Not a good day for Georgia. Troy Davis may well have committed murder, but why would you intentionally execute someone where doubts and questions remain and persist? The Supreme Court rejected his latest efforts for a new trial. Yet another reason why we should get rid of the death penalty once and for all in every state. Illinois just did it. Killing prisoners accomplishes nothing positive. Death penalty cases cost the state more than 10 times that of a life without parole case. The death penalty has been shown to have little or no impact as a deterrent. Victims' families say that little healing occurs in their own souls once a perp has been executed. The death sentence is disproportionately applied against those who have the poorest defense lawyers. And we have to admits, after more than a hundred prisoners have been exonerated by DNA, we likely have actually executed persons wrongfully convicted. Life without parole, consistently applied, will work. We do not need the death penalty - it is cruel and unusual.

On air right now, and the midterm election has come and gone (sort of). Political analysts trumpet the sweeping change of more Republicans in Congress and a strong rebuke of President Obama's big government agenda. But I also remember the sweeping changes of the 2006 election (with the ascension of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker) and the 2008 election (with the clean sweep by the Democrats). Lots of folks felt hope and change then too. Political waves sure crest and crash fast and often. Maybe, just maybe, real change does not actually come from the government. Maybe, just maybe, true hope for humans lies someplace other than in Washington or in the state capitol. While I like to watch the elections (they are much fun after all), I routinely remind myself that my hope lies elsewhere and that change really begins in my own heart. More importantly, true hope and change come from above. From faith in a God who is larger than political aspirants and their agendas. A God who accomplished far more in 7 days than any human government could do in an eternity. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect... (1 Peter 3.15)

I certainly did not expect President Obama to be strong on defense. But I did expect him at least to be inspiring. Boy, was I wrong. President Obama appears to be breaking new ground in leadership. He has developed a style all his own: leadership by low expectations. Rather than inspiration, more often he takes the approach of de-spiration. Let's pretend that is a word, meaning to drain the very spirit and aspirations out of those listening to you and those you are ostensibly seeking to lead. Where most effective leaders inspire by setting high expectations with the understanding that people tend to live up to the expectations you have for them, our president has taken the opposite tack. Set the expectations low and watch the people live down to them. De-spire. The opposite of inspire. Just imagine if Coach Nick Saban told his Alabama players and booster base before the season, “We are going to lose some games. But we'll bounce back and be stronger. We can absorb those losses.” Saban would soon be looking for another job. Football fans and players want to be inspired, to win championships, not be told to expect six or seven wins. Instead, Saban will tell his fan base, “We intend to win a championship. Nothing else will satisfy us. We will take each game one at a time, but make no mistake, the trophy at the end is our goal.” That inspires. And players do best when they live up to high inspirational expectations. Does a goal of being average motivate you to get up at 5:00 am in the morning to lift weights during a long, hot summer? Or give your hard earned money to a football program? Not hardly. But that average 6-6 season appears to be Obama's benchmark for success, particularly when it comes to two key areas of American leadership right now: terrorism and economy. De-spiration is the opposite of inspiration. De-spiration removes the spirit. De-spiration is a first cousin of expiration. And a personal friend of desperation. Obama is sucking the very aspirations out of the people. Aspirations for bold resolve in national security. And aspirations for economic recovery and prosperity. Regarding our fight against terror, President Obama told Bob Woodward several months ago, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever ... we absorbed it and we are stronger." Good to know that terror attacks are good for us. After all, what's a few thousand dead civilians between friends? Sure, we will try to fight, but we need to learn to accept terror. In other words…Resignation rather than resolve. Feel de-spired yet? This week, Michael Leiter, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, echoed those sentiments of President Obama. At a conference on intelligence reform, Leiter shared these less than inspiring words: "We're not going to have a perfect batting average and it's important that Americans understand that...It's important that we approach this with national resilience that in fact shows that this country is not going to be defeated.. We do have to put the threat in perspective.” In other words, we are not going after a victory. Our goal is not to defeat radical Islam (if we deviate from Eric Holder and dare utter such a phrase) but merely to resign ourselves to the fact that attacks will come and we will do the best we can. Suck it up and get ready, and we’ll handle it the best we can. De-spiration, not inspiration, strikes again. Regarding economic recovery, President Obama occasionally reminds us that job creation is his first priority. Meanwhile, he continues on his long-winded approach of doing anything but inspiring confidence and optimism for American consumers and businessmen. Instead, he spends his time blaming Republicans, and incessantly selling and re-selling the merits of his health care reform. All the while having the audacity to compare his work to Lincoln’s freeing the slaves. Lincoln, a model of resolve, versus Obama, a model of resignation. De-spiration. How's that approach working out for Mr. Obama? Not so well. Alan Greenspan told us this week what we already knew, namely, that fear and anxiety are crippling any hope of economic recovery. Leaders and decision-makers simply have no confidence in their ability to anticipate what might come from Washington or the Obama administration next. As Greenspan said, “The instinctive reaction of businessmen and householders to uncertainty is to disengage from those activities that require confident predictions of how the future will unfold.” What does that mean? When business owners lack the ability to project the future with any confidence or clarity, they do not hire. The economic fear and anxiety continue to cascade over us by the day. The consumer confidence index hits its lowest point of the last six months, and Gallup reports that actual unemployment is more like 10.1%. Why? Because no one has any idea what government tax, mandate, or program is coming down the pike next. And when no one knows what the future might look like, they pull back and wait. And when you get one million business owners and decision-makers all pulling back and waiting at the same time, what do you get? Stagnation. Fear. Anxiety. Yet President Obama still fails to say a positive word about business or entrepreneurs or capitalism. Or even about the future. Hope has evaporated in his demeanor and language. De-spiration, anyone? Again, people live up to, or down to, the expectations you have for them. When times are tough, an effective leader reassures people of their innate greatness and of the brightness of the future. See Churchill, Winston. Or King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther. So here is the Allen Hunt Plan for President Obama and leadership. It is obscenely simple and straightforward. It simply requires a dash of hope and a little oratorical skill, the very traits everyone lauded Obama for in the first place. Did the president make some Faustian deal with the devil whereby he would trade in his oratory and hope the moment he entered the Oval Office? Here it is: for the next six months, begin every week with a short address telling Americans five things that are great about America and its people. Weave in a story of a great business risk-taker once in a while. Point out a bank that does good work. Pat a small business owner on the back. Every week. For six months. No more, no less. Then watch as Americans begin to believe in themselves again. After all, that is what good leaders do. Inspire. Remind their followers of who they are and who they can be regardless of what they must face. Resolve. A good leader is more than a teacher, continually instructing his followers on what they do not know. Rather, a good leader inspires and leads more than he/she instructs. And that is precisely Obama's problem. He is an instructor who doesn’t know how to inspire. And often a long-winded, laborious, condescending instructor at that. By extension, Obama's problem has now become America's problem. De-spiration is not a strategy. In fact, it is not even a word.

After a number of shows this week around Arizona, anchor babies, illegal immigration, the Snyder sisters from Serbia, and the vote on renting to illegals in Fremont, Nebraska, my inbox floweth over. Here are two of my favorites - one who agrees with me that open immigration is a path we need to explore and one of the many who think I am an idiot. Allen, I agree with regarding immigration --- Last night I was listening to you last night and I was thinking about my own parents. My Dad and Grandmother left germany in 1939, running away from Hitler. I don't know how they got into this country back in 1939- and no one asked how they did it . My Dad and his generation the greatest generation joined up 1943 and came back the Pacific in 1945. He had a family and brought a house, went to work everyday his kids went to college had families and careers and not one person asked for our papers. I started working at 14, my oldest son started working as a LAPD patrol person at 20, My daughter started working at 17. All together in our family we have 15 BA's and 25 Masters. We have members of our family fight in every war since 1943. We voted in every election since 1940 and we paid our taxes since 1940. and never did anyone ask about our papers. I don't know if my parents were legal or not. I just know it would have been rude to ask. Bruce Allen, I heard you for the first and last time last weekend talking about amnesty for illegal Mexicans. You haven't a clue! I live here in Arizona, 4th generation. My family came from Mexico, and did so simply by filling out papers. Why is that so hard? They certainly are able to fill out the papers to get free medical, and food stamps as well as cash assistance and housing. They don't pay taxes, and work for money under the table. Everyday you see the same thing, yesterday at Wal Mart the family ahead of me, husband, wife and child buy a basket full of new bedding items, sheets, pillows etc., total $149.00, and 2 boxes of cereal, they pay cash for everything pulling out quite a wad of money, then pay for the cereal with food stamps, then in the parking lot they get in their brand new truck. Everyday this is the story here and those illegal's I work with do the same and laugh about it. Two of them can't get their papers cause they committed crimes in Mexico, one guy I worked with was sent to prison her for dressing up as a cop to steal drugs from some other illegal aliens here, and yes we are paying for his lawyers to fight this. They cost Arizona billions, they slow up our education in our schools as we have the wonderful "no child left behind", so all the other children must pay the price. Plus we have special education classes just for them, which we tax payers pay for. Our sp1070 bill does not single out Mexicans , it's not Arizona's fault if 90% plus illegal aliens are Mexican's here, we didn't bring them here! Below are some facts you should educate yourself on. These people are rude, pushy and dirty. I am sick of seeing them just throw out diapers in our parking lots, they let their children rampage our stores, opening packages, taking things of the shelves and leaving them everywhere, stealing, gangs, drugs, kidnapping etc. Until you live here, you have no right to talk. Buffalo in Tucson

Self-righteous overreaction will get you nowhere. True leadership, on the other hand, will take you nearly anywhere you need to go. Jessica Colotl came to America when she was ten years old. She and her family immigrated here illegally from Mexico. Most of her years in America have been spent in Atlanta, where Jessica earned a 3.8 grade point average in high school and then enrolled at nearby Kennesaw State University. She worked at night to pay her bills. Until she was arrested in late March for a traffic violation that revealed her illegal status. Local police turned Jessica, 21, over to federal immigration officials. Deportation proceedings were initiated but stopped when Kennesaw State's president intervened, asking for a one-year reprieve for Jessica so she could finish her degree. Jessica also stands accused of lying on her arrest forms at the sheriff's office. Legal authorities say she provided a false address. That issue remains in dispute. What does not remain in dispute is the remarkable self-righteous overreactions that abound on all sides of the immigration debate now in full bloom. Self-righteous overreaction describes the stand of those who vehemently insist that Jessica must be deported immediately. They see Jessica as a poster child in their campaign for mass deportation. As if a policy of mass deportation of tens of millions of illegals were even logistically and economically feasible. What was Jessica supposed to do when her parents came here with hope, looking for a better future for their kids? Remain behind in Mexico? Turn 18 and then leave the education and nation she had spent the bulk of her life in? Oh, please. Jessica's self-righteous critics forget that they each won the birth lottery when they emerged on planet Earth from a womb in America rather than in the Sudan, North Korea, or Venezuela. Humans are humans, and most of us seek opportunity where we can find it. Americans, like me, are most blessed to have been born in the land of the free. I did not earn that. It just arrived on my birth certificate. Self-righteousness is very unbecoming. So a little grace and respect for human dignity never hurt anyone. Compassion is a virtue not a vice. No one disputes that the federal government has abdicated its primary responsibility for securing our borders and administering a sane, rational immigration policy. America's immigration policies are poorly defined and enforced. In fact, they are usually applied randomly and arbitrarily, even within the same state, depending on which local law enforcement official actually makes the call. When a leader of any organization fails to define goals and boundaries with clarity, confusion reigns. It is true in families and businesses, and it is certainly true in federal policy toward immigration. That is why Arizona took matters into its own hands. The federal government has failed to do its job, to define the boundaries and expectations, so border states have little choice but to try to institute sanity and order into a chaotic confused issue. Similar to the response to Jessica's circumstances, the self-righteousness overreaction to Arizona's efforts at immigration sanity abound. Attorney General, Eric Holder, criticizes the Arizona immigration law even though he admits he has never even read it. The bill is ten pages long. Perhaps Mr. Holder could read that over lunch one day when he emerges from the two-year star chamber of debating himself on how to handle enemy combatants. Really, make a decision, and then come back into the nation whose law and order depends on your leadership. Please. An Illinois school superintendent self-righteously and indignantly prohibits a varsity basketball team from playing in a tournament in Arizona saying he fears for the safety and security of the players given Arizona's new immigration law. So teenage girls will not get to play because a school bureaucrat objects to a law he likely has never read, and a law which essentially seeks to enforce the federal law that is already in place. Overreaction. What is needed in the micro cases like Jessica Colotl, and the macro cases like Arizona, is more cool-headed reasoning and less knee-jerk overheatedness. Healthy immigration provides the lifeline of America, always has and always will. Most immigrants understand and “get” our freedoms and opportunities better than anyone else. We need immigrants not merely for the gifts and skills they bring but also for the infusion of a renewed embracing of America's core values of freedom and opportunity. In the absence of meaningful federal immigration policy and its enforcement, local officials are forced to assess situations on a case-by-case basis. Jessica Colotl has done what any American would hope their child would do. Worked hard, excelled at school, and built the foundation for a solid life. She should be allowed to stay. As Atlanta debates the future of Jessica, and Arizona debates how to enforce its new law, the federal government would do well to step up and lead on the one issue that we need it to do so. Not health care. Not financial reforms. Not global warming. But immigration. Begin an earnest conversation now by first sealing and securing the borders. President Obama's strategy of reducing the numbers of border patrol members is a step in the wrong direction. Second, work to establish a path to citizenship for those here illegally who pass background checks and are willing to pay all back taxes and fines for any contributions evaded. Offer them a legitimate place at the back of the line for legal status here in America. Finally, set forth a cogent strategy for whom we will admit into this country and how we will do so in the future. Back that up with leadership and resources so that immigration becomes what it should be - our lifeline, rather than what it has become, our great volatile vulnerability. That requires leadership, not right and left rhetoric. And, unlike with most other issues, this answer can only come from Washington. If there is a leader still there who will stand and point the way out of the thicket and toward the horizon.

Barack Obama is not a Muslim. Can we all please just accept that fact? Perpetuating lies about anyone, especially a national figure, simply creates hysteria and does no one a good service, especially America. Telling the truth and disagreeing vigorously about policies seem like simple enough strategies, don't they? Yet, nearly one-third of Americans persist in believing this untruth about Obama's faith. For the past few years, Pew surveys have shown that 12% of Americans believed Obama was a Muslim. For some reason, according to a recent Harris poll, that number has now skyrocketed to about 33% of Americans. What is driving this obsession with misidentifying our president's faith life? Perhaps the persistence of the rumor, and its recent expansion in numbers of adherents, has something to do with the divisive first year of Obama's administration. Many Americans simply do not like President Obama at all. The reasons are many. His obsession with health care while neglecting economic leadership. A distaste for American business leadership and financial markets. An unwillingness to call terrorism what it is. Hand-wringing in the face of Afghanistan decisions. Perhaps there are just a lot of Americans who do not like President Obama, and this faith falsehood allows them to vent that dislike. Labeling Obama a Muslim feels viscerally good to many a voter. After all, many in the Muslim world would seek to destroy America. However, disliking President Obama, or disagreeing with his philosophies or leadership, does not make lie-fabrication acceptable. Calling him ineffective or misguided is one thing; misrepresenting the facts is another thing altogether. Perhaps the rumor finds life in the sporadic, shallow faith life that President Obama seems to exhibit. His church attendance equates to that of an A&P Catholic, “ashes and palms,” with his family actually attending worship at a church only about once each quarter in this past year. His prayer life, as he has remarked, consists largely of a daily devotional he receives on his Blackberry from Josh DuBois, who leads the newly-reorganized and directionless Faith-Based Initiatives Office. And the president's giving record is less than stellar, as evidenced by his average annual giving of less than 1% of his income to charitable causes in the five years leading up to his run for the nation's highest office. Once he was in the national spotlight, he stepped up his giving to a higher level, but still one well below that of previous presidents. Given that President Obama does not exhibit the regular habits of Christian believers, many seem to leap illogically to the conclusion that he therefore must be Muslim. For some, President Obama's faith obviously is a question mark. In the void of good information, the Muslim rumor slips in to fill the absence of sound data. Again, questioning or scrutinizing the depth of his Christian faith is one thing; but being a mediocre Christian is not the same thing as being a Muslim. Perhaps the growth in number of those who would label Obama a Muslim originates simply from the sound of his name. The man's name sounds Muslim; therefore, he must be one. For those who like to embrace this falsehood, a simple review of the five pillars of the Muslim faith will quickly reveal that the same anemic traits that Obama exhibits in his Christian faith practice would also call into question his place in Islam as well. Five pillars undergird the Islamic faith. First, a believer will make the basic faith profession, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.” We have no way of knowing whether Obama has ever made that profession. Second, a Muslim believer is expected to give alms to help those in need, with a normal goal of giving away at least 2.5% of one's income. Obama has consistently failed to meet that test until recently. Third, a devout Muslim is expected to stop and pray toward Mecca five times a day at regularly scheduled intervals. Unless that prayer can somehow be done on a Blackberry, President Obama fails to evidence that basic faith tenet. Fourth, a Muslim should make fasting a regular part of his life, particularly during the month of Ramadan. Evidence shows that Obama did not participate in that ritual practice in any recent year. Finally, a Muslim is expected to make at least one hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, in his lifetime. Like the first pillar, we have no way of knowing whether President Obama has ever fulfilled such a goal. In other words, the evidence for Barack Obama's alleged Muslim faith comes up lacking. To call him a Muslim may not be so much an insult to him as it is to practicing Muslims. Although there is immense distaste for his policies and world-view, the man is not a Muslim. And mindless name-calling does not advance any argument. It is far better to recognize what President Obama is rather than spew forth falsehoods to impugn his character. What President Obama is is Ted Kennedy without the alcohol and the womanizing. A classic American liberal. A politician with great confidence in the ability of government to solve problems. An American who believes business cannot be trusted but government can be. And an American whose Christian faith is inchoate, if not malformed. Telling the truth about President Obama matters because truth-telling reveals character. Failing to tell the truth, or to perpetuate rumors, says more about those who oppose him than it does about Mr. Obama himself. Fabrications and innuendo serve no one well. Especially free discourse in America.

When I heard the new J.D. Hayworth campaign radio ad for the first time, I felt like I had worms in my underwear. Whereas Hayworth's opponent, John McCain, usually stonewalls when asked about his faith, Hayworth instead shines forth with bravado in an ad that declares him “a good Christian,” whatever that may be. How did we land at a place in American public life where one's faith is either something to be avoided altogether or something to be wielded like a sword and shield? Neither approach is one of which we should be proud. On his rare attempts to articulate his faith, McCain sputters a few words about how faith sustained him for years in a POW camp, certainly an admirable thing, but that response leaves one to wonder about any role of faith in his life over the last month. Or at anytime in the past four decades. Faith as a relic. Hayworth, on the other hand, comes forth with a full frontal faith assault in an ad clearly designed to check all the formulaic boxes we voters have been trained to expect through the ubiquitous “voter guides” of groups like the Christian Coalition or the American Family Association. Faith as an exercise in placing planks in a political platform. Both McCain and Hayworth reduce faith and debase it. McCain reduces it to a relic socked away in the recesses of a memory. A lifeless, fossilized relic not to be examined or even given much credence. Hayworth reduces faith to a predictable, mathematical equation. Stake out five clear positions and call yourself “a good Christian.” In these reductions, we discover problems not just with John McCain and J.D. Hayworth, but also with America's inability to discern the proper role faith should play in one's life and in our public life together. If faith has played no role in his life since Vietnam, John McCain has a faith problem. Not as a politician but as a person. If his faith is not shaping his decisions, his leadership, and his world-view today, it is appropriate to ask what is. After declaring himself a “good Christian,” J.D. Hayworth checks all the “faith boxes” a conservative candidate would need in order to garner votes. For example, the ad begins by sharing J.D.'s initial faith decision. Evangelical street cred. Check. We learn J.D. met his wife at church. Good combo – female spouse met in a faith setting. And she is named Mary – perhaps an extra touch for Catholics like me! Institution of marriage. Check. The couple has suffered reproductive complications, so they have come to value the sanctity of human life. Check. The ad shares how Hayworth will defend God in the public square and in public schools. Prayer in schools. Check. Faith for Hayworth is not so much a touchstone for his soul but a simple and predictable political formula. A litmus test. While McCain may be reticent about his faith, Hayworth formulaically shouts his faith credentials as if one's faith consists of a series of grades on a report card. After all, Hayworth is a “good Christian,” a phrase that is defined in this ad as subscribing to the four political points above. One is left with the impression in the Arizona campaign that McCain's faith beverage is like the lightest of beers, so watered down as to be nearly tasteless and irrelevant. Hayworth's faith play reverberates like a shot of rye whiskey. It curls your nose hairs. On my nationally syndicated radio show, I have spoken often about how I like to know everything I can about a political candidate. Especially the source and touchstone of a candidate's moral compass. I evaluate candidates much as if I were hiring a key leader on my team. My goal is to know a candidate's world view, to understand his leadership style, to learn how she interacts in relationships. Most of all, for an elected official, I hope to learn how he or she makes decisions and the core values from which those decisions emerge. Finally, I aim to get a sense of a candidate's character, not so much contained in a few predictable political positions but in the compassion, generosity, and honesty demonstrated in real life. And a little dose of humility rather than bravado would not hurt. I would vastly prefer to hear about a candidate's moral compass. What core values shape who you are? What shapes how you lead? Whose lives have you impacted through your compassion and generosity? What examples can you give me about your decision-making process and how your faith informs that? Faith matters. My two decades as an evangelical Christian pastor afforded me the privilege of walking alongside mill workers, accountants, security guards, soccer moms, chief executives, and a handful of politicians. Rare was the politician whose faith life matched the depth of any of the other groups listed above. Perhaps that is the occupational hazard of politics where self-service can often be confused with public service. An encounter with the divine affects who you are, not merely what stance you might take. I understand full well that no political party will usher in the Kingdom of God, but when a candidate seeks to make decisions affecting me and society, I want to receive real insight into their soul and character. I also want to receive more than a predictable spoonful of items on a litmus test checklist. While I may agree with Hayworth on a number of the issues he checks off in his radio ad, and while I may appreciate McCain's steely will forged in Vietnam, the whole campaign experience leaves me with the unmistakable feeling of having worms in my underwear. That feeling may be interesting, but it is not helpful. Politicians can do better, and we Americans deserve it.

I surely am the biggest advocate of forgiveness that radio has ever experienced (not saying much, I know) But this guy stretches the bounds of even my grace standards. Could you forgive a guy (or vote for him) who had an affair with his mother-in-law while his wife was pregnant? Give the man credit for one thing - it takes real guts to run for public office knowing that everyone will learn about your story. Just not sure that I could bring myself to vote for someone who did this or even work for him if he were my boss. Eeewwwwww!

President Obama showed up at the National Prayer Breakfast. In fact, not only did the president show up, he got it right. Well, almost. In a week where the news cycle focused on economics, it is important not to miss Obama's seven wins and his one loss at the gathering of political leaders for a faith assembly. Of course, the president included praise and endorsement for his poorly-conceived Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. This government boondoggle was started by Bush and enlarged by Obama. Mingling government money and regulations with faith-based ministries only serves to rob faith-based organizations of control of their own destinies. Worse, it robs those groups of the very motive that started their mission effort to begin with. The government's telling a church that it can serve soup but must do so without explaining WHY it is serving soup means the hands no longer express the heart. They merely serve soup. Faith-based without faith is de-based. Nevertheless, President Obama struck seven powerful notes in his address at the National Prayer Breakfast. First, he overcame his Islamic fetish. In fact, he failed to mention Islam at all. That omission has to be a first for this president who always feels compelled to remind us that Islam is “one of the world's great religions” and that it has been “defiled by extremists.” Look at any address where he mentions religion, at his speech before the West Point cadets regarding Afghanistan policy, or at his faith-laden comments around Ramadan and Eid-al-Fitr, and you will hear his relentless political correctness regarding the wonders of Islam. Compare those regularly glowing remarks with his failure even to mention Jesus in his Christmas comments, and one has to wonder why he feels so embarrassed about Jesus and Christianity yet so enthusiastic about protecting the brand image of Islam. Political correctness at its worst. President Obama also got it right in his comments about the faith-based response to the disaster in Haiti. Obama rightly sounded the bell that it is faith-based teams who respond quickly and enthusiastically in the hour of the world's need. He praised Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews for their timely, compassionate and generous responses to the earthquake. He rightly omitted Islam since there appears to have been no Islamic mercy for the victims in Haiti. Good for him for not glossing over that absence. Third, the president invoked faith as an instrument to grow America forward in righteousness, equality, justice, and hope. He did this particularly well as he recited the faith of Lincoln to love his enemies in the faces of Confederate soldiers, the faith of Dr. King to love those who fire-bombed his home, and the faith of Wilberforce in England to be so motivated by faith that he overcame great opposition and derision to bring about the end of slavery in Britain. In these comments, Obama's warmth shone through in a way we have not seen since his speech on race from nearly two years ago. Most Christians differ vigorously with him on issues of the sanctity and dignity of human life. He has yet to make a case for why torture would be immoral while abortion is not. Nevertheless, in his remarks about Lincoln, King, and Wilberforce, Obama revealed glimpses of how much his faith has been shaped by his experience in the black Church in America where the heartbeat for civil rights and equality has resided. Our president best embraces faith when it focuses on the rights of those treated poorly by society. Occasionally, it is nice to hear that dimension of his own Christian faith, and it does serve as a reminder to many Christians in America that it was often the white Church who so virulently opposed the efforts to end slavery and provide equality for all citizens. In doing so, Obama also revealed some of his own much-maligned personal faith life. He remarked on his reliance on prayer in a warm and personal way rather than the more clinical descriptions he has provided in the past. And he spoke to the role of faith in giving him strength and hope to endure what surely has been a difficult year, much of which from his own poor choices about leadership priorities. For those who have been curious as to his family's reluctance to attend church, these words bring some assurance that the man has not abandoned the faith life that has been a part of his family for the past twenty years. Fifth, President Obama used faith as a helpful reminder to the attendees that all of us are created in the image of God. As such, civility in how we treat one another, even in vehement public policy disagreements, is a reflection of our morality and faith in the God who made us. Surprisingly, President Obama also spoke with humor and grace. These qualities have been largely AWOL in his leadership of late. He even injected levity into the gathering. “But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.” That comment drew both laughter and applause, a welcome contrast from the usual finger-pointing and blame-placing that we have grown accustomed to in political gatherings where more than one opinion is represented. Finally, he showed up. Maybe I should not be surprised, but I was. His presence surprised me, given his growing predilection for waxing cautious on all things faith-related, from the erection of a creche in the White House at Christmas, to his failing even to mention the name of Jesus in His Christmas remarks (I think Jesus had something to do with Christmas, but I'll get back to you on that). In matters of faith and morality, Obama usually seems tentative and careful, perhaps a reflection of his scars from the Jeremiah Wright ordeal. I think it is more likely, however, that Obama's own faith is still quite nascent, even, dare I say, embryonic. However, his willingness to address the prayer breakfast at all suggests that he continues to try to move down a road that unnerves him a bit. For that willingness, I applaud him. May his emerging faith grow to full maturity.

Over the weekend, I shared in this blog three of the moral problems the House health care bill as it stands now creates for America. On the show on Sunday night, I shared a fourth. One of those areas in which the end does not justify the immoral means of getting there is the fact that this bill still allows for federal funds to be used to pay for abortions through the Capps Amendment. In response, I received a number of emails. One in particular stood out for its utilitarian reasoning. I have posted my response to the author beneath it. Mr. Hunt, I have been listening to your views on abortion and I feel compelled to write. I am a 44 years old, married for 14 years, and have an 11 year old son. I was raised catholic and my son goes to a catholic school. There is no question in my mind that life begins at conception, but I think the crisis we now face is going to cause us to make some hard choices. Every child that is aborted means that my son will have a better chance of having a bright future. There will be no future for any of us unless we reduce the population. Please stop being so high and mighty and face reality. The times ahead are going to be rougher than most understand. Yours, M M, Thank you for listening to the show and for writing. I appreciate it very much. Obviously, you and I disagree. It is not a high and mighty horse. It is the basic conviction that each human life is worth as much as your son's is. Each of us is made in the image of God (which you evidently concur with). So what population would you like to begin thinning? Which ones exactly are the ones who are preventing your son's "bright future?" Moreover, where do you get the idea that we need to reduce the population? The entire population of the planet could fit in the state of Texas. Hardly a "crisis," and I would not want to be the one to tell God we just decided to thin out the herd based on what we wanted. Grace and Peace, Allen