 |
In 1995, freshman Congressman Mark Sanford made a name for himself as a fiscal disciplinarian by sleeping in his office to save taxpayer money instead of setting up residence in Washington, D.C. His penny-pinching quirks included reports of having staffers use both sides of index cards and sharing sodas with colleagues.
Then there's Mark Sanford the undisciplined husband who had an affair with Argentine Maria Belen Chapur and sought out other sexual encounters with a "handful" of young women.
Of course the South Carolina Governor presents it differently to the press. He didn't "seek out" sexual encounters; they just sort of happened. According to this Associated Press article, they're referred to as "casual encounters" from trips with his buddies.
He said that during the encounters with other women he "let his guard down" with some physical contact but "didn't cross the sex line." He wouldn't go into detail.
Sanford said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur, on trips to "blow off steam" with male friends.
The whole "let his guard down" thing is just an attempt to salvage anything left of his dignity, to imply that sexual affairs were never his intentions. It seems, however, he never had his guard up. Take for example the way his "love story" began with Chapur:
He said he saw her two other times, including their first meeting in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay.
"There was some kind of connection from the very beginning," he told The Associated Press, though he said neither that meeting nor a 2004 coffee date in New York during the Republican National Convention were romantic.
Hmm. Going to an open-air dance spot and arranging coffee dates aren't exactly what I'd consider hedge-building. The likely truth is that Governor Sanford enjoys being sexually aroused by young women and puts himself in position for such encounters. One such encounter led to an adulterous relationship that may ruin his career.
Mark Sanford the politician is known for his passion to protect taxpayer money. He went to extremes to act it out in his career, often sacrificing his own personal comfort. Mark Sanford the husband should have shown the same passion for protecting his marriage.
Politicians love to spend money. And they love to confiscate it from those around them. It's a lovely cycle, one they love to ratchet up each year as they grow dissatisfied with the status quo.
Now these politicians are in a lovely pickle: The folks they've been shaking down are running low on money to give. And yet the spending continues.
And so, naturally and obviously, the politicians are finding themselves in a financial crisis.
What to do? Cut spending? Limit the growth of spending? Increase taxes? Print more pieces of paper with numbers and dollar signs on them?
Nah, they're adopting a solution they learned in middle school: They're scribbling IOUs.
Yup, politicians in the state of California haven't been able to figure out how to make their expenditures equal to their income. And so instead of paying their financial obligations with real money, they're handing out $3.36 billion this month in pretend money.
Cute.
The chairman of the state Budget Conference Committee explains how they've come to find themselves with a $24 billion deficit: "'Live within our means' doesn't mean anything."
Maybe I should be encouraged by this attitude. Maybe this particular politician has been pursuing God's wisdom by immersing herself in Ecclesiastes.
Or maybe these politicians are just financially inept.
Much less.
On current events related to the economy and foreign affairs, young adults ages 18-29 averaged 20 percentage points lower than older adults on a simple 12-question quiz.
Here's the summary from Pew:
As in the past, younger Americans (ages 18 to 34) are not as knowledgeable about the news as are older Americans. On a current event knowledge survey, young adults averaged 5.9 correct answers out of 12 news-based questions, fewer than the averages for Americans ages 35 to 49 (7.8) and above age 50 (8.4). In fact, for each of the 12 items tested, a greater proportion of both age groups over age 35 knew the correct answer than adults under 35. The knowledge gap is widest on foreign affairs.
I know I'll get railed for this but I couldn't help notice that the 20 percentage point differential is pretty close to the gap (16 percent) in how young adults voted in the last presidential election versus the 30+ crowd. Hm.
I took the test and answered 12 out of 12 correctly. I don't say that to impress, but to show you how easy it was.
To test your current events knowledge, go here.
I love Memorial Day. I love remembering the soldiers who sacrificed everything, dying to protect the freedoms I too often take for granted. I think that's why I get choked up thinking about all the people who forgot why yesterday was a holiday. Living in a military town, it's a bit harder to forget. Though not impossible by any means. I suspect a lot of you did the typical Monday holiday thing yesterday. We cut our grass, grilled hot dogs, took a long nap, and imagined that it was summer. But we also stopped to read a tribute to two of the most famous American soldiers, Audie Murphy and Alvin York. In discussing these two decorated heroes, Peggy Noonan wrote, I thought of these two men the other night after I introduced at a
dinner a retired Air Force general named Chuck Boyd. He runs Business
Executives for National Security, a group whose members devote time and
treasure to helping the government work through various 21st-century
challenges. I mentioned that Chuck had been shot down over Vietnam on
his 105th mission in April 1966 and was a POW for 2,488 days. He's the
only former POW of the era to go on to become a four-star general.
When I said "2,488 days," a number of people in the audience went
"Oh!" I heard it up on the podium. They didn't know because he doesn't
talk about it, and when asked to, he treats it like nothing, a long
night at a bad inn. Warriors always do that. They all deserve the "Oh!" If you're among those who discount Memorial Day, I recommend Kevin DeYoung's post about all the reasons Christians should celebrate it. He did a great job. But I think he left out one very important reason: We live in a world prone to atrophy. And that's no less true in the realm of liberty. I'm always disheartened when I hear of churches who don't do anything to celebrate, or even acknowledge, our patriotic holidays. It's because we have the form of government we do, that such churches operate without fear of reprisal. And our military has done much to defend that freedom, not only for us, but for oppressed people's in far away lands. If you didn't do anything yesterday to remember fallen soldiers--those who have so selflessly fought to defend our liberties--take a minute today to read "Those Who Make Us Say 'Oh!'". And if you've never seen the old black and white film, Sergeant York, you should. York left his pacifist ways behind only after studying everything the Bible had to say about war and the power of the sword. If anyone should remember the exploits of brave and patriotic soldiers, it's those of us who, without their defense, have so much to lose.
![IStock_000001580608XSmall[1]](http://boundless.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c4ae69e201156fa7852f970c-200wi) My heart sank when President Obama announced new fuel economy standards for auto makers for models to be built between 2012-2016. And it wasn't because our government is forcing regulations on us to curb greenhouse gasses to "prevent' unproven man-caused global warming. It was because I have a family of eight.
Let me explain.
The new standards will force auto makers to build smaller cars. The auto makers complain that Americans do not want smaller cars and worry no one will buy them unless the government helps push gas prices above $4 a gallon. President Obama has said in the past that he wants to "help people make the adjustment" to $4 a gallon fuel prices.
$4 a gallon gas prices will mean my monthly fuel bill will go from $200 to $400 or more. That's $200 more a month that I can't put toward food, clothing, school supplies, health care, or housing. For a family of eight trying to live on one salary, it's substantial.
And what happens when my big Suburban gives out and I need another big car? Is it possible for the auto industry to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet the new emissions standards of 35.5 mpg?
I wonder if by "help people make the adjustment" to higher fuel prices, what President Obama really means is forcing them to have smaller families.
Dr. Albert Mohler wrote a delineative article last week about Christians respecting other religions. It's something I struggle with, particularly regarding Islam.
There's a teacher in my church from Egypt who's a expert on Islam. He speaks with great passion about his love for Muslims and desire to see them come to know the Lord. He grieves about the events of 9/11, both the loss of innocent life and its effect on evangelizing the 10/40 window.
The stories he tells of Muslims loving Christians who work and live alongside them in Muslim countries are powerful. There's one testimony in particular that I'll always remember (though not in enough detail to recount here).
But even while he's providing me with a foundation of respect through the power of story, in the back of my mind, I can't help but also remember that large percentages (40-70 percent) of Muslims in Muslim countries agree with terrorism. And in the west, it's as high as one in five.
So how do I respect a religion whose followers want to kill me? Or the Muslims who support those that plot and plan to?
What's interesting about Dr. Mohler's article is that he never goes there. The fact that large percentages of Muslims may think it perfectly acceptable for someone to kill him seems perfectly beside the point. His sole focus is on their need for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As for respect, Dr. Mohler says we should respect Muslims, but not Islam.
Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God's Son, and takes millions of souls captive.
President Obama's speech at Notre Dame was as good as many expected it to be--especially as he brought his bridge-building rhetoric to another divisive issue. It's encouraging to hear someone who is pro-choice use the bully pulpit to say the following:
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.
It was these kinds of comments during the presidential campaign last fall that encouraged many pro-life Christians to give Obama a second look. During a stop in Colorado Springs, Donald Miller explained his hope for Obama's comments on abortion to make a bigger difference than the anemic efforts of Republicans:
I realize this is controversial, that there are many who would rather vote for a pro-life candidate and keep the abortion rate the same, on principle. And like them I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress. He is also standing up to his own party on the issue and moving the party forward to elevate the issue of the sanctity of life within the Democratic Party.
So, what will be the long-term effect of the Notre Dame speech? Can we expect to see the kind of progress that President Obama and Donald Miller spoke about? That really depends on how much President Obama chooses to align his bully pulpit and his policy shop.
I couldn't help but think how the President's encouraging words about reducing abortions were greatly offset by all the pro-abortion policies and appointments he has rushed into place. It's kind of like the government spending cuts the President announced that sounded impressive until you realized that they represented less than a fraction of a percent of the new spending he had already championed. So my question is, "Once you subtract the reduced abortions that the President's speech encouraged from the additional abortions that his policies will allow, will there be a net gain or a net loss?"
James Taranto, editor of the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal describes himself as "decidedly in the middle" on the issue of abortion and as such said he was impressed as he listened to the President's speech. But after he thought more about the speech, he wonders if he was had. Here are his thoughts from yesterday's Best of the Web feature on Opinion Journal:
Many surveys suggest that a majority of Americans, while eschewing both extremes, favor greater restrictions on abortion than Roe now permits. Obama may "respect" those who hold such views, but he thinks that their views should continue to be excluded from the political process. His rhetoric of respect and reconciliation is welcome and reassuring. If only it were true.
We can keep praying that the President will keep up the conversation about reducing abortions as well as the other causes he mentioned that were friendly to the pro-life community, but that conversation needs to happen first and foremost in his policy shop.
So an extremely pro-abortion politician was reading some words yesterday during the commencement ceremony at Notre Dame.
Suddenly someone in the audience declared the obvious: "Abortion is murder."
The response from the audience: a cacophony of boos, followed by Notre Dame's popular football cheer "WE ARE ND." According to the official White House transcript, a few of those present also chanted the cute campaign slogan "yes, we can."
[Editor's note: I've edited the previous paragraph for accuracy, to emphasize that "yes, we can" was spoken by a minority of those attending the event. I've also removed the three paragraphs that had followed this one, which wrongly defamed Notre Dame for what a few in the audience said in response to the pro-life disrupter. Thank you to ND students Matthew, Alden and Michael for your gentle correction.]
I'm reminded of Stephen, who challenged the religious leaders of his day by declaring that they had "received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it." Their response? They were "enraged" and "ground their teeth at him," and then finally "they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him" and killed him.
In the face of truth, the religious types angrily refused to listen.
I'm also reminded of Jesus Himself, who made a spectacle of Himself by indecorously shouting His God-informed opinions in, of all places, the Temple. But Jesus didn't stop with mere declarations; He also overturned tables and threatened people with the whip He had made. The concluding verse of that section of Scripture speaks of the zeal that consumed Jesus.
Certainly, the attendees of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony wanted some propriety. They didn't want a political speech interrupted with words from some uninvited pro-baby zealot. That's understandable, I suppose.
But it does leave me wondering when it is appropriate to disturb the peace with words of truth. When is it appropriate to say things that cause some in the crowd to cover their ears and rush at you? When is it appropriate to shout your words, even in sacred spaces?
Stephen did it. Jesus did it. There may be times when it's God's will that I follow the audacity of their example.
I found a great video series on the environment featuring author of the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, Steven F. Hayward. Today was the fourth installment of a five part series from National Review's Uncommon Knowledge. They're only about six or seven minutes long so I'd recommend watching them all.
But if you don't have time, here are a few interesting nuggets I pulled out of the series:
- Environmental conditions improve as countries grow more prosperous
- The U.S. doesn't have a single city in the top 50 list of the world's worst for pollution
- Environmentalists bear much of the blame for our current greenhouse gas emissions for opposing nuclear power plants in the 70s
- Sea ice is shrinking but nobody knows what it means because measurements only go back 30 years
- In 20-30 years we'll look back on the global warming "crisis" and realize we way over estimated it's extent like we did with the population bomb scare
Hayward believes the public is growing more and more wary of environmentalists. He cites recent polling data showing it's decline as an issue and talks about how the green issues of magazines were the worst sellers of the year last April. Maybe that's why global warming alarmist like James Hansen and Al Gore are saying things like, "We have only 10 years left to do something about it!"
It reminds me of an old legal aphorism, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
And telling us we only have 10 years left before an environmental apocalypse is definitely what I would call table-pounding.
A new Pew study found that support for legalized abortion has dropped precipitously since last August, from 54% to 46%. Here's a portion of the summary from Pewresearch.org:
The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).
Interestingly, the Pew study was conducted (March 31-April 21), which was right in the middle of the Red Envelope Day campaign. I'm not saying there's a link. After all, we've seen public opinion on the question of whether abortion should be legal even up before. Still, it's interesting to consider.
What do you think? Could the Red Envelope Day campaign have had such an effect? Or has President Obama's pro-abortion actions in his first 100 days galvanized a nation to rethink her pro-abortion mindset?
Is it possible that the creator of Red Envelope Day Christ Otto was on to something when he said a revival is coming to America?
Justice Souter has announced he will retire from the U.S. Supreme Court this summer. He was appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 in part because his chief of staff, John Sununu, assured him that Souter would be a "home run" for conservatives. But he proved to be a foul ball on our nation's highest court, voting in 1992 to uphold Roe v. Wade and the ban on school prayer.
From AP on Souter's retirement:
Conservatives worried that in his praise for the liberal lion he succeeded, Justice William Brennan, Souter was charting a much more moderate course than they would have liked or expected from a Republican nominee.
Eighteen years later, Souter was firmly among the court's liberals....
Of the justices who occupied the high court's middle ground, Souter was the one most likely to challenge, in exchanges of written opinions, the aggressively conservative views of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Essentially though, the Democrats won the battle when they rejected Robert Bork in 1987. It's widely thought that the elder Bush acquiesced on Souter to prevent another confirmation battle in the Senate. And as expected, he was confirmed without controversy by a vote of 90-9.
All this makes me wonder if it's possible for President Obama to appoint a sheep in wolf's clothing, so to speak. Someone who appears moderate, maybe even gives lip-service for "choice," but moves to the right once they're on the court, particularly on the issue of abortion.
Probably not, I know. But still, one can hope ...
I don't know what to make of this breaking news story.
Apparently the White House wanted to stage a photo op of Air Force One flying in front of the Statue of Liberty. Other reports are that it was an advertisement for a movie; the "fog of war" is keeping us from knowing what really is going on. They told a few people about it, but most didn't know what was happening.
New Yorkers, still sensitive about 9/11, were terrified by the scene playing out before them. At one point the plane, and the two military jets that trailed it, came dangerously close to the Goldman Sachs Tower, the tallest building in New Jersey -- as close as a few dozen feet!
The financial district was in chaos, people pouring out of their office buildings in fear. Comments from people on the scene paint a picture of panic and fear and heartbreak:
David wrote, "That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why would they do something like that, which will induce panic with the public. I work in the Exchange place area, and to us those planes were very very close. One flyby is bad, but four times in just plain crazy. 9/11 thoughts anyone? Whoever authorized this flyby needs to be severely reprimanded for this."
Jason wrote, "The plane was flying about 500 feet above the water, and was way too close to nearby buildings. Many of the buildings here in the financial district began to evacuate, and there was quite a lot of chaos for a 'planned event.'"
Mananyc wrote, "It caused so much panic. I think a prior notice to building services would've been the responsible thing to do. I got caught up in the frenzy, ran and fell and injured my elbow. Not to mention the countless people who were scared to death and panicked for no reason."
Sorbs wrote, "Lots of us took stairs over 40 floors - someone could have gotten hurt rushing down the stairs."
JR wrote, "Rattled nerves indeed, especially if you've been through 9/11. We unnecessarily evacuated the building which caused a lot of stress and disruption."
E wrote, "I work in 2 World Financial Center and my floor evacuated (along with what appeared to be the rest of the building) after seeing the planes zip by. Many of my coworkers remember evacuating on 9/11 and were terrified."
Andrew wrote, "I saw a pregnant women carried away and at least a few elderly people being helped. I was on the Pier in Jersey City and I swore it would hit the Goldman building."
Paul wrote, "In Jersey City, where I work (and saw the plane banking toward my building as it flew up the Hudson) people were TERRIFIED."
Mark wrote, "We evacuated our building. People were crying when we reached the ground floor."
Suzanne wrote, "I work on the 46th floor of a financial district building, and we self evacuated our building.... [H]ow could we not have received notice that on a Monday morning, a 747 would fly in a no-fly zone, apparently chased by two fighter jets? Who should be fired for this? We took the elevators from the 46th floor wondering if we would make it to the bottom."
Michael wrote, "Our building at 10 Exchange Place has been evacuated, as well as all tall surrounding office building in Jersey City. The announcements coming from the PA system were very scary as we were marching the stairs. In a panicking voice the announcer was telling us to move as quickly as possible."
CMW wrote, "When I called 911 to inquire, they refused to tell me what was going on.... I've never been so afraid."
Ken wrote, "I guarantee that this killed a few people. I myself almost had a heart attack and I am a healthy 30-year old. There were pregnant women running down 50+ flights of stairs, mass panic over here, etc."
Bailey wrote, "[W]e were very frightened! I evacuated my entire floor .... The plane seemed to be coming right at us. I had one employee with asthma trying to flee from the 36 floor -- she is now in the hospital."
I could go on, copy-pasting comments from various sites from those who were eye-witnesses, but I want to turn this over to you.
If you were there, tell us what you saw and felt. And even if you weren't there, what do you make of this surreal event?
When I was twentysomething, I had big ideas, still do. It's just that when I was fresh from college, a mere 21-year-old, it was hard to get anyone to take my big ideas very seriously. Not enough life experience, not enough maturity, not enough gray hair. (For better or worse, that last one is no longer an issue.)
It seems young people's big ideas matter a lot right now. At least when it comes to homosexuality. So says Dr. Al Mohler in his Thursday blog post "No Truth Without Love, No Love Without Truth."
If you're reading this blog, and you're young, your beliefs matter. Maybe more than you know.
No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children. Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.
If you identify yourself as a believer, it's worth asking yourself where your convictions come from on this issue. What's driving your perspective? Where do you go first? Newspapers? Blogs? TV? Church? Even that last one may not be reliable anymore. Dr. Mohler writes,
The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure. Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue?
Given that young self-described Christians are prone to favor and even applaud homosexuality, how should the church respond? With courage and compassion writes Mohler.
The times demand Christian courage. These days, courage means that preachers and Christian leaders must set an agenda for biblical confrontation, and not shrink from dealing with the full range of issues related to homosexuality. We must talk about what the Bible teaches about gender--what it means to be a man or a woman. We must talk about God's gift of sex and the covenant of marriage. And we must talk honestly about what homosexuality is, and why God has condemned this sin as an abomination in His sight. ...
Even as courage is required, the times call for another Christian virtue as well--compassion. The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin.
And what is it the church should be saying?
The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin. To the contrary, it is the Body of Christ, made up of sinners transformed by grace. Not one of us deserves to be accepted within the beloved. It is all of grace, and each one of us has come out of sin. We sin if we call homosexuality something other than sin. We also sin if we act as if this sin cannot be forgiven.
We cannot settle for truth without love nor love without truth. The Gospel settles the issue once and for all. This great moral crisis is a Gospel crisis. The genuine Body of Christ will reveal itself by courageous compassion, and compassionate courage. We will see this realized only when men and women freed by God's grace from bondage to homosexuality feel free to stand up in our churches and declare their testimony--and when we are ready to welcome them as fellow disciples. Millions of hurting people are waiting to see if we mean what we preach.
Yes, your beliefs matter. But not just as a matter of public opinion or even cultural trends. They matter to God. And eventually, ultimately, we'll all have to stand before Him and give an account for each and every one of those beliefs.
Just in time for Earth Day, Pew Research released the results of a study examining views on global warming among religious groups. They're not surprising really, essentially breaking along the political leanings of the groups represented in the survey ... except for black Protestants.
Here's the breakdown from Pew:
The unaffiliated (58%) are the most likely among the religious groups studied to say there is solid evidence the earth is warming because of human activity. White evangelical Protestants are the most likely to say there is no solid evidence the earth is warming (31%), and the least likely to believe that humans have contributed to heating up the planet (34%). While only 39% of black Protestants say global warming is a result of human activity, they are, however, the least likely of the religions studied to deny global warming is occurring (15%).
What you don't see in this Pew summary is the full breakdown to the question, "Is there solid evidence the earth is warming?" which includes the option "Yes, because of natural patterns." And here, I believe the black Protestants have it right ... by a large margin. 36% believe the earth is warming due to "natural patterns," a full 16 percentage points higher than any other group.
This view seems to be the most consistent with the one presented in a recent Boundless article from Jay Richards titled "Question Global Warming." In it, Jay concedes that the earth is likely warming but that it's also likely that it's due to natural causes.
Today thousands of people in dozens of cities around the United States are gathering to protest the billions trillions that our elected representatives are confiscating from our yet-to-be-born children to spend on stuff.
The idea for these marches may have begun in early February when blogger Keli Carender organized a grass-roots protest in Seattle, and then brought into the national limelight when CNBC's Rick Santelli suggested that it was time for "Tea Parties" to protest "subsidizing bad behavior," something he associated with our current administration's mortgage entitlement expansion plans.
Though mostly driven at the grass-roots level via the Internet, a couple of larger groups have stood up to facilitate the marches: Tax Day Tea Party and National TEA Party Day. PajamasTV is providing ongoing coverage of today's events.
And you know, as long as these protests remain non-violent, I think they're fine. It's healthy to see normal Americans express themselves this way.
On the other hand, we have reports of groups destroying and defecating on promotional materials, and seeking to infiltrate the marches to disrupt and defame those who are marching. And we have the national media (e.g., MSNBC, CNN, and others) relishing in homoerotic vulgarity by referring to those marching as "Tea-Baggers" bent on "Tea-Bagging."
So there you go. Some people are protesting out-of-control spending. And others are belittling and threatening them. Good thing that one of those groups is under the loving and watchful eye of Big Brother our Department of Homeland Security.
I am a Christian who works for a conservative organization that opposes abortion. And according President Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS), this makes me a threat to the United States.
On April 7, a nine-page document under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States. The report mainly targets "groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups)" and "military veterans," but includes those dedicated to a single issue like abortion. Like me.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry ... or keep my eye out for black helicopters.
The best analysis I've read on the report is from Power Line Blog. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Of course, there are crazies of all stripes, and it's possible that a small group of "right wingers" could pose a terrorist threat. In principle, there is nothing wrong with assessing such threats from whatever direction they may come. Still, this report is an odd document. It is almost entirely unmoored to any empirical reality and appears to be heavily influenced by the political views of its (unidentified) authors. This is the central theme of the report:
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
The whole point of the report is that "right wing" extremism is undergoing a "resurgence" as leaders of extremist groups take advantage of the down economy and the Obama administration to recruit new members. Weirdly, however, the report makes no effort to document any such increased recruitment or extremist activity of any sort. As far as one can tell from the report, "right wing" militias and similar groups may be dying out rather than growing.
And,
Whoever wrote the report seems deeply hostile to conservatives' opposition to the agenda of the Obama administration. For example:
Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.
Millions of Americans -- not just "rightwing extremists" -- are concerned about the administration's positions on immigration and many other issues. Note that wherever possible, the authors slip race into the discussion, as with the reference to "expansion of social programs to minorities." I'm not aware of a single social program that the Obama administration has proposed to "expand to minorities." But the authors' assumption is, apparently, that anyone who opposes the expansion of social programs must be a racist. Once again we see the assertion that right wing extremists are "galvanized" and are "leveraging" these issues as "drivers for recruitment." But is recruitment up, down, or stable? The report doesn't say, and its authors evidently don't know.
The lack of specific information of actual threats by the DHS makes me think that the report was written to intimidate conservatives by labeling anyone to the right of Obama as a "right-wing extremist." And it's in stark contrast to a similar warning about left-wing extremism in 2001 which included detailed statistics and named actual groups.
So beware you bitter small town, religious, gun-owning, anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, war veteran; Big Brother is watching you.
"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." So says an aide to U.S. President Barack Obama.
Of course, the videos clearly show that President Obama in fact did bow -- deeply -- before the King of Saudi Arabia last week, offering him an embarrassing deference no President has ever given a foreign leader in our entire history as a nation.
A few days later the President explained, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect." His bow may have been an awkward manifestation of that "respect," or it simply could have revealed his extraordinary ignorance of protocol.
In the words of a Washington Time editorial,
By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States. The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation. Such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a king's subjects, not his peer.
To be frank, after the surreality of the past couple of months, I'm not surprised by our President's symbolic gesture of submission to the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques," protector of the two holiest cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina. Whether this submission is the result of intentionality or ignorance, I can't say.
Or maybe there's a less bewildering explanation: Perhaps President Obama thought there was a teleprompter mounted in the floor.
It's rare to see a conservative belief (let alone a Christian one) be allowed to win the day on a politically correct daytime talk show. But it happened last week on Oprah when Dr. Mehmet Oz shocked guest Michael J. Fox by proclaiming that the debate on embryonic stem cell research is dead. Both Winfrey and Fox, who suffer's from Parkinson's disease, seemed disquieted when Dr. Oz spoke of the problems with embryonic stem cells and promise of adult stem cells.
In January, an ordinary guy named Christ Otto had a vision of flooding the White House with empty red envelopes representing the millions of children who've died in abortions. So he emailed a few of his friends asking them to join him in the effort. Then, amazingly, his idea went viral on the Internet and led to an organized mailing event (I received two invitations on Facebook).
Another ordinary guy named Brian Potter ran with the idea and created redenvelopeday.com. Red Envelope Day was March 31st, the day when millions of red envelopes were to be mailed to the White House with this simple message written on the outside, "This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception."
The ultimate goal of this symbolic gesture is to change the president's heart on abortion. Otto writes, "This is a message to [the president] that God hears the cry of innocent blood." Time will tell if it has its desired effect on the president. But according to a report from World Net Daily, at least his vision of flooding the White House was realized.
The White House mail office has confirmed it received a "deluge" of as many as 2.25 million red envelopes symbolizing the empty promise of lives snuffed out in abortion in a massive campaign that was larger than most White House mailing movements in the last 35 years.
White House mail worker "Steve" has handled letters for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for more than three decades. Every single package and letter destined for the White House goes through his office.
Asked if he has seen a flood of red envelopes bound for the White House, Steve chuckled.
"Uh, yes," he said emphatically. "Believe me, they made it here."
Steve said while Obama has been occupied in Europe, his administration has noticed millions of red envelopes on behalf of aborted children.
"Quite frankly, there was definitely a deluge of mail coming through," he laughed. "I had to handle them all."
"I've been here 35 years, so I've seen presidents come and go," Steve told WND. "This campaign ranks up there with the big ones."
Despite its success, Otto doesn't expect any media coverage. And other than this report from WND, I haven't seen any. One of my colleagues quipped that had it been a green envelope day to raise awareness about the environment, it probably would have been picked up by every major news outlet in America.
So what now? Otto believes a revival is coming to America. So he has established a "center of prayer in Boston." Given the overwhelming response to Red Envelope Day, maybe he's right.
During the campaign, Barack Obama won over a lot of pro-life Christians by saying that he wanted to reduce abortions. Our friend Gary Bauer writes today about how Obama is actually governing:
While President Obama likes to talk about “reducing the need for abortion,” his administration is taking steps to implement one of the most extreme proposals imaginable – repealing conscience protections for medical professionals. Make no mistake about the outcome of this action: religious hospitals, doctors and nurses will be forced to perform abortions or other procedures that violate their values.
Gary also shows how the polling-friendly term "pro-choice" doesn't apply to medical professionals in Obama's proposal:
This issue clearly exposes the pro-abortion extremism of Barack Obama and the Left. A woman’s “right of conscience” is protected to the extent that she can decide whether or not her unborn baby lives or dies. Now the pro-abortion Left wants to take away the right of conscience from doctors and nurses who want no part in the destruction of innocent human life. That is not “pro-choice” – it is pro-abortion.
I wrote a post a couple of years ago about a Gallup study highlighting the contrasting views of those who self-identify as liberals and conservatives, both socially and politically. Now The Barna Group has come out with a study comparing the religious beliefs and practices of the two groups. And according to the research, a conservative worldview is distinctly more influenced by biblical truths than a liberal worldview.
On religious beliefs:
Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
- that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% vs. 63%, respectively)
- their religious faith is very important in their life (54% vs. 82%)
- a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%)
- their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%)
- the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%)
- their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%)
- Jesus Christ did not commit sins during His time on earth (33% vs. 55%)
On religious practices:
In a typical week, the survey showed that conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
- read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
- attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
- pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
- share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
- have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)
Barna says, “Every person’s central choices in life are driven by their worldview, and everyone’s worldview is greatly influenced by their spiritual inclinations. The social and political preferences of people are closely tied to their spiritual beliefs and practices." Which seems to explain (to a degree) the great disparity in policy stances between conservatives and liberals on issues of moral ultimacy related to the institution of marriage and sanctity of life.
President Obama just wrapped up the first ever online town hall meeting in which he answered questions on topics ranging from the financial crisis to decriminalizing marijuana. It's part of the new administration's strategy to create "a broader avenue of information" to get his message out.
"In the new world of online media, formal press conferences are just one element or program to get the message out — to those, usually older, who watch such things on TV. The online version he is doing is an alternative way to get out the same message, in this case on the budget, targeted toward a different audience, usually younger," said Morley Winograd, a onetime adviser to former vice president Al Gore who now runs the Institute for Communication Technology Management at the University of Southern California....
In a way, it's part campaign-style politics and part American Idol, said political strategist Simon Rosenberg.
"Barack Obama is going to reinvent the presidency the way he reinvented electoral politics," said Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network and a veteran of presidential campaigns. "He is allowing everyday people to participate in a way that would've been impossible in the old media world."
But the president is also leveraging the "old media world" as well. He's just off hosting his second televised news conference -- more than any other president this early -- and has made recent appearances on Leno and 60 Minutes. (You would think we're 100 days out from the next presidential election instead of 60 days into his first year.)
So why all the media focus now?
Politics aside, this president simply plays well in America's living room because he's articulate, confident, and cool (except for the I-look-like-special-olympics-bowling gaffe). And America needs the assurance of the president during these uncertain financial times.
Politics considered, he gets the benefit of keeping his poll numbers up in the face of doubt about his economic "stimulus" plan and handling of the executive bonuses "scandal."
But it could prove a fleeting win win. Ultimately, it's his policies, not his media savvy, that will determine (proportionately) our financial course. And the direction of his poll numbers.
President Ronald Reagan was known to ask, "What are the nine most terrifying words in the English language?" followed by the reply, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Today, Americans are told that the Reagan era of government skepticism is over and that we can once again expect great help from the government. In fact, we hear that our current economic crisis has made people open to a much more active federal government -- with many recommending that America adopt the socialism of Europe.
In an article for The American magazine, however, Charles Murray argues compellingly that while there is much to like about Europe, their model for government "drains too much of the life from life." He writes:
If we ask what are the institutions through which human beings achieve deep satisfactions in life, the answer is that there are just four: family, community, vocation, and faith. Two clarifications: “Community” can embrace people who are scattered geographically. “Vocation” can include avocations or causes.
... Seen in this light, the goal of social policy is to ensure that those institutions are robust and vital. And that’s what’s wrong with the European model. It doesn’t do that. It enfeebles every single one of them.
 Murray goes on to explain that "almost anything that government does in social policy can be characterized as taking some of the trouble out of things." He writes:
Sometimes, taking the trouble out of things is a good idea. Having an effective police force takes some of the trouble out of walking home safely at night, and I’m glad it does.
The problem is this: Every time the government takes some of the trouble out of performing the functions of family, community, vocation, and faith, it also strips those institutions of some of their vitality—it drains some of the life from them. It’s inevitable.
The example Murray gives from Sweden is stark:
Drive through rural Sweden, as I did a few years ago. In every town was a beautiful Lutheran church, freshly painted, on meticulously tended grounds, all subsidized by the Swedish government. And the churches are empty. Including on Sundays. Scandinavia and Western Europe pride themselves on their “child-friendly” policies, providing generous child allowances, free day-care centers, and long maternity leaves. Those same countries have fertility rates far below replacement and plunging marriage rates. Those same countries are ones in which jobs are most carefully protected by government regulation and mandated benefits are most lavish. And they, with only a few exceptions, are countries where work is most often seen as a necessary evil, least often seen as a vocation, and where the proportions of people who say they love their jobs are the lowest.
He adds:
I stand in awe of Europe’s past. Which makes Europe’s present all the more dispiriting. And should make its present something that concentrates our minds wonderfully, for every element of the Europe Syndrome is infiltrating American life as well.
Murray's article is helpful reading for anyone who cares about the future health of the institutions of family, community vocation and faith.
Thomas' blog got me thinking about what I missed on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade while I was in Ethiopia.
I missed President Obama's January 22nd statement with meaningless language about reducing abortions. Meaningless because the next day he signed an executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy barring tax-payer funds to international abortion providers ... followed by signing a spending bill that decreases federal money for abstinence programs and increases money to Planned Parenthood ... followed by his promise to reverse Bush's last minute conscience clause order ... followed by his HHS appointment of pro-late-term abortion Governor Kathleen Sebelius ... followed by reversal of Bush's policy prohibiting tax payer funded stem cell research.
I missed this article from National Review Online highlighting the political successes in State legislatures (parental notification, informed consent, and waiting periods) which have reduced the number of abortions. So much for Christians claiming that policy doesn't matter when it comes to protecting life.
I missed this interview with RusselI Moore who's not holding his breath for the hope that younger generations will rise up in opposition to abortion.
Trevin Wax: Statistics show that younger generations tend to be more pro-life than their parents. You have stated that this commitment to pro-life principles is more theoretical than realistic because abortion rights is now deeply embedded in our cultural ethos. Are you saying that younger generations are less committed to the pro-life cause than they think?
Russell Moore: I do not take great comfort in opinion polls stating that younger generations are more pro-life than their parents. I believe that this is largely because the abortion issue is off the table in many ways politically.
Few people realistically expect that abortion will be made illegal. So pronouncing one to be pro-life these days is more akin to a person speculating what side of the Spanish Civil War he would take rather than a person articulating a deeply-held view on a matter of current import.
Which is exactly why so many "pro-life" Evangelicals can vote for a pro-abortion presidential candidate. Apparently all you have to do is give lip service about "reducing abortions" to satisfy their "less committed" consciences.
I missed all that.
It was only four months ago that America went to the polls to elect a new president, and it's been less than two months since our new leader took office, but it already appears that at least some of the evangelicals who supported a regime change in Washington are having second thoughts.
According to the Associated Press, several Christian leaders who supported his candidacy are not exactly enamored with the president's actions during his first weeks in office:
Conservative evangelical and Catholic leaders who went out on a political limb by aligning themselves with the Obama administration are expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president's decisions so far on culture war issues.
Although most of President Barack Obama's moves on abortion and stem cell research have been expected, some right-leaning Christian leaders who took a risk sitting down at the table with a Democratic president feel that several major decisions fall short of the common ground Obama had promised on divisive social issues.
Obama's reversal this week of Bush-era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is the latest example.
"Thus far, I have been disappointed to see little give. There's been a lot of take," said the Rev. Frank Page, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who serves on a month-old advisory board to Obama's White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "I've seen little give in the area of relating to the evangelical community as far as life issues."
While the president has essentially kept true to his word in terms of making abortion more available and expanding taxpayer-funding for embryonic stem cell research, his supporters in the Christian community continue to temper their disappointment with a call for patience:
Obama "is not doing anything he hasn't said he was going to do during the campaign," said the Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical megachurch pastor from Orlando, Fla., and another advisory board member. "So I am not enthusiastic, but I'm not disappointed, because we knew what to expect. I'm encouraged he is not totally flipping to the other side. We've got to be patient here."
In other words, though the president wooed Christians during the campaign with the stated goal of reducing the abortion rate, his political actions thus far seemed designed to accomplish the opposite. If this trend continues, how long will his support among evangelicals last?
Just asking.
Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been all over the news lately. Apparently by design.
The Obama White House is painting Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican party in an obvious attempt to shame Republicans into distancing themselves from the right-wing "entertainer." (And if it proves a distraction from the Dow sinking 25% since Obama took office, even better.) What's not so obvious is why they've chosen to pick this fight right now. I mean, you would think they have more important issues to talk about in his first 100 days.
But Obama's a savvy politician. He's not only looking for a distraction, he's looking ahead to 2010.
About 16 years ago, when another flamboyant Democrat was in his first year, Rush Limbaugh was coming to prominence with his razor sharp criticisms and musical parodies. And leading up to the 1994 mid-term elections, Limbaugh is credited with fueling the Angry White Males (AMW) who overwhelmingly voted (62%) for a Republican house member.
So it seems Obama fears history will repeat itself in the 2010 mid-terms lest he defang Limbaugh now.
The thing is, the 1994 mid-terms were more about President Clinton's overreaching agenda (remember "HillaryCare"?) and visionary Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-GA) than Rush Limbaugh. Meaning, Rush didn't create the AWMs, he simply gave them a voice -- a politically discerning and entertaining voice.
Will history repeat itself in the 2010 mid-terms?
Making Rush the issue seems to be having its desired effect for now. Republicans are debating the issue, even dividing over it. But the only way it will work in 2010 is if there remains vacuum in Republican leadership like there was in 2008 (and 2006 for that matter).
As a children's magazine editor, I love a great kid story. And today I read one. According to WorldNetDaily:
Despite facing threats of disqualification, a 12-year-old girl took first place in a speech contest when she eloquently argued for the rights of unborn children – after an offended judge quit.
"What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were going to live or die?" the seventh-grader begins in a video recording of her speech on YouTube. "What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the past or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it?"
The girl, a student at a Toronto school identified only as "Lia," continued:
"Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even knowing them whether they are going to live or die.
"That someone is their mother. And that choice is abortion."
Though Lia's teacher strongly encouraged her student to choose a different topic or she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition, the 12-year-old persisted. "She forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about," Lia's mother says.
But Lia's speech was so good that her teacher allowed her to advance as the winner. She gave her speech in front of the entire school. The next day she was suddenly disqualified because of the content of her speech. However, the decision was reversed and Lia was declared the winner.
Now Lia plans to take her message of life to a regional speech competition, and more than 130,000 visitors have viewed her presentation online.
"Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet?" She asks in the video. "Some babies are born after only five months. Is this baby not human?
"We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if they're wanted?"
She continues, "No, fetuses are definitely humans – knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name."
Out of the mouth of babes. Good job, Lia.
HT: Tim Challies
The Obama administration is funding a $5 million campaign holding up the value of marriage. An article in USA Today offers some details:
Research suggests a bevy of benefits for those who marry, including better health, greater wealth and more happiness for the couple, and improved well-being for children.
Some say the government has no business using tax dollars to promote marriage. But others say the campaign is just like those conducted by other federal agencies to encourage the use of seat belts and discourage drug use, smoking and drunken driving.
With ads on social networking sites Facebook and MySpace, videos on YouTube, spots on radio talk shows, ads in magazines and public transportation and a new website (TwoOfUs.org), creators say the aim is to start a national conversation about marriage.
To determine how to shape the media campaign, The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, commissioned a research company called TRU to get insights on the 18-to-30 age group. In their online surveys, they found:
•14% express strong sentiments against marriage.
•22% aren't ready but say they eventually plan to wed.
•23% have a practical view of marital unions and often live together first.
•19% are enmeshed in the magic of love.
•22% have a strong belief in the institution of marriage.
Numerous quotes in the USA Today article and the comments after the article appear to come from that 14% who have strong sentiments against marriage as well as the 23% who often live together first. They say the government shouldn't spend tax dollars to encourage marriage. "This is 2009," writes one commenter, "and marriage is a bad idea. Why are so many people clinging to a provincial idea that simply doesn't make sense?"
The reality, however, is that many people who think marriage is a bad idea still end up having children at some point -- especially considering that half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Those children are statistically more likely to face financial and wellbeing disadvantages. Additionally, some of those children have needs that taxpayers end up absorbing. Those social costs dwarf the $5 million that has been given to this marriage campaign. What's wrong with the Obama administration spending a little money to encourage couples to commit to the kind of relationship that has proven to best for children?
It's not a budget bill. The last budget bill came to $3.1 trillion.
It's not a bailout bill. The last bailout bill came to $700 billion.
It's a so-called stimulus bill, a simple hemorrhage of money -- some $1.2 trillion, most of which would be spent during 2011 and beyond -- that bureaucrats pray will prime the pump of our economy.
No trickle-down effect here; rather a deluge of cash from our grandchildren's anticipated tax confiscations contributions, going for such critically urgent "absolutely necessary" things as:
- $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
- A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
- $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
- $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
- $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
- $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
- $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
- $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
- $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
- $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
- $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
- $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
- $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
- $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
- $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
- $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
- $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
- $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
- $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
- $500 million for state and local fire stations.
- $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
- $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
- $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
- $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
- $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
- $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
- $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
- $850 million for Amtrak.
- $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
- $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
- $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
- $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
You can browse the entire porkulus bill here.
The world's economies are hurting. People in China, Iceland, India, Brazil and elsewhere are experiencing financial difficulty. This tells me that there's nothing necessarily defective in the United States' mixed free enterprise system that's facilitated our economic difficulties. Consequently, the opposite system -- a stronger central government, making more decisions about how citizens' money is to be spent -- is not the answer to our nation's financial problems.
The U.S. was experiencing recession in the 1920s, an economic situation that ballooned into a Great Depression after the U.S. government offered a big government solution. FDR's secretary of the Treasury confessed that his costly stimulus plan was a failure: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."
President Obama said the other day that if this costly non-bipartisan bill is not passed, "Our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse." I suspect the opposite is true: that this bill -- likely the "largest single piece of legislation ever" -- may sink our nation into a financial crisis not unlike that of the Great Depression.
Regardless how this all plays out, may our hope be found in Christ, and enjoyed in authentic Christian community, and not in politicians of any stripe. May our treasure be found in an eternal kingdom, and not in this perishable one.
As if the billion dollars stimulus package isn't boondoggle enough, now it's proposing a strange cure to what ails our sluggish economy: more contraception. In defending the addition of birth control funding to the economic "stimulus" plan, a Democratic member of the House said on This Week with George Stephanopoulos,
Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
Yes, there's a lot of bad news about babies being born outside of marriage. And yes, those out-of-wedlock births do cause a strain on state budgets. But this proposed solution to that problem is straight from the Planned Parenthood playbook. And it's no solution at all.
In a 2005 column in The Washington Post, Economist Robert J. Samuelson explained why the opposite is true:
It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling. Europe as we know it is going out of business.... Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.
According to the Demographic Winter website,
By the mid-point of this century, 16% of the world’s population will be over 65. By 2040, there will be 400 million elderly Chinese.
If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.
Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources? Where will Russia find the soldiers to guard the frontiers of the largest nation on Earth?
Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.
This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.
This "solution" to our economic "crisis" will have the opposite effect. But even that's not the worst of it. In striving to bolster our contraceptive culture, Congress would deny millions of women the very choice that has brought leaders like those supporting this bill the most joy. Ironically, the very politician whose quote appears above once proclaimed, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom."
We've seen this before. Hostility toward babies born in less than ideal circumstances. It's the mindset of Pharaoh. The mindset of Herod. And to what end? If this plan succeeds, who won't be born? Babies like this one.
President Barack Obama signed an executive order yesterday calling for "a task force to look at closing the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within the year."
The consequence is that the 245 inmates at Gitmo would be transferred to other prisons within the United States.
A number of more conservative groups decry this decision. The Heritage Foundation, for example, explains that it's a meaningless symbolic gesture, as all the prisoners would remain imprisoned somewhere.
Hm. I actually think this could be an extremely good thing.
Right now, prisoners at Gitmo are treated very well. They are "given culturally sensitive diets, freedom to worship, exercise opportunities, and the best available medical care." Moving them away from such a "model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons," would result in a less coddled incarceration experience for these alleged enemy combatants. I think making them a part of the general prison population could be a good thing.
Currently, the prisoners at Gitmo are all (I assume) fanatical Muslims. Their peers are Muslim, and they reinforce each other in their faith. By splitting them up from each other, distributing them among other U.S. prisons, it's likely that they'll gain peers who are Christians. Who knows? -- maybe they'll hear the gospel for the first time by living in a different location. And maybe some will turn from their sin to the Truth of Christ.
Currently, reporters don't have a great deal of access to Gitmo prisoners. If they're moved to within the U.S., then these reporters may have more access to them. While this could be a bad thing, in that they could get their twisted messages out to a broad audience, this could be a good thing -- more people would become aware of who they really are: radical Islamists bent on killing Americans. Sentiment could change from pure sympathy for these mysterious prisoners to confidence that their imprisonment is just.
I suspect that many of these prisoners currently at Gitmo are violent, specifically toward non-Muslims. If they happened to kill someone while in their new prison, their fate (which seems largely uncertain at this point) would become clarified: They'd either be executed or sentenced to life behind bars.
And who knows? -- maybe the international community will see this symbolic gesture as the sensitive thing to do. They may find us kinder and gentler, and become more supportive of the civilized world's struggle against Islamofascist terrorism.
Of course, there may be dangers in transferring these prisoners out of Gitmo. They may recruit other disaffected prisoners to their ideology, they may take advantage of our court system and learn sensitive information which they'd then pass along to their friends, they may exploit legal loopholes that results in their being freed, they may effectively manipulate reporters into broadcasting sympathetic stories about their plight, the international community may see the U.S. as pushovers, and so on.
But I do see a lot of benefits in closing Gitmo. I'm therefore kind of excited to see it shut down.
Inflation in Zimbabwe has bumped up a bit, to 6,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ... let me take a breath here ... 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ... and another breath ... 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent, according to Forbes Asia. Prices double every 24.7 hours.
That's more than a googol. That's an octillion times the number of atoms in the observable universe, I think. It's a lot.
It really is remarkable what Robert Mugabe has done to the Breadbasket of Africa. May it soon return to its former greatness.
I've never understood good luck charms. Sure, I had a rabbit's foot when I was a kid (how gross is that!) and a rock that we'd run through our rock polisher. But I can't think of any other items that I religiously carried around to help me through the hard times.
I'm relieved to know that President Obama doesn't have a rabbit's foot. He does, however, carry around a number of lucky charms, including a tiny Madonna and child, a gambler's lucky chit, some coins ... and a tiny statue of a monkey god (likely the Hindu god Hanuman).
Why a monkey god?
The tiny monkey god has been interpreted to be none other than the Hindu god Hanuman. Why would he choose this lucky charm? It is widely reported that Obama, whose father was a Kenyan and mother a white woman from Kansas, spent initial days of his life in Indonesia where Hinduism is a popular religion. So is this an influence from his Indonesian childhood?
Hanuman is the god that Hindus, especially young children, are taught to turn to when they are afraid of something or get bad dreams at night. Hanuman is said to be the protector who keeps evil away. This extremely powerful son of the wind god is said to be incredibly strong, invincible, the most intelligent being on earth, and immortal. Known as the "remover of distress" Hanuman is especially known for relieving difficulties. In Hindu mythology, Hanuman is also considered the incarnation of Shiva, the destroyer of all evil.
Usually the image of Hanuman is seen with only two arms, but as with Obama's charm, the monkey god is also represented with four arms in some regions of Southeast Asia, like Thailand. The Chinese also are reported to have a monkey god. But while neither Obama nor his aides have said anything about this or his other good luck charms, all inferences assume his little monkey charm to be Hanuman.
I just have to say that I find this disturbing, a grown man carrying around a tiny four-armed monkey statue for good luck. And I'll leave it at that.
I didn't vote for the incoming president, but today, we'll watch him take the Oath of Office and celebrate. Why? Because we live in the greatest country on earth. For all the bombs lobbed against us -- figuratively and literally -- we will witness again the transfer of power from one ruling ideology to another, all without a single shot being fired. Our system of government makes this possible, a system that derives its authority from the people. As long as our leaders swear allegiance to our Constitution, and are true to their oath, we value liberty and freedom enough to support our leaders, even when we interpret that Constitution differently. Because we live in a country whose government is built on a Declaration that says, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Now, 233 years since Thomas Jefferson penned those words, and 148 years since President Lincoln went to war to prove them true, we will be inaugurating the first black president. I believe Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln would rejoice over such progress. Because I believe President Obama is God's man for the job at this time. Scripture says, God "sets up kings and deposes them" (Daniel 2:20-22) The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases. (Proverbs 21:1-3) Everyone must submit
himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except
that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been
established by God. Consequently,
he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has
instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For
rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do
wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then
do what is right and he will commend you. For
he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for
he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent
of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore,
it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of
possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give
everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue,
then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:1-7) And so we will pray that our new president will ask of us only what is rightly due Him. And that he will heed the warning of Psalm 2: Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him. And we will rest in the sovereignty of our heavenly King. The King over all kings. The one of whom the Psalmist said, The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. Grant us O Lord your favor. May this incoming "king's" heart be directed toward righteousness.
I wrote this post two years ago and just noticed that it's getting a lot of referrals from Google. So I thought I'd post it again for our daily readers. Sadly, I don't think we'll be seeing another presidential proclamation for some four to eight years, maybe more. I hope I'm wrong though.
* * *
In 1983, an organization named Christian Action Council (now known as Care Net), founded with the help of Francis Schaeffer and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, "asked President Ronald Reagan to create a special day to focus on the intrinsic value of human life." That same year, "President Reagan issued a proclamation establishing a National Sanctity of Human Life Sunday."
Here's a portion of President Reagan's proclamation the following year marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade as "fitting ... [to] reflect anew" on our responsibility to "care for the lives and freedoms of even the weakest of our fellow human beings."
Since 1973, however, more than 15 million unborn children have died in legalized abortions -- a tragedy of stunning dimensions that stands in sad contrast to our belief that each life is sacred. These children, over tenfold the number of Americans lost in all our Nation's wars, will never laugh, never sing, never experience the joy of human love; nor will they strive to heal the sick, or feed the poor, or make peace among nations. Abortion has denied them the first and most basic of human rights, and we are infinitely poorer for their loss.
We are poorer not simply for lives not led and for contributions not made, but also for the erosion of our sense of the worth and dignity of every individual. To diminish the value of one category of human life is to diminish us all. Slavery, which treated Blacks as something less than human, to be bought and sold if convenient, cheapened human life and mocked our dedication to the freedom and equality of all men and women. Can we say that abortion -- which treats the unborn as something less than human, to be destroyed if convenient -- will be less corrosive to the values we hold dear?
We are poorer still. The 15 million "lives not led" President Reagan referred to has now grown to 50 million. And such a number can numb us into believing that nothing we do matters. But I saw hope today.
During Focus on the Family chapel, we were given a chance to honor the staff and volunteers of local pregnancy centers and see face to face the women they care for and the babies they have saved. And thanks to Care Net's Option Line 24 hour call center and programs like Focus's Option Ultrasound, more and more women facing unplanned pregnancies are seeking their help.
Today, President George W. Bush continued the national observance Reagan began by proclaiming this Sunday, January 21, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. Please take an opportunity this weekend to consider how God may be calling you to "care for the lives and freedoms of even the weakest of our fellow human beings."
Traditionally, incoming U.S. Presidents spend a couple of nights in the Blair House a few days before their inauguration. That simplifies moving into the White House, as the 119-room mansion is right across the street.
Both President-Elect George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush stayed there two or three days before their inauguration, for example.
Other Presidents-Elect (e.g., Reagan, Clinton) spent a couple of nights at the home earlier than the traditional Jan. 15, but not more than a few consecutive days at a time.
President-Elect Barack Obama asked to stay at the Blair House during the 15 days before his inauguration for personal reasons (so it would be more convenient for his daughters to begin school). But former Australian prime minister John Howard was scheduled to stay there on Jan. 12, so Obama's bold request was denied.
Cyberspace is infuriated at this so-called last-minute snub by current President G.W. Bush. The Australian comes out and declares that the Obamas are entitled to be at the Blair House: After all, it is "their place."
Well, no it is not. As the "official guest house of the President of the United States," it is under the stewardship of President Bush, not Sen. Obama. It is a place to honor visiting dignitaries, presidents, prime ministers, or reigning monarchs; It's not primarily a place to make a politician's job transition more comfortable.
To my knowledge, no politician since Truman has stayed 15 consecutive days at the Blair House. Doing so would be highly unusual. And so we shouldn't be surprised when such an unprecedented request is denied. Certainly we shouldn't be outraged.
The fervor over this situation makes me wonder how long will it be before someone makes the correlation between it and that experienced by the Messiah, whose family was also told that there was no room in the inn for them.
This blog post really shouldn't have to be written. If large media outlets published balanced reports of events taking place in the Middle East, it wouldn't be necessary. But in order to help provide a clearer picture, to facilitate a truthful understanding of events, here goes....
CNN reported yesterday that an "Israeli airstrike hits elementary school in Gaza City," killing three. The article goes on to say that the UN had told Israel ahead of time that it was simply a school. No explanation from Israel was permitted by CNN.
The report in the Guardian mentions this school, Asma elementary school in Gaza City, but also the bombing of another UN-funded school and a home (12 killed? 13 killed? 30 killed?). Any explanation of why the home was targeted was not published. Of course.
Well, no, they weren't simply schools, and it wasn't simply a family's home.
The schools were used as storage facilities for Hamas weaponry, and locations from which Hamas terrorists fired rockets into Israel. Hamas had booby-trapped the schools, and the secondary explosions caused additional damage. Numerous Hamas fighters were killed in the explosions at the schools.
And the home? It belonged to the Ad-Daya family. A member of that family, Abu Hamza, lived in the house. He is either a Hamas commander or spokesman for the armed wing of Islamic Jihad, or maybe he's a member of both organizations. To build on the sad news that innocents were killed in this attack: Abu Hamza was not home at the time.
Hamas regularly hides behind civilians, with hopes of deterring response to their attacks from those who value life, and with the secondary goal of increasing civilian casualties, which benefits their cause. To accomplish their aims, Hamas run their operations in residential neighborhoods, in hospitals, near Red Cross and UN buildings, and so on.
Too many people hate Israel, expressing that hatred through mortars and media distortions. For the love of God and Truth, I refuse to be among them.
News reports Tuesday said we can expect Laura Bush's memoirs sometime in 2010.
I hope she talks about her life before the White House, because that in itself would make a great tale. As a mom of an infant, I'm fascinated by what their family life was like with twin babies. As a Colorado local (who loves to visit the Broadmoor), I'm intrigued that it was there that the President celebrated a milestone birthday then took a major life turn away from alcohol and toward innumerable personal and professional triumphs. How differently her life could have turned out!
But, of course, her time in the White House will likely occupy the bulk of the book (as it should). I suspect the high drama of 9/11 and the months following will be a primary focus. What was it like worrying about the safety of your family, knowing your husband was an actual target? How did she function as wife: listening ear, comforter, helper, when all around were people paid big bucks to do the same thing professionally? These and other questions will hopefully be answered in Mrs. Bush's book.
I, for one, am looking forward to hearing from this reserved, dignified, graceful and much respected first lady.
In a comment I made yesterday I spoke of how the term "Palestinian" is a "recent invention." More correctly, the "recent invention" is this concept that "Palestine" has ever been a sovereign country, or that Arab "Palestinians" have a special right to the land.
"Palestine" (a term imposed by the 1st century Romans) is, and has been for millennia, a "region"; it's never been an independent state.
It may be helpful to compare the term "Palestine" to the term "The South" here in the States. The South is a region of our country, where you'll find people of various ethnicities and religions. You'll find Southerners who are Christian and Jewish and Muslim; you'll find Southerners who trace their ancestry to Europe, Africa, Asia, and so on.
Similarly, you'll find "Palestinians" who are Christian and Muslim ... and Jewish. "Palestinians" should not be conflated with "Muslims" or "Arabs"; the "Palestinians" that we hear so much about are merely Arabs who have come to live in the region of Palestine.
And how did Gaza come to be inhabited by so many Arab Palestinians? Did Israel sequester them there? No, they chose to gather there in 1948 at the request of the Prime Minister of Iraq, who warned them to flee the rest of Israel because Iraq, along with other neighboring Arab countries, was going to "smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." Yes, these Palestinian refugees are victims -- they are fundamentally victims of Arab aggression against Israel.
The Canaanites might have a claim to that region, but they've disappeared as a people. In the 13th century B.C., the Lord, according to Number 34, gave this region to the people of Israel as an inheritance. Jews have consequently lived in the region for over 3,000 years. They are not "occupying" the country; they are living in their homeland.
Did you know that the Philistines (from whom, in a circuitous way, we get the term "Palestine") were not even Arabs? As one historian explains: The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina"; which is derived from the Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.
The use of the term "Palestinian" for an Arab ethnic group is a modern political creation which has no basis in fact -- and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967.
I've barely scratched the surface. If you're interested, and want to learn more, check out this site. Here is another great primer on the region.
If you want to challenge anything you find on those sites, please do so with specificity; we won't be publishing general denunciations of the sources I've cited as "pro-Israel propaganda" simply because they may challenge preconceived notions about the region of Palestine in which we find the country/state of Israel.
One final word. Israel is not without sin. Some of the policies they've enacted to protect themselves have contributed to the suffering Arab Palestinians are experiencing, for example. My historical defense of Israel should not be construed as an endorsement of all of their policies.
My Australian friends: If New Zealand lobbed some rockets into Sydney, killing innocent women and children, would you be justified in asking them to stop? And if they continued to send rockets your way a dozen more times, would you be justified to use sufficient force to make them stop?
My Canadian friends: If the United States shot dozens, no hundreds, of rockets into Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and though you politely asked us to please stop killing your citizens we continued bombing you, would you be justified to use sufficient force to make us stop?
Yes, of course.
Then why are so many people upset at Israel for trying to get their neighbors to stop sending rockets -- thousands this year alone -- into their country?
And why all the concerns about Israel using "disproportional force"? Indeed, we should be grateful that Israel is not using proportional force; we should be grateful that they are not randomly firing 3,000 rockets into "Palestinian" kindergartens and playgrounds over the course of the next six months.
The contest between President Bush and Karl Rove that began in January 2006 didn't end there. "To my surprise," Rove writes, "the president demanded a rematch in 2007." And 2008. According to Rove, "a glutton for punishment, Mr. Bush insisted on another rematch."
What's the outcome of all this reading? For starters, victory for Karl Rove. He won the competition all three times. But not by much. In 2006 it was Rove 110, Bush 95. In '07, Rove 76, Bush 51. And last year's total, as of December 26, Rove 64, Bush 40. That's a lot of extra-curricular reading for the leader of the free world. And contrary to what most reporters would have you believe, those weren't comic books on his nightstand.
For starters, "Each year, the president ... read the Bible from cover to cover, along with a daily devotional." What else did he read in those three years?
Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin; biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, Babe Ruth, King Leopold, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, LBJ and Genghis Khan; "A History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900," by Andrew Roberts; James L. Swanson's "Manhunt;" and Nathaniel Philbrick's "Mayflower." For fiction, he read eight Travis McGee novels by John D. MacDonald, Michael Crichton's "Next," Vince Flynn's "Executive Power," Stephen Hunter's "Point of Impact," and Albert Camus's "The Stranger."
Rove reports that "Nearly half of his 2006 reading was history and biography, with another eight volumes on current events (mostly the Mideast) and six on sports."
That's a hefty list for anyone, let alone someone shouldering the responsibility of the presidency. But he's no lightweight. Rove says, There is a myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one. Like so many caricatures of the past eight years, this one is not only wrong, but also the opposite of the truth and evidence that bitterness can devour a small-minded critic. Mr. Bush loves books, learns from them, and is intellectually engaged by them.
Whatever your thoughts about our president (I happen to admire, respect and revere him), his love of books is something we should all aspire to. When he leaves the White House for the last time on January 20, I will miss him greatly. But maybe now he'll have the time and leisure to really read a few books. He's earned it.
For all the scorn heaped on our 43d President, little attention was given to the time he made for books during his term in office. Really good, solid, thick books. Last week Karl Rove talked about his ongoing contest with President Bush. A contest of reading. He explains, It all started on New Year's Eve in 2005. President Bush asked what my New Year's resolutions were. I told him that as a regular reader who'd gotten out of the habit, I had set a goal for myself -- to read a book a week in 2006. Three days later, we were in the Oval Office when he fixed me in his sights and said, "I'm on my second. Where are you?" Mr. Bush had turned my resolution into a contest of reading.
I think it's a great idea. So I challenged Steve to a similar quest: see who can read the most books in 2009. A bit of competition can go a long way. Especially when it means I have a reason to do something -- like reading -- that I love.
I love books. I'm always on the lookout for good reads for our 8 and 6 year olds. When I bring home a stack from the library and find them, hours later, still pouring over the bag full of stories, I feel like a victor. Mission accomplished. I'm no less giddy when I find something I can't put down.
That's where I need your help. What are your favorite books? What are you hoping to read in the coming year? Who are your favorite authors? I know I've asked questions like this on the Line in the past, but I can't resist another New Year's opportunity to start my reading list afresh.
The Bush administration has given health care professionals an early Christmas present by issuing a new regulation providing "right of conscience" protections to workers who refuse to "perform abortions and other procedures because of religious or moral objections."
The report from The Washington Times: The new "provider conscience regulations" are designed to strengthen existing federal laws that prohibit institutions from discriminating against individuals who refuse to participate in abortions or provide a referral for one. The administration's rule, issued Thursday, is intended to ensure that federal funds don't flow to providers who violate those laws.
"Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt said. "This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience."
And from The Washington Times Op-Ed on why it's needed: Americans blanch at abortion coercion in China, where population control agents force mothers to end the lives of their unborn babies who exceed the mandated limit of one child per couple. Yet few Americans realize that abortion-related mandates are also threatening to U.S. health care professionals who follow medical standards such as the Hippocratic Oath.
Conscientious physicians and other health care professionals are being pressured, under threat of job loss, to violate medical ethics standards by performing abortions and referring patients to abortion clinics to do the deed.
Failure to comply with the new rules could mean termination of HHS funds and possibly require the return of funds already received. Of course, the current administration's rule will be in jeopardy when the new administration is sworn in in January as Obama has already voiced his opposition to the new regulations.
Still, for now, I'd like to wish a Merry Christmas to all the health care providers who refuse to perform or participate in abortions or provide a referral for one.
As President-Elect Obama announces his cabinet, conservatives have been surprised and liberals have been disappointed that Obama's national defense picks (especially the retention of President Bush's Secretary of Defense) leaned more to the hawkish side after many of the dove-like messages of his campaign. Writing last week in the Socialist Worker, Lance Selfa said: Obama's hawkishness and deference to the foreign policy establishment -- notwithstanding whatever changes of atmosphere from Bush he plans to implement -- was no secret. Liberals who are just now waking up to that fact allowed wishful thinking to cloud their judgment.
It's encouraging to see sobriety and continuity in the area of national defense considering the reminder of terrorist extremism in India last month.
I'm not sure who inspired the lyrics on the rock band Extreme's new album "Saudades De Rock," but we can hope that their song "Flower Man" doesn't end up characterizing our next Commander in Chief -- even if that disappoints a lot of "doves." Peace in appeasing
Like it's always in season
Never needed to weather the storm
Betting on your better angels
Ignoring human nature in truth
Red tooth and in claw
Lion and lamb lay
In your land of make pretend
Forgetting every soldier and son
Lest you care
To measure all the blood
And the treasure
Must be something worth
Fighting for. No?
Is it worth fighting for?
Flower man
Singing lets all
Give peace a chance
Flower man
Keep your head
Buried in the sand
Flower man
You're my enemy's
Best friend
Flower man
Liberty
I've never been one to buy into the gloom and doom prophecies among many believers that persecution is imminent for American Christians. But the reaction by the mainstream media and Hollywood elite over the passage of Proposition 8 in California has been so profoundly antagonistic toward Christians, I'm beginning to wonder if there's something to those dire predictions.
First, Newsweek has launched a full-on attack against religious conservatives with their cover story, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." It's something Southern Baptist Seminary President Dr. Albert Mohler calls an "atrocity of an article" and responds with a comprehensive rebuttal, which proves to be a complete dismantling of the writers "case."
Then there's the satirical video coming out of Hollywood titled "Prop 8: The Musical" starring Jack Black that's rapidly going viral around the web.
Here's a pretty good description of it from The Christian Post: Opponents of the California same-sex marriage ban have released a Web video satire entitled "Prop 8: The Musical" that mocks Christians as hatemongers and Jesus as a Bible critic. ...
The video opens with a colorfully dressed bunch, which includes a hippie Rudolph and a tattooed Cho, singing and celebrating a "new Obama day" and "happy days for the gays" against a beach backdrop.
Then enters a black-clad Reilly and another actress with a scheme to "spread some hate and put it in the Constitution." They crash the beach party and unscroll a bill reading: "Prop. 8."
A group dressed in black Sunday clothes, apparently portraying Christians, joins Reilly in chorus to plead with the audience to listen to their warning that the other group will "teach kids about sodomy."
The colorful group calls the warning a "lie," to which the Prop. 8-supporting Christians respond: "But it works." The two groups continue to argue, with the first group claiming their "love is not a sin," while the Christian group remarks that "the Bible says it so."
Jesus, played by Black, intervenes in the debate by saying, "The Bible says a lot of things, you know?" The Christian group asks whether the Bible considers gays "an abomination."
But Jesus dismisses the Bible reference, saying that "Leviticus also says shellfish is an abomination" and that the "Bible says a lot of interesting things like you can stone your wife or sell your daughter into slavery."
When the Christians say they "ignore those verses," Jesus scolds them for picking and choosing. Jesus reminds them that the nation was built on the separation of church and state before his good-bye parting, "See ya later sinners!"
During my time on Capitol Hill, I had a Christian mentor who would say that if persecution ever comes to America, it will begin over political issues surrounding homosexuality. And when I say persecution, I mean being locked up, beaten or even killed for proclaiming Scriptural truths in the public square. Not just being openly ridiculed or mocked among the secular masses ... though that may be precisely how persecution begins.
Which is why I'm a little unnerved by what I'm seeing from the mainstream media and Hollywood elites.
Mumbai, India is the most recent victim of terrorist attacks. We don't yet know much, but some reports are that nearly 100 have been killed and perhaps 1,000 injured in a series of over a dozen coordinated attacks on hotels, a hospital, a train station, a gas station, a Jewish center, and other locations.
I'm watching a streaming news feed, and I gather that it's one of the most significant such attacks in recent memory.
Let's pray that the terrorists meet swift justice, and that the families of the murdered and injured find some comfort in the love of God and friends.
Pew Research just released a report on the overwhelming support Obama received from the 18-29 year-old demographic in last week's election. Not that it affected the outcome much, since they represented only 18% of the electorate (1% more than 2004). But still, it does tell us something about the current political landscape in America.
I think this portion of Pew's study pretty much sums it up. Young voters are more diverse racially and ethnically than older voters and more secular in their religious orientation. These characteristics, as well as the climate in which they have come of age politically, incline them not only toward Democratic Party affiliation but also toward greater support of activist government, greater opposition to the war in Iraq, less social conservatism, and a greater willingness to describe themselves as liberal politically.
The combination of "more secular" and "the climate in which they have come of age politically" tells us a great deal about the disparate support Obama received among the young voters. It's no coincidence that the last time there was a 2 to 1 margin favoring one candidate over another was during another tumultuous time in our nation's history, the end of the Vietnam War in 1972.
But as I noted in another post-election blog, it's not enough to just be the right candidate during difficult times. You have to go after voters in the right way, with the right message. And Obama did just that with Gen Y by leveraging new media technologies such as YouTube and campaigning on a theme of moving past red state, blue state divisions.
Young people like the idea of a post-partisan nation. Never mind that Obama was voted the most liberal member in the United States Senate.
There's a lot in the Pew report to worry political conservatives, particularly with how young people are willing to identify themselves as liberals and want an activist government. But if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that four to eight years of liberal policies and more government will just as surely change the political landscape as war fatigue and a bad economy.
In September, Donald Miller made a stop in Colorado Springs in support of Barack Obama's campaign for President. According to a Time magazine article last week, Miller's support for Obama may have contributed to moving enough Evangelicals his way to swing Colorado and other key battleground states. Some of Miller's message in Colorado Springs was transcribed on the Burnside Writer's Blog. One of his primary challenges was to win over Evangelicals who were skeptical about Obama's abortion policies. Here's a portion of his comments on that topic: Senator Obama is going to move us past the impasse in our cultural war, something I think of as a cultural Vietnam. On the issue of abortion, he is the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions. John McCain's only plan is the same old trick: say that you are pro life and offer no plan at all other than to criminalize abortion. I simply think that plan hasn't worked, and we have to face that fact and look for other ways to make progress.
I realize this is controversial, that there are many who would rather vote for a pro-life candidate and keep the abortion rate the same, on principle. And like them I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress. He is also standing up to his own party on the issue and moving the party forward to elevate the issue of the sanctity of life within the Democratic Party. I also see this as progress. I do wish we could end abortion completely, but the Republicans have not spelled out a realistic plan to do so, and until they do, I won't vote for a candidate who simply throws us a pro-life line and no plan. It seems insincere.
But let me add this: I do wish Obama were pro-life. His plan to reduce the rate of abortion is a great step for the party, but I also wish he would defend the unborn to a greater degree.
However, at this point, in this election, with these two candidates, I think progress will be made with Barack. Not enough progress, but some progress, especially within the Democratic party, who may soften their stand on the sanctity of life.
Now, consider the news today about immediate decisions Obama's team is considering: Among Bush administration actions likely to be quickly rescinded:
- The prohibition on federal funding for international family-planning agencies that provide abortions -- or counseling and information about abortion -- even in countries where the procedure is legal. This policy, known as the Mexico City initiative, was initially put in place by Ronald Reagan and reaffirmed by the current president's father. Bill Clinton removed it in 1993; President Bush restored it two days after taking office in 2001. ...
- The ban on federal funding for research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. In August 2001, Bush limited government funding to the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence and prohibited any funding for development of new embryonic stem cell lines. Proponents of such research -- including many Democrats and moderate Republicans -- have pointed to the potential for cures for such devastating illnesses as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, but many social and religious conservatives liken the use of such stem cells to abortion because it requires the destruction of an embryo.
I'm curious if Donald Miller categorizes this news as "some progress" or if he was truly disappointed to hear this.
I agree with Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, that President Elect Barack Obama must be held accountable for his commitment to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country.
In an interview with Christianity Today, Wallis, who is an Obama supporter, said, Barack Obama will be held accountable on a serious commitment to abortion reduction. He called for that, his campaign platform said that, and he should be held accountable to that. He needs prayer and accountability, support and pushing, both at the same time.
In his interview with Cameron Strang of Relevant Magazine, Obama clearly stated his mildly pro-life convictions: I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
Obama went on to express his support of abstinence education and adoption: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important -- emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that's something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.
I take some comfort in the President Elect's opposition to abortion and support of abstinence education and adoption. I join Jim Wallis and others in the great hope that Obama will follow through with his promises, and I will join Jim Wallis and others in holding him accountable should he break his promises to us pro-life Christians.
So how did President Elect Barack Hussein Obama win with a larger share of the popular vote than any other Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964? There are many reasons really but several stand out to me.
First, Obama was the kind of candidate political parties dream of. He's intelligent, articulate, charismatic, and people identify with him. And if I'm honest, the fact that he's bi-racial only added to his appeal. These characteristics go a long way in a presidential election. But they're still not enough to win, even in a war fatigued nation in economic turmoil.
No, to win, your campaign needs to be better than the other guy's campaign. And this year, it wasn't even close.
Obama's campaign was brilliant in all facets, but particularly in messaging, marketing, and ground game. He ran just right of center on tax cuts, limited health care reform, killing Bin Laden and a tough stance on Pakistan. He even talked about reducing abortions despite his atrocious voting record on life issues.
And he was able to communicate these themes effectively by spending more money on advertising than any other presidential candidate in American history because he raised more money than any other president in American history.
And it wasn't just the frequency of his ads, the content and production quality were really good! Heck, there were a couple of times when I was almost tempted to believe him.
Then there's Senator McCain.
McCain wasn't simply the wrong candidate (and he was), he ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in the modern era. It was over the moment he suspended it (and the presidential debate) to return to Washington during the credit crisis. He said he was concerned about the lack of a "consensus" for the Administration's plan; he said we were "running out of time."
Right or wrong, this decision made him look anxious, not presidential. And the lasting impression by the public was that McCain ran for the cover of "consensus" because he couldn't come up with an alternative plan for an unpopular bailout.
I knew something of this type of erratic behavior when I worked in the U.S. Senate. McCain had the reputation of a maverick alright. But not in the way that's endearing, as someone who'll stand up to one's own party out of principle. No, he was more a maverick in the mold of someone who wants to stick it to his party out of anger and spite.
Many pundits believe this election marks the beginning of a new liberal era for our country. It's a belief that Christians appear to have bought into judging from their countenance. But I think it's as simple as this: Obama was a very good candidate who ran a very good campaign against a bad candidate who ran very poor campaign in a climate where the word "change" meant a lot.
Time will tell. Time will surely tell.
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
|
Recent Comments