul for the RNC Convention. Let the real games begin. With this said, as we try to sift though the talking points and the messages from both sides of the aisle, maybe we should examine for ourselves where the candidates stand on the issues they claim to know so much about. This link of provided to the Associated Press, look and compare for yourself: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/08issues/index.html?SITE=CAVIC