A WITNESS IN THE WORKS

"Aaron, are you even saved?", inquired a concerned pastor.

"Do you still believe in Christ? In his Resurrection? Do you still trust in him for your Salvation?"

I was on the brink, drifting so far to sea. I wondered if the current was too strong, if I would ever get back to land. 

Yet, when those questions were vaulted my way from a Pastor ready to hand down the sentence of Apostate, I was able to respond to him and to myself in the affirmative, only finally settling those questions a day or two prior. When I had given it a hard look and searched deep within, I had concluded that my Faith was indeed real. Funny though, it wasn’t what I thought would allow me to see my foundation. I wasn’t convinced by reasons and arguments. The Kalaam Cosmological Argument did not persuade, The moral argument didn’t steer me back to the right path, it was simply my life in Christ. The matter was settled by simply looking within. I have communed and experienced God in a profound way and that I could not deny. I know this won’t persuade anyone, it is not meant to, this little tidbit was for myself. It’s personal, intimate. 

But this is not the reason for this post. 

Maybe, he was frustrated with my quiet demeanor, my silent shrugging defensiveness, or maybe the Pastor was just holding up a mirror of words for me to see the state I was in, he continued his questioning… to my surprise. 

“Well, then what are you doing for the Lord? What good works can you point to, to show you are a Christian? I mean, James says even the Demons believe. What works are you doing?”

It hit me hard, like being whacked over the head with a scriptural sledge hammer. 

I’m sure I smirked.  Offered a little grin, even a slight huff to go on the side. I normally do when something strikes me. 

Meeting two days, in two weeks, something finally struck a chord, probably not the way the Pastor intended. I mean I knew I had been drifting for the past year or two, into the gray.  I knew there was nothing empathic I could point to for his assurance, or for mine. I could point to the distant past but nothing of recent value. In a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately worldview, I had fallen from the bandwagon.

Yet it wasn’t my failures of performing good works that left me pondering and maybe I’m not sure what hit me so profoundly. I mean, I had heard that type of questioning before, surely I had even given the speech once or twice. Maybe it was simply the irony of a reformed pastor now questioning my salvation based upon good works.

I suppose I realized just at that moment how important good works truly are in the Christian Life. As Protestants, I often think we like to slice and dice theology a bit too much, to dissect every fine point. Maybe we go too far. Heresy to suggest, I know. 

We proclaim loudly and with vigilance: Salvation is by faith alone!  Unless you’re on the threshold of apostasy, then we cry out something strangely different. By God, it’s faith alone with actions to show your faith alone. I know, I know of the perfectly dissected theology behind it. Justification comes by faith. Works do not save us, they bear witness on whether we are actually saved, as part of the sanctification process. Maybe when scrutinized this is indeed God’s process, but from a human standpoint, it’s awkward. 

On a side note: it’s funny, the only time scripture speaks of Faith Alone is to say that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). 

But then something happens, we see those around us falling by the wayside or turning their back altogether. What do we do with those people who are living in sin, others who leave the faith and deny Christ? Where do they fit into our paradigm? Our best response is that they were never saved. They pretended to be saved. 

Maybe that’s true of some. Most. But they were all pretenders?  

On the other hand there’s the camp that says they’re backslidden, but Christ will bring them back. Even if they live out the rest of their days in a life of rebellion.  Who, like me, have nothing to show for it, will in the end be saved, because at some point they stood up at a crusade.

Sure. Possibly. I don’t know. 

I do like the little bit of what I have heard from Orthodoxy on the subject. To ask them if they are saved is asking the wrong question. As I understand Orthodoxy, it would probably be more proper to ask are you being saved. They are working out their salvation with fear and trembling. Faith and works. There seems to be a fuzziness between  justification and sanctification, a blurring of the clearly dissected protestant lines. 

Sounds strange at first. But what I like is this: in the blurring it becomes clear that I don’t know. I’m not quite sure how God works. I mean I know about justification, sanctification, and glorification, but how God is dealing with me or anyone else in a personal spiritual realm, well I can’t give you a point by point breakdown.

On the other hand, from a human perspective, I can tell you our life is not about a one time commitment, but a life communing with the true and living God. Salvation is played out in a life with Christ, a life in Christ. For the Reformed we call it perseverance or a Lordship issue, for the Catholic and the non-denominational alike, it’s Abiding. It's separate ways of looking at the issue I suppose, from the outside looking in or from the inside looking out. The human perspective verses God's panorama.

For me, for now, the issue is not the theories or theological distinctive, but a life well lived.  At the end of the day, at the end of my life I desire what I think all christians do... to hear the words from the lips of our Lord, "Well Done, good and faithful servant."

Cartoons of the day

ABC (Anyone but Christians)

Besides, loving political cartoons, I also enjoy the ocassional forwarded emails. Here is one I recieved last night. I thought for sure this was another one in a long list of hoaxes being spread around, the kind to rile up the christian community, but alas! I was wrong. I checked Snopes. com this morning and found this exchange did take place, though it didn't come from the programming department. Here is the explanation from Snopes

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/practice.asp

Jim  Neugent

 A  Coach In Childress , Texas

Writes  To ABC Network
Jim  Writes:

My  name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a  program called 'THE PRACTICE.' In last nights episode, one  of the lawyer's mothers decided she is gay and wanted her  son to go to court and help her get a marriage license so  she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter  to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I  did get one.

My  original message was:

ABC is obsessed with the subject  of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your  attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. '  THE PRACTICE' can be a fairly good show, but last night's  program was so typical of your agenda. You picked the  'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea  of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner  because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls  people like me a 'gay basher.'

Read the first chapter of Romans  (that's in the Bible); and see what the apostle Paul had to  say about it...... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers'.  What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is  that an alternative life style? (By the way, the Bible  speaks against that, too.)
--Jim Neugent

Here  is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:

How  about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a  book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds  of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what  our nation is built on), where it says 'All Men are Created  equal,' and try treating them that way for a change!

Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop  using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for  your existence. You are in the minority in this country, and  your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of  statement.

Jim Neugent's second response to  ABC:


Thanks for your reply. From  your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I will share it  with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the   Arkansas Democrat  Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I will  be praying for you.

- -Jim Neugent- - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note: Wouldn't  Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible for a  crutch?
Please resend this to everyone in your mailbox.

Jim  Neugent


I  wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people  would eventually read this e-mail!

Please,  if you are a Christian, pass this on to others so they may  be aware.

WE  NEED TO SAVE WHAT WE HAVE LEFT OF THIS  COUNTRY!

Obama and the Military Pt. 2

Military Equipment

Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan

Well, chalk up another victory for the Obama administration. Obama through threat of Veto was able to scratch the purchase of seven new F-22 planes that would have cost the taxpayers approximately 1.75 billion.  The f-22 is considered our most advanced fighter, but it has never been used in an actual war. Many, like Obama consider this an outdated weapon. The thought is by cutting these unused planes we can pour more money into fighting insurgencies. 

Strangely, People like John Kerry, Christopher Dodd, and Joe Lieberman were all for purchasing more planes, while Obama’s arch-nemesis McCain actually supported Obama in this regard.

The only argument I have found against getting rid of the F-22 is that it will put more people out of work. This attitude is crazy! We should buy and build planes that will probably go unused and that the Pentagon says they don’t need just to keep jobs?

But just in case you really believe that the government should buy outdated planes just to keep people working, let me point out one thing; Lockheed, the main builder of the F-22 is not going to starve. Even while scraping 7 planes, the Pentagon plans on purchasing 2,400 F-35 warplanes.

Then again, somehow I feel that the wool is being pulled over my eyes. We are cutting out 7 planes and purchasing 2,400 more costly ones? Obama states he is getting rid “inexcusable waste” and yet we are buying 2,400 more planes???

It’s a wobbler, but I guess I’ll give it to him. Thanks for not purchasing needless planes.

 Better body armor is now being provided to our troops

In 2003-2004 there was an outcry from our military community against Bush and everyone else who sent our troops off to war without the proper gear. Mom’s had to go out and purchase Body armor for their sons / daughters at a whopping $600-700 a pop. It is probable that hundreds, maybe thousands of our brave might still be alive if they were supplied with proper body armor. Oh, and how the finger pointing went around. But for the death of so many soldiers, I give you President Bush, John Kerry, and everyone else in Senate and Congress who voted against the money to purchase the needed body armor, the high flying middle finger. This of course, included the scrawny, big-eared senator from Illinois. Obama was one of the 14 members who voted against the bill attempting to fund the Iraq war (part of the money went towards body armor).

But were not putting Obama the senator under the microscope, but Obama the president. As far as him being President, well most of the complaints have gone away and it looks like our troops are now issued body armor. Obama proposed a 534 billion dollar budget, a 4%  hike of Bush’s budget. Thus having 21 billion more dollars to spend on things like body armor.

Of course, on a personal basis while I am happy that the President is making sure our troops are being taken care of , I am still astounded that he throws money around we don’t have.  But I whole-heartedly admit that’s my personal catch-22 for the President.

The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010

After the last point, let’s just be honest with ourselves this is less about saving money and more about catering to Russia.

CNN reports,” Poles and Czechs worry that his decision signals a softening U.S. commitment to their security. Both countries saw the system as a way to tie themselves more closely to the United States and thereby deter an increasingly belligerent Russia," he said.

"Critics will also insist that the Poles and Czechs are right: He axed the Bush program in a foolish and doomed bid to 'reset' relations with Russia," he said. "Here Moscow isn't likely to be of much help to the White House. The Kremlin will claim a diplomatic victory and it won't offer any concessions in return."

Reaction from Poland and the Czech Republic was cautious, with leaders saying they were assured that the United States remained committed to a strong relationship and their security.”

Well, I suppose that’s only one side of the story. The critic’s side. The positive spin on this is that President Obama is overhauling the system based on information about Iran’s growing capability to build short and medium range missiles that could target Europe and Israel, rather than focusing on long range missiles that have not materialized and we have yet to come up with the technology to defend.

President Obama has shifted the focus of the program and yet resisted the pressure from Liberals within his own party. NY times quotes him saying, “President Bush was right that Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat,” Mr. Obama said. But he said the new assessment of the Iranian threat required a different system using existing technology. “This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program,” he said.”

This leads me to ponder the question, “Why did the author of the 90 emphasize his cutting back the program by 1.4 billion, but did not emphasize the seemingly right call by President Obama to restructure the program? Do Liberals see Obama’s not shutting down the program as a failure and all they could do was squeak out this measly little point? Why not divulge the full story as a Victory for Obama?

Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts

Yeah… maybe not so much.

It’s all over the internet (mainly Critical conservatives who love smearing Obama) that the President awarded a no-bid contract to one of his democratic donors. A deal worth 25 million, read the story here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/

Politifact.com has an article update from Jan 10^th 2010 title “No Sign of Action” that covers, I think pretty fairly why the President might have over reached on this issue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/30/end-no-bid-contracts-above-25000/

Military Action

Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

This really isn’t a change in direction.  The NY Times writes,

The plan will withdraw most of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq by the summer of next year, leaving 35,000 to 50,000 to train and advise Iraqi security forces, hunt terrorist cells and protect American civilian and military personnel. Those “transitional forces” will leave by 2011 in accordance with a strategic agreement negotiated by President George W. Bush before he left office.

“Let me say this as plainly as I can,” Mr. Obama said. “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

He added: “I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”

I’m just curious how Obama can take credit for sticking to the Bush plan. I mean I think we could say his accomplishment is better or worse if he left earlier or remained, but to continue on the very same course as Bush 43…well, doesn’t that mean liberals should chalk one up for Baby Bush?

Honestly, I will be very surprised if we don’t keep a base in Iraq. America loves to put military bases around the world. I just don’t see us completely pulling out.

Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job

Not much to say on this one I suppose… good job. I guess I’m just curious as to why this made the list. It seems like the author is grasping at items to place on the list, but that’s just a personal opinion.

US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast

Hmmm… it seems they are not having a lot of success in trying to stop the piracy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/world/africa/30piracy.html

I’m not sure if we should applaud Obama for trying to do something about the problem or we should place some of the blame on him for the failure.

Ashes to Ashes

I do love me some political cartoons! This one is from Michael Ramirez who use to contribute to the Los Angeles times. Ramirez is taking a jab at Biden's Catholic practice of joining in ash wednesday and his blatant contradiction of being pro-choice.

 '

Obama and the Military

Based on the very favorable 90 accomplishments of President Barak Obama, I am asking the question,how is he doing as a president? The author of the 90 has 16 points directed at what Obama has accomplished for the military, so I figured I would use this as the starting point. As I stated before, this is more subjective though I will do my best to be fair. You might have a difference of opinion and that’s all right with me. I’m open for discussion and to be persuaded. So let’s begin:

Our Fallen Soldiers

·      Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

·      Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information

·      Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family.

The first point is a change in policy that should be welcomed by all. It’s one that I think almost all of us can givie a nod of approval.  For that, I really do commend the Obama administration.

The other two are certainly a change in policy and a striking difference in philosophy between the two camps. But in my opinion it is not a better or worse type of change, for which I am sure I might be criticized greatly.

Obama changed the long-standing policy to allow more transparency. Critics will tell you that he did so for better photo opportunities; such as the first night he went to Dover to pay his respects with an entourage of paparazzi. They will say this is simply a propaganda tool and would point out that 17 of the 18 families declined the offer the night President Obama showed up.

On the flipside you have the Bush policy, which was actually enacted Bush Sr. and carried on by baby Bush. The policy was put in place after the media ran a shameful display placing a side-by-side view of the coffins of fallen soldiers arriving to Dover and video coverage of Bush Sr. giving a press conference.  Thus the Bush camp put the policy in place to protect the dignity of our fallen and give the families the respect by keeping it private. Critics have said this has little to do with dignity and respect , and more to do with Bush trying to cover up the war and not wanting the media to show the true cost of his self-motivated war.

I’m sure there are probably truths to both the proponents and critics cases. But for my own evaluation, I will just take both parties at face value. One wants transparency in our government, the other privacy for our fallen soldiers. I like both sides, so the change has a neutral effect for me. Though, I will give the Obama administration credit for not just reversing the policy, but allowing the decision to be left up to family members.

Our Veterans

Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals.

I admit I am a little baffled by this one. I am having a really hard time finding where Obama comes into play. Again it seems like the author is stretching the truth just a smidge.

While the decrepit conditions of the Walter Reed Medical Center was certainly a black eye on the Bush administration, it was actually Bush who righted the ship.

According to the NY Times, it was Bush 43 who appointed Dole and Shalala to lead the inquiry and make suggestions on Military Health Care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17vets.html

The groundbreaking ceremony began while Bush 43 was still holding office (though it’s not set to be completed until 2011), so how in the world can Obama claim this as his accomplishment. Is it because he is allowing the construction to continue? Here is the article  about Bush at the ground-breaking ceremony.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-03-2823116428_x.htm

Our Military Personnel

Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date.

This policy actually hit pretty close to home with me, since I work with a couple of soldiers who have actually been affected by this policy. One co-worker was recounting his story to me just the other day about how he was stuck in field for months even after his contract ran out.

For those of you that don’t know what the policy is, it basically prevents soldiers from “leaving military service on time if they were scheduled to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.”  Critics call it a back-door draft and it is highly unpopular with soldiers and their families.

However, the author of the 90 is lying to us all... just a tid-bit. While they hope to eliminate most the use of the stop-loss policy, MSNBC reports, “ Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, though, it may never be possible to completely get rid of the policy called "stop-loss," under which some 13,000 soldiers whose time is already up are still being forced to continue serving.” MSNBC also writes, “He said that he hoped any future use after 2011 would only be in "scores, not thousands."

Why 2011? We’ll that is when Obama has said we will be out of Iraq, thus leaving us with only one war which he is spearheading. At that time, he won’t need to keep the practice going, because he will have enough resources to fight in Afghanistan without holding soldiers.

This seems tacky. I mean who couldn’t make this claim. If Obama wanted to do the right thing, the noble thing, he would have put an immediate stop to this practice. Instead he claims he is ending the practice when the war is over. Who couldn’t make that claim?

Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel

Improved housing for military personnel

In 2009 Obama did purpose a pay increase for military personnel of 2.9 percent for the fiscal 2010 budget. So, I guess that a good thing, though one might argue that in this economy providing raises might not be the best thing.  Then again those same people would probably be for it if it was a conservative giving the proposal.

Of course not everyone is happy about the proposal, including House majority leader Steny Hoyer . But it’s not more spending he is upset about, he’s upset that the government isn’t spending more equally. The Washington Post writes, “But the proposal would give civilian employees a smaller pay raise than the 2.9 percent it would grant to uniformed military personnel. And it quickly ran into opposition on Capitol Hill, where House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said he would raise the issue with the Obama administration.

"While it's to be expected that during this time of shared sacrifice there will not likely be a federal employee adjustment equal to last year's level, we must continue to adhere to the long-standing bipartisan principle of pay parity," Hoyer said in a statement.”

This year, Obama proposed a much lower 1.4 pay increase for both federal Civilian and Military workers. It seems Hoyer and the Federal Workers Unions got through to the President on the Pay Parity issue.

One thing should be noted, according to the Washington Post, “The proposed military pay bump is the smallest bump since 1973.” This of course might sour the taste of the bold claim that Obama is increasing pay and benefits for military personnel. Why this might be technically true, it seems that this is done on a yearly basis. So how does Obama doing so make him special? Where is the big change? Except that he’s paying less and making it look like more.

Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses

The last point is from executive order Executive Order 13473.

Eligibility for this noncompetitive hiring authority falls into four major categories as follows: (1) a spouse of an U.S. armed forces service member serving on active duty (not for training) for more than 180 days, provided the spouse relocates to the member’s new permanent duty station; (2) a spouse of a military service member who is retired from active duty with a documented service-connected disability rating of 100 percent; (3) a spouse of a military service member who retired or was released or discharged from active duty and has a disability rating of 100 percent as documented by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or (4) a spouse of a military service member killed while on active duty.

Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about this order. In some ways it’s a very good act on the part of the President with very good intentions, on the other side I have this horrible gut reaction to it. It seems to me that in caring for our soldiers we might not be putting the best people in the correct jobs. Would we allow this to happen anywhere else? Imagine for a moment you’re going up a position as a schoolteacher, but you’re rejected because the job was awarded to someone who is married to a person working in the local law enforcement community. Somehow this just doesn’t sit right with me, but maybe I’m wrong or I’m not understanding this order in it’s entirety.

Well that was long, and we’ve only gotten through a couple of points. Maybe, I’ll pick up the pace with my next one.

Kogi (in my) truck

I thought my blog could use some color, so here are some pictures I took last week of my Kogi Tacos. Kellee surprised me with Clipper tickets. It was a great game, even though they lost. Prior to the game we went drove around LA and found where the Kogi truck was parked and had some scrumptious korean tacos. At first the pairing is a little weird, the first bite or two, but then the flavors blend together and there is a bursting forth of awesomeness.

It was pouring down rain that night, so we got our food and ran  back to the truck, thus the name of my blog.

Spicy Chicken

Pulled Pork 

The Obama 90

I made a statement on Facebook, that basically said I didn't think Obama has really changed anything during his term in office. Which in fact might be a little too bold, but what I really meant was that I didn't think he had made any significant changes that would qualify him as the President of "change". Nonetheless, an old liberal friend of mine posted this as a response, which I later found on Sodahead.com. 

Truth be told though, I really haven't followed Obama's presidency very carefully. In fact since the election, I've tried to limit my news intake to a very bare minimum. This being so, it's not really fair for me to applaud or criticize him. So, I take up the challenge my liberal friend has handed down. Over several blogs, I will go over the 90 accomplishments and give you my personal grade assessment. 

I must tell you from the outset, that I have conservative leanings, so I cannot in all honesty tell you that I will be objective (but, I don't think anyone truly can), especially when some of items on the list directly contradicts my personal values (ex. stem cell research). But I will do my best to be fair, and who knows I might surprise even me and find I like the guy.

It seems daunting to go point by point, especially if one wants to right more than a one line critique. So, I'll try to break them up into categories (e.g. Military, environment). Also, I'm going to try and steer clear of any of the ones that say President Obama "announced" or "intends" something along those lines, because those are not changes, at this point there just wishful thinking. 


Lastly, I might add a couple of my own points, since I'm not sure how outdated these accomplishments are at this point. For example, Gays in the Military issue is not on the list, as well as spending money for a nuclear reactor which was announced today and are central for us to decide how our President is succeeding or failing.


Without further ado, here is the 90 list. What do you think about it? 

1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women

4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information

7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family

8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act

9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible

10. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House

11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration

12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date

13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan

14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research

15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research

16. New federal funding for science and research labs

17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards

18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect

19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools

20. New funds for school construction

21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out

22. US Auto industry rescue plan

23. Housing rescue plan

24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan

25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying

26. US financial and banking rescue plan

27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed

28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards

29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops

30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010

31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols

32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic

33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions

34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office

35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job

36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast

37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles

38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales

39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government

40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children

41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program

42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones

43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions

44. Expanding vaccination programs

45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters

46. Closed offshore tax safe havens

47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals

48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back

49. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices

50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources

51. Lower drug costs for seniors

52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings

53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel

54. Improved housing for military personnel

55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses

56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals

57. Increasing student loans

58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program

59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy

60. Established a new cyber security office

61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.

62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts

63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness

64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient

65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced

66. Improving benefits for veterans

67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration

68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud

69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco

70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules

71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports

72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons

73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive

74. Making more loans available to small businesses

75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare

76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court

77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans

78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000

79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel

80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan

81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan

82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans

83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production

84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters

85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket

86. Held first Seder in White House

87. Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured

88. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform

89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform

90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform