#73 - Adios, Christmas

Controlling Language and Minds
By: Chuck Colson| December 22, 2010

Want to control peoples’ minds? Simply control the words they use -- or don’t use.
I recently met a man who left his native Cuba when he was eleven years old. He came from an upper class family and remembered Cuba as a very beautiful country where the people got along well with one another.

Fifty years later, he finally got a chance to go back. Sure, he knew that Communism had impoverished the country, but nothing prepared him for the shock of seeing first hand what had become of his native land. The country has been totally sapped of its energy and strength and resources. People get a ration of food for a month that only lasts them two weeks; so the rest of the time they lie, steal, borrow, beg, whatever they have to do to get food.

It wasn’t only the diminished standard of living that shocked him: He told me about the extent to which the church has been suppressed by the Castro brothers. In fact, not only is freedom of religion severely curtailed in Cuba, there is an effort to expunge words and phrase that contain references to God!

An obvious is the Spanish word for “goodbye,” adios. It literally means “to God.” So, this gentleman told me, it is now suspect. In fact, there is a whole host of other common Spanish idioms being expunged from the language—expressions people had used all their lives. And they're being expunged precisely because they refer to God. In Cuba, as in any totalitarian state, you can get into serious trouble for using the words and expressing ideas banned by the government.

Listening to him, I realized that our culture is doing something similar right here at home: shape people’s beliefs and attitudes by controlling the language they use. The pressure may be more subtle, and the people doing the controlling may be private, not governmental actors, but the goals and effects are the same.

The effort is on obvious display during Christmas. Case in point: for seventy years, Tulsa has held a Christmas parade. Now, no one would ever mistake the parade for a church service: Santa Claus plays a far bigger role than the infant Jesus.

Yet even this watered-down reference to Christ was too much: in the last year, “Christmas” was dropped from the title in favor of “holiday.” If “Christmas” is too much for what is arguably the buckle of the “Bible Belt,” where can you use the phrase?

If you think that this is much ado about nothing and that “happy Holidays” is a perfectly acceptable substitute, you’re missing the whole point. The issue here isn’t avoiding offense – it’s redefining the terms of our discussion, eradicating or at least marginalizing any references to God in the public square. It’s to make people think twice about invoking God, even in passing, in public. Once you control their language, you control the way they think and behave.

The irony is that the approved word “holiday” is itself derived from “holy day”! In fact, today on my Two Minute Warning, I talk more about the need for ChrisAll of this linguistic nonsense is another reminder of why Christians need to reclaim Christmas. The larger culture may be intent on taking Christ out of Christmas but, that’s all the more reason for us to place Him at the center of ours.tians to recapture the true meaning of Christmas. Please, go to ColsonCenter.org and watch it today.

And may you and yours have a blessed Christmas, and a happy holy-day season.

#72 - THE SUNDAY SPECIAL - Just Call Me A Jackie Groupie

When you were a teen, who were some of your favorite music personalities?

It might surprise you to know, but though I was a teen during the decade of the Beatles (yes, I am that old!), I really did not care for them. If I was a fan of any music performers, it was The Carpenters. Their music never had an edge or a message; it was just music that made you feel good singing the lyrics on your own. I even remember being crushed when I was overseas and read that Karen Carpenter had died; it was like losing someone in my own family

Today, teen music stars include Justin Beiber, Lady GaGa (sp?), Katy Perry (whose parents, I just learned this morning, are evangelical pastors, though you would not guess that with the outfits she wears). I’ve not had a teen singer I enjoyed for almost 30 years, but about a month ago, I think I actually became a groupie for a pre-teen, a ten-year old named Jackie Evancho.

As I alerted you earlier this month, Jackie had been performing on a national talent show that went on for months called “America’s Got Talent.” I will never forget the night she first performed. The judges, the audience, and I’m sure the millions who heard her were as stunned as I was because her operatic voice was so clear and powerful that you couldn’t believe that it was coming out of a diminutive little girl. So many other acts were flashy, Las Vegas style acts. But suddenly, there was this little girl, in a simple dress, singing like you would expect angels in heaven would sound. It just took your breath away. That first night she performed on national television and EVERY time I’ve seen her perform, the audience rises to give her a standing ovation.

Maybe I find myself so fascinated by her is not just her music, but because she calls us back to a time when performers simply performed. Jackie reminds us older folks of a time when they didn’t need flashy clothes or an edgy reputation or persona to get you to listen to them. As one of the judges said, she’s just pure talent. For me, the fact that two of her songs – “Pie Jesu” and “Ave Maria” – touches a spiritual cord in me that moves me to tears, something that even many Christian music cannot do. And I don’t even understand the words as I don’t of any opera performance.

I can only pray that, by the time she gets to high school (around 15 or 5 years from now), Jackie isn’t remade into another product of Hollywood. The world certainly doesn’t need another Britney Spears or Lady GaGa. The world needs more performers who can take your breath away by their pure, God-given talent. Maybe that’s why I’m not ashamed to say I’m a groupie of a 10-year old.

By the way, you might pray for she and her family as it was revealed AFTER the contest that they have been in danger of losing their home because they can’t keep up their mortgage. (It’s interesting and noteworthy that the person who beat her out for the million dollar prize kept talking about using the money to buy his grandparents a new home, their having lost their through Hurricane Katrina. I have to wonder if the needs of her family were made known during the contest it might have made a difference in swaying enough people to vote for her. Oh yeah, I voted for her the 10 times maximum you were allowed; I’ve never voted on a call in show for anyone before.)

I invite you to go to her website: www.jackieevancho.com (Just her home page makes you want to smile.) Click on the button at the top of the home page labeled “Media,” and you can listen to any of her four of performances. (If you listen to only one, I suggest you check out “Pie Jesu.” I would love to know what YOU think!

#71 - Politics, Economics and Morality

(1) As always, please be sure to check out “The Coral Ridge Hour” this Sunday (5 pm, Ch. 40.1 in Orlando) This week’s entire broadcast will be about heaven and hell, two subjects you don’t hear spoken of directly very much despite their centrality to the gospel and the Scriptures.
(2)Be sure to check out Crossexamine.com to find out the CABLE broadcast of this new series by the Coral Ridge ministries to help believers understand key issues from a Biblical perspective.
(3)Be sure to check out this week’s editorial cartoons at: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/
(4)Be sure to check out (my health permitting) my Sunday Special post this week.

Not So Fast
By: Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, September 9, 2010

The politicians just don’t get it: Our nation’s economic health depends on our moral health. Summer is over, but the heat is on. I have just learned from people who would know, that the Republican congressional leadership, in preparation for the mid-term elections, may be stepping away from issues we Christians hold dear.

The Republican leaders, you see, are so confident they can sweep back to power by focusing only on economic issues, that they are ready to promote an election agenda that ignores the party’s historical commitment to life, marriage, and religious liberty. I believe that we, as Christians, need to tell them they are dead wrong. And here’s why. You’ve heard me say many times that the Church can never be captive to a political agenda, that we can never place our hope in any political party.

But we are always free to let leaders in both political parties know that they must hear our concerns. They must realize our allegiance is not to their party, but to those causes that promote the common good. This is why we launched the Manhattan Declaration—to make an unequivocal statement in support of human life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom. And I truly long for the day when both of our great political parties will embrace these causes.

Now, you may say that what the Republicans are doing is just good election strategy. The economy is in the tank, people want jobs and they want Obamacare repealed, so concentrate on those things. But there’s a flaw in that logic. Actually, it’s an enormous blind spot. If the Great Recession of 2008 has taught us anything, it’s that you can’t detach economic prosperity from moral issues. Greed, imprudent spending by individuals and by government, debt, all of these things brought our economy to where we are today. As I’ve said many times on BreakPoint, our economic collapse is the result of our moral and ethical collapse.

We don’t teach our kids that there are such things as right or wrong, and we wonder why they grow up to cheat and steal. And the social costs of disintegrating traditional families in terms of crime, divorce, juvenile delinquency, are truly staggering. You don’t think supporting traditional families—and marriage—matters? Well, then you’ve never been inside a prison, like I have. You haven’t met the thousands of young men and women I have who have told you about their missing fathers or their drugged-out moms.

No society that rejects the moral good can possibly stay solvent. The price tag for moral corruption, as we have learned, is simply too high.

So here is what I want you to do. Call your congressmen and senators, Democrat and Republican alike, tell them you support the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom. And then tell them you vote.[Note the buttons to the left to help you to locate your Senators and Congressman(or woman).]

Next, also contact information for House Republican leader John Boehner and Republican Whip Eric Cantor.

Let them know you expect the Republican Party to stay true to its traditional support for these supremely important moral concerns. Because America’s economic health depends on America’s moral health.

Further Reading and Information
Representative John Boehner’s office:Kevin.smith@mail.house.gov Phone number (202) 225-6205
Representative Eric Cantor’s office: Kristi.way@mail.house.gov Phone number (202) 225-2815.
The Republicans' Agenda Dilemma in the 2010 Elections, Robert Schlesinger | July 28, 2010 | US News
Fiscal Focus Splits GOP on Social Issues, Ralph C. Hallow | The Washington Times | June 10, 2010
The Manhattan Declaration, Life, Marriage, Religious Liberty | Manhattandeclaration.org

Email sent to Senator Mitch McConnell, (Republican) Minority Leader of the Senate, September 9, 2010

Dear Senator,
As Senate Leader, I assume that you can pass on this message that I was unable to post on the RNC website.
I hope that all of you in the Republican leadership will NEVER take the votes of us registered Republicans for granted. While I take comfort that you at least have taken stands against President Obama's outrageous actions, I am alarmed to hear that you are planning to just focus on the economy and "shut up" about the social issues. This kind of "strategy" to win more elections just will not work with a lot of us Republicans.
In case you don't get it, that's what's given birth to the Tea Party movement. It's not just folks upset about economic policies but folks who are tired of our "representatives" more interested in maintaining their power than in truly representing the views of the majority of people in their party.
I am and will maintain a Republican PRIMARILY because of it's stand on issues of the Sanctity of Life, the preservation of marriage, and the protection of religious liberties. If you choose to remain silent, let alone change your traditional positions on these issues, and you can count on millions of usually Republican voters like me to SIT OUT on your candidates that "shut up" on these issues just so they can get elected.
Senator, for that reason, I will NEVER be sending money to the RNC but will only support candidates who will NOT "shut up." I will always vote on principle, and I don't ever mean economic ones in the main.
Lead the party otherwise, and be sure that I am far from being alone in what I say.
Sincerely yours,
Stan M. Yonashiro

#70 - Obama Tax Hikes Defended by Myths and Straw Man Arguments: Summary

(1) As always, please be sure to check out “The Coral Ridge Hour” this Sunday (5 pm, Ch. 40.1 in Orlando) This week’s entire broadcast will be about heaven and hell, two subjects you don’t hear spoken of directly very much despite their centrality to the gospel and the Scriptures.
(2)Be sure to check out Crossexamine.com to find out the CABLE broadcast of this new series by the Coral Ridge ministries to help believers understand key issues from a Biblical perspective.
(3)Be sure to check out this week’s editorial cartoons at: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/
(4)Be sure to check out (my health permitting) my Sunday Special post this week.

Straw Man: Extending current tax policy will not stimulate the economy.

Reality: Extending current tax policy will provide at most a modest boost to the economy, but raising taxes will slow down recovery.
This is a straw man argument because proponents do not argue that continuing current policy would add much to stimulus. Effective economic stimulus requires some new policy.
Myth: Preventing a tax hike is a tax cut.
Fact: Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax provisions is not a tax cut; failure to extend these provisions is a tax hike.
Failure to extend current tax policy would impose massive tax hikes on millions of Americans. Preserving current tax policy is not a tax cut.

Myth: An extension of the tax cuts must be paid for.
Fact: It is neither necessary nor logical to raise taxes to avoid a tax hike elsewhere.
The “fact” in this case may seem so obvious as to be perplexing. Extending current tax policy is not a tax cut; it is the prevention of a tax hike and the deficit is not increased thereby.

Myth: Higher tax rates would not weaken the economy in the short run.
Fact: Higher tax rates would sap the recovery.
Raising taxes on work and investment would mean less work and less investment and can be regarded only as an overtly hostile anti-jobs policy.

Myth: Small businesses would be only marginally impacted by higher taxes rates.
Fact: Successful, growing, hiring small businesses are especially targeted by higher tax rates.
Many Americans report business income from hobbies, sideline businesses, etc., thus inflating the number of so-called “small businesses.” True small businesses have employees and machinery, offer goods and services widely, and are far fewer in number. Yet they earn most of the small business income that would be subject to the higher rates.

Myth: Tax rates matter little in the long run.
Fact: Tax rates have their most powerful effects on long-run growth and wages.
The effects of tax changes take time to manifest fully because major business investments typically require extended evaluation, planning, and implementation. Similarly, while workers respond quickly to changes in tax rates, a full response takes time as they adjust their spending and budgets accordingly.

Myth: The country cannot afford not to raise taxes.
Fact: The problem is spending, not revenues. The country cannot afford to let current spending levels continue.
Taxes as a share of the economy will soon exceed the historical average. The current and projected unsustainable deficits are due to Obama’s spending surge, not a shortage of revenue.

Myth: The Obama tax hikes would alleviate the long-term budget crisis.
Fact: The Obama tax hikes, while enormous in their own right, are almost inconsequential compared to the size of the unfunded spending in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Tax relief enacted a decade ago did not cause excessive entitlement spending. Tax increases today and in the future would do little to address the long-term fiscal picture.

Myth: A strong economy would solve America’s budget woes.
Fact: A strong economy would help, but only aggressive spending reductions would restore a sound fiscal policy.
A strong economy would increase revenues to federal coffers but would not by itself restore a sound fiscal policy. Only significant spending reductions can simultaneously preserve a strong economy while establishing a sustainable fiscal policy.

Myth: President Bush intended the tax cuts to expire.
Fact: The tax cuts were to be permanent and were enacted on a temporary basis solely to overcome a parliamentary hurdle.
President Bush proposed permanent tax relief and repeatedly called for it to be made permanent.

Spending Is the Problem
Obama and his allies have increased spending radically. A sound, responsible budget policy absent tax hikes does not demand radically lower levels of spending but only reversing Obama’s radical spending. Congress should make current tax policy permanent and then get about the business of paring government spending to sustainable levels.

J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[For another perspective on the President’s view on taxes, check out: http://online.worldmag.com/2010/09/16/obama-vs-castro/]

#69 - Statism and Scripture

(This upcoming election is more about the out of control growth of our federal government for many years now, but especially over the past 2 years. The following commentary addresses this issue from a Christian perspective.)

Kudzu Government
Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, May 14, 2010

Many Christians are uneasy with the growth of government in American life. They just can’t quite explain why.

From General Motors to health care. From bank bailouts to national anti-obesity campaigns. Government is becoming more and more involved of every aspect of American life. Most Christians are rightly uncomfortable with this. But most of us can’t explain to our friends and neighbors why that is. That’s one reason I broadcast BreakPoint every day—to help Christians understand and defend a Christian worldview as it applies to every area of life. It’s also why I launched the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. At ColsonCenter.org, we feature the work of respected theologians and worldview thinkers—people like T.M. Moore, my long-time colleague.

As part of his weekly “ViewPoint” Bible studies, T.M. Moore has written for us a fantastic study called “Kudzu Government: The Lust for Autonomy and the Roots of Statism.” http://www.colsoncenter.org/the-center/columns/viewpoint The fundamental principle of a statist worldview, T. M. writes, is the belief that “government is in the best position to create the conditions and provide the framework for maximum human flourishing. When such becomes the operating principle of a nation, then nothing is off limits for government intrusion, revision, redefinition, and control.”
T. M. compares this kind of government to kudzu, a rapid-growing, leafy vine. Kudzu has its proper place—as an ornamental vine in a garden. But when it grows unchecked, it literally devours everything in its path. Any of you who have ever driven down a country road in the South know exactly what I mean.

Likewise, government has its proper, biblically sanctioned role—which is to restrain evil and promote justice. But as T. M. writes, “When government becomes a law unto itself...it breaks the bounds of its proper confines, and forcing its ways on every other area and aspect of life, it smothers and chokes everything it touches—values, institutions, establishments and entities—and replaces them with itself.” The statist worldview is particularly dangerous to religion. As T.M. writes, “Few things rankle the kudzu state more than the loud-mouthed prophet who simply won’t go along with the program.” So statist regimes either silence religion altogether (a la Communism and Nazism), or, just as insidiously, co-opt religion to use as a tool for government power and policy.

Look at the situation in America today. I’ve talked many times about the threat of abortion and gay marriage to religious freedom. Revoking non-profit status, laws about anti-discrimination in employment, revoking medical or pharmaceutical licenses—these are all “soft” ways that government can seek to force religious individuals and institutions into conforming to government policies. What makes T. M.’s study on “Kudzu Government” so useful is the way it employs Scripture to illustrate the dangers of statism. The story of Jeroboam, Joseph in Egypt, Ahab, David, and Solomon—all of these illustrate the tendency of those in power to want to assert more and more authority over their subjects’ lives.

Please come to ColsonCenter.org to download a free copy of “Kudzu Government.” Use it yourself, and give it to your small group. And be sure to come back every week for a new ViewPoint study by T. M. Moore on topics of great interest to Christians—all from a thoroughly biblical perspective.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
Rex Lex: Kudzu Government Part 1, T.M. Moore | Colson Center | May 10, 2010
To Be as God: Kudzu Government Part 2, T.M. Moore | Colson Center | May 11, 2010
What’s Yours Is Ours: Kudzu Government Part 3, T.M. Moore | Colson Center | May 12, 2010
Redefining Religion: Kudzu Government Part 4, T.M. Moore | Colson Center | May 13, 2010
Troubling the Truthful: Kudzu Government Part 5, T.M. Moore | Colson Center | May 14, 2010
It’s the Culture: What Makes a Good Society, Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | May 13, 2010

#68- The Mosque Controversy, Part 3: A Unique look at Islam; Also A Commentary on the Koran Burning Controversy

[As every Sunday, please turn into “The Coral Ridge Hour" this SUNDAY 5-5:30 pm (over-the-air, channel 40.1 in Orlando). They will have the second of a two part feature on Radical Islam. Also, if you have cable, please call 1-800-295-5869 for the broadcast times of their new program called “Cross-Examine” - "to help viewers examine everything in life through the lens of the cross of Jesus Christ.” (or go to their website: www.crossexamine.com)]

(On this 9th anniversary of 9/11, I am reminded that on that day, I was at my desk in the office when I heard people rushing to the conference area of the office. As I saw people gathering around a television set, I saw on the screen a plane flying into a building. My first thought was, “What are people doing watching a movie?!!” Then, as I stood there, I saw the second plane crash into the second tower and suddenly realized it was not a movie but a live news report!! It was all so surreal, and I still don’t remember when or how any of us got back to focusing on whatever we were working on that day. So, what’s YOUR memory of that tragic day?)

George Sada, an ethnically Iraqi Assyrian CHRISTIAN and a hero in the former Iraqi air force, wrote a book entitled: “Sadam’s Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein,” (2006). In it he says:

“I’m often asked about militant Islam and the threat of global terrorism. More than once I’ve been asked about the meaning of the Arabic words “Fatah” and “Jihad.” What I normally tell them is that to followers of the militant brand of Islam, these doctrines express the belief that Allah has commanded them to conquer the nations of the world both by cultural invasion and by the sword. In some cases this means moving thousands of Muslim families into a foreign land-by building mosques and changing the culture from the inside out, and by refusing to assimilate or adopt the beliefs or values of that nation--to conquer the land for Islam. This is an invidious doctrine, but it’s …being carried out in some places today by followers of this type of Islam.” (pp.285-6)

“[They] won’t be stopped by appeasement. They are not interested in political solutions. They don’t want welfare—their animosity is not caused by hunger or poverty or anything of the sort. They understand only one think: total and complete conquest of the West and of anyone who does not bow to them and their dangerous and out-of-date ideology of hate and revenge.” (p.289)

“What I want to say next is not easy for me to say but I think I must say it anyway. One of the nicest things about the American people is that you are generous and friendly people, and because of this you are sometimes naïve and overly trusting. You want to be friendly, so you open up to people and then you’re surprised when they stab you in the back. Many brave young soldiers have died in Iraq for this reason, but I think this is also a big part of the problem with the State Department and others in government who fail to understand the true nature of this enemy” (p. 289-90).

(I know that this event has now been canceled but I thought I’d go ahead and post it anyway just for the insight it presents.)

A Bad Idea - International Burn a Koran Day: by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, September 8, 2010
Remembering the terrorist attacks of 9/11 is something we should do. But there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to do it.

Pastor Terry Jones’s thoughts about Islam are simple and direct. The title of his book says it all: Islam is of the Devil. The same thought is on a sign outside of his church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, and on the T-shirts and coffee mugs the church sells. In order to raise greater awareness of the dangers of Islam, Jones has designated 9/11 as “International Burn a Koran Day.” According to their Facebook page Jones hopes, and I quote, “To bring awareness to the dangers of Islam and that the Koran is leading people to hell. Eternal fire is the only destination the Koran can lead people to so we want to put the Koran in its place—the fire!” End quote.

Every Christian believes that no man can come to God but through Jesus Christ. That’s not a bigoted remark, that’s simply the truth claim that underlies Christianity. And I would expect that Muslims would tell me that my religion, Christianity, is a false religion. The unique thing about the United States is that we are prepared to fight for and defend every single individual’s right to his or her choice to practice the religion of their choice. We learn to respect our differences in a free, pluralistic society. I have also referred repeatedly on BreakPoint to the dangers of the Islamist movement, which is an ideologically extreme perversion of the Islamic faith. And this is why so many armed conflicts around the world involve Muslims—often fighting other Muslims.And the attempts to inject parts of Sharia Law in the United States and Britain are a hazard to our constitutional order.

All that being said, I find Jones’s plan to burn the Koran foolish and contemptible. It poses dangers Jones has either overlooked or chooses to ignore. As Dr. John Rankin, president of the Theological Education Institute correctly notes, if Jones burns the Qur’an, “the images will reverberate on the Internet internationally, and this could lead to unparalleled fury in the Muslim world.” And most of that fury will be directed into violence against Christians in Muslim areas throughout the world. If Jones goes through with this horrid plan, people—Christian people—will suffer and some will die. General Petraeus has even expressed fear for our troops in Afghanistan.

Second, Rankin comments, “The Gospel would thus be slandered.” The Apostle Peter tells Christians that we are to be good apologists, but as we give people reasons for our hope in Christ, it has to be “with gentleness and respect.” Burning the Koran will be taken as the height of disrespect by the Muslim world where copies of the Koran are treated as sacred objects and are handled with the utmost care and reverence. Nothing in the Bible encourages us to treat Muslims or any other religious group with this kind of contempt. Rankin concludes, “The stakes are high in terms of the reputation of the Gospel and protection of innocent lives in tinderbox sections of the Muslim world.”

My most fervent prayer is that Jones will reconsider and cancel the Koran burning in the name of the Gospel of Peace. Part of a Christian worldview is the ability to articulate what we believe and why we believe it in the face of competing worldviews like Islam. But we detract from our witness if we allow anything except the Gospel to offend our unsaved neighbors.

Further Reading and Information

Far From Ground Zero, Obscure Pastor is Ignored No Longer, Damien Cave | The New York Times | August 25, 2010
Gainesville church plans to go ahead with Qur'an burning, James A. Smith, Sr. | Florida Baptist Witness | September 7, 2010
John Rankin Blog, Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Seven Questions for the Pastor Who Wants to Burn Copies of the Koran on 9/11, Fox News | Rev. John Rankin | September 3, 2010
[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/03/rev-john-rankin-pastor-terry-jones-dove-world-outreach-center-bureau]

#66 - The Mosque at Ground Zero. Part 1

Sense and Sensibility
By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com., August 6, 2010

Earlier this week [of Aug. 6th], the proposed New York City mosque at ground zero cleared its final hurdle. Nothing seems to stand in the way of its construction. I am appalled that peace-loving Muslims would want to do this on what is, for most Americans, hallowed ground. I am even more appalled that the mayor of New York is in favor of the idea. It would be like the Japanese building a Shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor! At a speech in front of the statue of liberty, Mayor Bloomberg made the case for the mosque on the grounds of tolerance. But tolerance isn’t the issue here. And certainly not tolerance as Bloomberg means it.

Tolerance used to mean listening respectfully to others’ opinions, even when you disagree. Tolerance as Bloomberg understands it, means “I won’t say no to you for anything you want, and you don’t say no to me for anything I want.”—The ultimate expression of political correctness, and the most certain formula for moral chaos. But the construction of the mosque at ground zero is not about tolerance. And it isn’t about religious liberty. This is about prudence: the good sense to do what is right. That’s one of the four classic, cardinal virtues given to the West.

Let me give you an example. It isn’t a violation of tolerance or religious liberty when a local zoning commission tells a church, or a synagogue, that it cannot build a sanctuary in a residential neighborhood. Parking issues, traffic, could adversely affect the neighborhood. So, local government can make the prudent decision to tell the church to build somewhere else. So it would not be an act of intolerance to deny the construction of a mosque at a certain location—particularly one, ground zero, where the mosque will serve as a daily reminder to New Yorkers of the terrorists, who, motivated by their Islamo-fascist beliefs, killed 3,000 innocent people in the name of Islam. Go build the mosque somewhere else.

Earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, columnist Bill McGurn wrote about a marvelous example of prudence in a similar situation during the early 1990s. Catholic nuns had moved onto an abandoned building at Auschwitz—the site of the Nazi death camp—to pray for peace and the victims of the Holocaust. The Jewish community was quite outraged. Although the nuns had the legal right to be at Auschwitz, Pope John Paul II intervened. Recognizing Jewish sensitivities, he ordered the nuns to move somewhere else to carry on their work. And they did.

Because I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving citizens who do not support terrorism, I can’t imagine why they would want to tempt us to think otherwise by building a mosque at the site where their co-religionists perpetrated the most barbaric acts of modern times. If they—and Mayor Bloomberg—don’t have the prudence to respect the sensibilities of others, then Congress ought to step in. With the upcoming elections, I’m sure your congressman will be all ears to your concerns. I understand the dilemma of religious freedom in this case. But as Bill McGurn pointed out, “having the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.” The Pope understood that at Auschwitz, and the Muslim community ought to understand it at ground zero.

Further Reading and Information
The Mosque Controversy and Religious Freedom, Cathy Young | RealClearPolitics | August 5, 2010
WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns , The Wall Street Journal | August 3, 2010
Strange Tolerance, Stan Guthrie | BreakPoint Features | August 5, 2010

[Don't miss Part 2 on this subject THIS FRIDAY!]

#65 - The Sunday Special

Dear friend,
Today, I’d like to begin a new feature of this blog, “The Sunday Special.” As you know, my postings during the week tend to be geared toward helping you understand the issues of the day more fully so that you can be more fully informed as a citizen of this republic. I also know how the subjects covered can be “heavy” and often hard to absorb.
Obviously, during each week, there are other things I observe or learn that are not as “heavy” that you might also enjoy reading. Maybe enjoy more, though I hope you will take the time, if even on the weekends, to read over the postings I’ve made for the past week. (Once in awhile, I may just post one of my “Letters to the Churches” that will be on the “heavy” side but which I hope you will be sure to read.)
Anyway, I hope you enjoy this new feature I hope to make available every Sunday. (It should be posted by the time you sit down for Sunday dinner, wherever you are.)
As always, I would enjoy if you would post on the blog site your comments and feedback.
Thanks, Stan


#1 - HAVE YOU HAD EVER HAD PROBLEMS BEING MOTIVATED TO LOSE WEIGHT? The other day, I was reading the book “The Obama Diaries.” (I’ve possibly read every book about our President since he was inaugurated, which is at least a dozen books. Many are very technical as they analyze his political philosophy and actions. While they are informative, they are sometimes dull reading that can be overwhelming. This book stands out as doing the same analyzing without getting too “heavy.” Unless you refuse to consider any analysis other than what the mainstream (liberal) press feeds you constantly, I encourage you to borrow this book from your public library. It’s a great, and sometimes even a fun read.)

ANYWAY, at the end of a chapter that talks about Mrs. Obama’s anti-obesity campaign, the author, Laura Ingram, talks about the importance of physical fitness. I started to just glance over that section as it seemed to say the usual stuff about eating right and exercising. (Heard it, tried it!). What surprised me was that the author talked about it in the context of trying to shovel snow from her driveway in order to get to work one winter. She describes her getting winded and wondering if she would be able to carry her children to the nearest hospital if there was an emergency and she couldn’t otherwise get them there.

The author makes the point that we need to see our need for physical fitness not just in a selfish way, merely as to how it would be good for us. But instead, as citizens, we need to consider whether, in any emergency situation, if we are able to help not just those we know but also strangers who are in need of help. For the first time, its occurred to me that, while I may not care whether or not I’m just another “fat slob,” I need to think of my being physically fit in a truly selfless way (Of course, there’s every reason to also think of it in a “selfish” way.)

Just as there once were (still are?) official volunteer firemen, we each need to be ready at a moment’s call to help others in an emergency. I think of the guy who was at his child’s school and suddenly saw a parent lose control of their car and drive into a retention pong. That guy was fit enough to immediately dive into that pond and pull out the children who would have otherwise drowned. I don’t know about you, but this perspective has given me a new motivation to get into and stay in shape. [Isn’t it amazing how you can get motivated about something when reading it in the context of something entirely different, in this case motivated about losing weight and being physically fit while reading a book on political analysis?]

#2 - Doctors Have Health Problems? I just got an email from a long time friend whose a doctor. In it he tells me that he is praying for my sleep problems and asks for prayer for himself as he is also struggling with sleep problems. It just occurred to me that I can't remember when I heard a doctor share that he had some kind of medical problem. I've always just assumed that doctors are always feeling well - ie, have no health problems - because they are "in the business" of helping others with THEIR health problems. Here's a thought: The next time you visit your (a?) doctor, take a moment at the end to ask HIM OR HER how they are feeling. You might expect a "fine" but then, you might get a different answer. Either way, it would be a great opportunity to ask that doctor if you could just take a moment to pray with them for them. An opening to share the gospel? You never know!!!

#64 – Economist-In-Chief or Commander-in-Chief?

(Don't Miss...: As always, please check out "The Coral Ridge Hour" this Sunday. (5-5:30pm, channel 40.1 (over the air), in Orlando.) Last Sunday, they began a four part series on why Christians should keep abreast of the public policy issues, ie "politics," in our country. I am saddened by the great number of Christians who do not believe this. I believe that this view is unbiblical citizenship. I'm sorry if you missed last week's broadcast, "Will the Church Forget." It is one of the most challenging and powerful messages I have ever heard. If you live in Orlando and would like to borrow my DVD copy of it, just call me at 407-382-3735. Also, please check the ministry website at Coral Ridge Ministries.org and click on the "Equip and Grow" button. One of the downloads you can get is entitled "The Christian and Politics." I strongly urge you to check it out.)

Obama Turns Page, Treats Iraq as a Distraction
The Foundry: Conservative Policy News – A Feature of The Heritage Foundation
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/31/obama-turns-page-treats-iraq-as-a-distraction/
Posted By James Phillips, August 31, 2010

"President Obama’s wooden speech tonight, ostensibly focused on Iraq, actually gave short shrift to the war in Iraq and failed to convincingly articulate a vision of Iraq’s future, his own Iraq policy, or America’s role in the world. The President talked about ending the war, but not of victory. Apparently in a rush to put the war in the past, he gave little attention to why the war was fought, what was at stake, or how the war related to broader U.S. goals in the Middle East."

"Instead, Obama maintained that “now it is time to turn the page,” and focus on restoring the economy—“my central responsibility as President.” Clearly more at ease acting as the “Economist-in-Chief” rather than the Commander-in-Chief, the President then devoted a surprisingly large portion of the speech, only his second from the Oval Office, to vague rhetoric about fixing the economy. But protecting America’s security and leading the nation in war should be his highest priorities as President, not to mention the paramount focus of a speech about Iraq. Unfortunately, the televised address sounded more like a campaign speech from a politician rather than a message from the Commander-in-Chief of a nation at war. He said that “Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.” But he gave no inkling of what that commitment entails, why America has a vital interest in Iraq’s future, or his Administration’s vision of Iraq’s future."

"Unfortunately, President Obama missed a golden opportunity to reassure anxious Iraqis and nervous U.S. allies elsewhere that the United States is a dependable friend that is determined to consolidate the long-term security of Iraq—not merely make a rush for the exit. While the speech may have helped him with Democratic voters, it is likely to undermine confidence in American leadership not only in Iraq and the broader Middle East, but in many other areas of the world. President Obama’s proclamation of his “central responsibility” for economic matters, shoe-horned into a major speech about Iraq—one of the world’s most important international security issues—will only encourage foreign doubts about his Administration’s commitment to finishing the job in Afghanistan, winning the struggle against Islamist extremism, and protecting U.S. allies around the world."

For more on what the speech should have covered, see: Obama’s Iraq Speech Should Stress a Resolute U.S. Security Commitment
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/obamas-iraq-speech-should-stress-a-resolute-us-security-

[Also, I found it sad that, while the President acknowledged President Bush's love for the troops, he failed to give the former President any credit for the troop surge late in his administration that turned the tide for the "good guys." It was a great opportunity for him to demonstrate humility by acknowledging the contribution of his predecessor. But as he has done often with other such opportunities to show himself as one who unites, he lacked the leadership to do so.]

#63 - Yes, There Is A Place for the Bible in PUBLIC Schools

(Personal Note : As always, please check out "The Coral Ridge Hour" this Sunday. (5:00 pm, channel 40.1 (over the air), in Orlando.) Last Sunday, they began a four part series on why Christians should keep abreast of the public policy issues, ie "politics," in our country. I am saddened by the great number of Christians who do not believe this. I believe that this view is unbiblical citizenship. I'm sorry if you missed last week's broadcast, "Will the Church Forget." It is one of the most challenging and powerful messages I have ever heard. If you live in Orlando and would like to borrow my DVD copy of it, just call me at 407-382-3735. Also, please check the ministry website at Coral Ridge Ministries.org and click on the "Equip and Grow" button. One of the downloads you can get is entitled "The Christian and Politics." I strongly urge you to check it out.)

Public Schools and the Bible - What You Need To Know
By: Chuck Colson, August 26, 2010 – Breakpoint.org

It may be hard to believe, but many state school officials across the country actually encourage teaching public school students about the Bible and Christianity. That’s because the Bible and Christianity are so important in understanding Western civilization and, specifically, American history and culture.
For example, the California Department of Education’s History-Social Science standards expect sixth-graders to “Note the origins of Christianity in the Jewish Messianic prophecies, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament, and the contribution of St. Paul the Apostle to the definition and spread of Christian beliefs (For example, belief in the Trinity, resurrection, salvation).”
In Massachusetts, state school officials expect seventh grade students to “Describe the origins of Christianity and its central features: monotheism; the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God’s son who redeemed humans from sin; the concept of salvation; belief in the Old and New Testament; and the lives and teachings of Jesus and Saint Paul.”

High school students in Florida are expected to “know the significant ideas and texts of… Christianity…”
Not only is it academically expected across the country, it is legally supported by the courts. Many people mistakenly assume using the Bible in a public school is prohibited by law. But in fact, the Supreme Court has actually endorsed using the Bible in public schools. In the 1963 Supreme Court case of Abington School District v. Schempp, the Court ruled that public schools cannot initiate devotional reading of the Bible. However, Justice Clark, writing the majority opinion also stated: “It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.” In the case of Stone v. Graham, where the Supreme Court ruled against the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools because they “are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths,” it nonetheless found that Commandments and the “Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, and the like.”

This is why courses like the Bible Literacy Project you’ve heard me speak about so often, are so important. You can find out about the Bible Literacy Project at BreakPoint.org. And because introducing the Bible to public school students is academically expected and legally supported, our friends at Gateways to Better Education have written a one-page document entitled “School District Guidelines for the Use of Bible Stories in The Classroom.” Gateways is a national ministry with expertise in the much-needed work of equipping Christian parents and teachers in the public schools. Having a Bible reading policy in place will reduce the “chilling” effect teachers feel from a principal who thinks it is not appropriate to reference the Bible. Your school may be open to implementing these guidelines for two reasons: First, it establishes what is and isn’t appropriate for teachers and guest speakers, and second, it helps protect a school from accusations that it is allowing devotional readings of the Bible as a classroom activity.

To download a free copy of the Bible reading guidelines for public schools, come to our website, www.breakpoint.org.

Further Reading and Information

Gateways to Better Education - Keeping the Faith in Public Schools
Model Curriculum and Resources California Department of Education
Bible Literacy Project - An Educated Person is Familiar with the Bible

#62 - Homosexual Marriage at the Polls - The People Have Spoken

By: Chuck Colson|, Breakpoint.com, August 18, 2010

(Personal Note #1: As always, please check out "The Coral Ridge Hour" this Sunday. (5:00 pm, channel 40.1 (over the air), in Orlando.) Last Sunday, they began a four part series on why Christians should keep abreast of the public policy issues, ie "politics," in our country. I am saddened by the great number of Christians who do not believe this. I believe that this view is unbiblical citizenship. I'm sorry if you missed last week's broadcast, "Will the Church Forget." It is one of the most challenging and powerful messages I have ever heard. If you live in Orlando and would like to borrow my DVD copy of it, just call me at 407-382-3735. Also, please check the ministry website at Coral Ridge Ministries.org and click on the "Equip and Grow" button. One of the downloads you can get is entitled "The Christian and Politics." I strongly urge you to check it out.)

(Personal Note #2: While it is often referred to as “gay” marriage, you will never see me use that term. (1) I don’t believe that any behavior condemned in God’s Word should be called “gay.” And (2) In 1987, I attended a retreat at which a woman who was named Gay by her parents cried at one of our meetings when she shared how the perversion that the term “gay” is now used to refer to causes her much pain. Since that day, I’ve pledged never to use that term to refer to homosexual behavior.)

"As the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California’s Proposition 8, makes its way through the appeals process, one of the big questions concerns the impact of another case: Lawrence v. Texas. That 2003 Supreme Court decision overturned the Texas law making sodomy a criminal offense. Judge Vaughn Walker clearly thinks that the line between Lawrence and his ruling is clear. His opinion not only cited Lawrence – it was, as many commentators have noted, practically written for an audience of one: Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Lawrence decision, and the likely swing-vote on the Supreme Court. But is the link as clear as Walker and his supporters say it is? No. Especially when you take public attitudes into account."

"At the time Lawrence was decided, Texas was one of only thirteen states that made sodomy a crime. In the rest of the country, consensual same-sex acts had been made legal by legislation. In other words, the public had adopted what could rightly be called a tolerant view of these acts: whatever people thought of homosexuality, they didn’t think it was a matter for the criminal law, and the political process reflected this cultural and political consensus. Thus, the ruling in Lawrence, whatever its constitutional merits, ratified an already-existing consensus – it didn’t set out to impose one. Even justice Thomas, who dissented from the majority opinion, called the Texas law 'uncommonly silly.' ”

"The same cannot be said of the ruling overturning Proposition 8. Only five states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage and half of those are the result of court rulings. What’s more, the trajectory of public, as distinct from elite, opinion has been clearly to ratify the traditional understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Since 1993, when the Hawaiian Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage, the American people have consistently made their opposition clear at the polls. Every time the issue has been on the ballot (31 states in all), voters have rejected same sex marriage. This despite being outspent by same-sex marriage proponents and always being vilified in the media and elite opinion. All of this exposes the claim that we’re trying to “impose” our view on others. We aren’t doing that. That’s ludicrous! We’re simply defending the democratic consensus."

"The only way to counter this distortion is if we do it ourselves: present our case winsomely and persistently. And, given what’s at stake in this battle, we don’t have any choice. The battle over this California case involves more than same-sex marriage or even the institution of marriage. As the Manhattan Declaration [Manhattan Declaration.org] points out, the biggest threat to religious freedom comes from those who want to redefine marriage and impose a particular view of sexual morality on all of us."

"How could pastors denounce sinful behavior held by a court to be a constitutional right? The only way to keep that from happening is to make clear—to make known—the great consensus in America in support of traditional marriage. Because courts rarely go against that."

Further Reading and Information
Poll: Support for Same Sex Marriage Grows, Brian Montopoli | CBS News | April 27, 2009
Same-Sex Mariage, Gay Rights, PollingReport.com
'Gay Marriages' Haulted; Case Fast-Tracked, Michael Foust | Baptist Press | August 17, 2010

#61 - Elena Kagan - Another Reason Why Voting for Obama Was a BAD Idea

[Please be in DAILY PRAYER that the right questions will be asked at the Senate hearings which began this week which will reveal the true dangerous nature of this Supreme Court candidate.]

As a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, Bruce Hausknecht, J.D., is an attorney in charge of research and analysis of legal and judicial issues of interest to the family. He is a frequent contributor to CitizenLink Daily Update and Family News in Focus. Prior to joining Focus Action in 2004, Hausknecht practiced law for 17 years. Hausknecht provides insight into President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.

1. Why are pro-family groups opposing Elena Kagan's nomination?

We've heard the president emphasize his commitment to abortion-on-demand, his support for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), his opposition to Proposition 8 in California, and his professed desire to nominate judges who rule based on "empathy," rather than on the law and the Constitution. There's no doubt that the president searched for a nominee whose views are similar to his own. Although Elena Kagan has a thin — some would stay "stealth" — history with regard to hints of her judicial philosophy (she's never been a judge), there are indeed glimpses into her legal and constitutional views on several subjects near and dear to pro-family groups, and those glimpses are alarming.

2. What is a proper judicial philosophy for a judge, and why is that important?

Whether you call it "strict constructionism" or "constitutionalism" or "originalism," the ideal judge should interpret and apply the nation's laws and Constitution based on the plain meaning of the text, supplemented, where necessary, by an analysis of the original understanding of the law as best we can glean it from the historical record.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the popular method of interpretation favored by liberals refers to the "living Constitution," which is an innocent-sounding euphemism that empowers activist judges to develop and create new constitutional interpretations based on their personal notions of how society should be evolving. In short, a living Constitutionalist has free reign to mold the law or Constitution into whatever he or she thinks is best for us. That's elitist, dangerous, and takes us in a direction our Founders never intended.

3. What has Elena Kagan said about same-sex marriage?

We know that as the current solicitor general (in charge of defending America's laws in court challenges around the country), Kagan has undermined the federal DOMA, which defines marriage as one man and one woman for all federal purposes. She's done so by admitting in legal papers filed with the courts that the Obama administration feels the law is discriminatory and ought to be repealed. She's further undermined DOMA in those cases by conceding that marriage has nothing to do with responsible procreation or child-rearing — a startling and ill-founded concession.
We also know of her well-publicized personal distaste for our country's law prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military. It's not hard to draw a line from her opposition to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to support for same-sex marriage.

4. Where does she stand on abortion?

There's no doubt that she'll be a strong supporter of abortion. First, President Obama has publicly announced that he would only nominate someone who showed a concern for "individual rights, which includes women's rights" — another euphemism that pro-family groups know from sad experience means abortion-on-demand.
Second, it appears she has donated to pro-abortion groups. Third, pro-abortion groups like Emily's List are already issuing press releases with glowing recommendations of Kagan. What do they know that we don't know? Finally, she has criticized a Supreme Court decision that upheld a federal ban on taxpayer dollars going to abortion, chiding the government for subsidizing "anti-abortion speech."

5. What can family advocates do?

Initially, they should realize they are not alone. Poll after poll says that the vast majority of Americans want center-Right judges who will rule based on the Constitution and the law's text, not based on whim, empathy or according to evolving societal standards. Then, do your homework:
(A) Follow CitizenLink.com and DriveThru blog for reports, analysis and updates on Kagan's nomination.
(B) Then, get active. The Senate has the responsibility to offer "advice and consent" on this nomination. There will be televised hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in late June or early July, and then a final up-or-down vote by the entire Senate sometime thereafter. Pay attention to these proceedings, and call, write or e-mail your senators to voice your opinion.(You can send your Senators an email by clicking on the button to the right of this blog.)
(C) Gear up for the November elections. Are your senators voting in accord with your wishes? Are they up for re-election this year? Elections have consequences. The Supreme Court is one of the biggest.

#60 – The General and the CEO - Lessons In Media Demonization

1 - Please remember to tune in to the half hour broadcast of "The Coral Ridge Hour" this and every Sunday (5 pm, channel 40.1 in Orlando) You will never be disappointed with its balance of a great gospel message and a commentary as well of a current issue our country faces.]
2 - Be sure to check: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons Talk about how one picture can communicate a thousand words. Great stuff each Friday!

1) The Dismissal of General McCrystal [The Obligatory Disclaimer – Of course, there is no disagreement that a soldier never publicly says anything critical of his commanding officer or his policies. And for his two statements in the Rolling Stones article (one of his impression of the President on their first meeting and the other of the Vice-President), the General did deserve to be dismissed. (The other disparaging comments about other members of the President’s Afghanistan civilian team were by unnamed sources on the General’s staff.)]

However, there are 2 significant points that has rarely been mentioned regarding what transpired:
a) It’s been reported that the article was read and approved of by the General for printing. Therefore, the General was not really surprised by its contents and we are left to conclude he wanted it released. The question that should have been asked by the media and the public is what was it that so frustrated the General about the President’s Afghanistan civilian leadership team that caused him to resort to do something that was blatantly insubordinate. It should be noted that the media – who almost always shapes (and not simply reports on) any debate in this country – never once queried how much of such criticism and frustration is prevalent throughout the military. insubordinate action. You can be sure that if it was a General under President Bush or some other President not favored by the media that was the subject of such frustration it would be the General’s views which would have received media scrutiny and the debate not merely confined to the of the General.
b)The General may never reveal and thus we may never know what caused him to allow that article to be published. But to whatever degree it causes some attention to be drawn to the Truths imbedded in the article that might not have otherwise been known, we may one day have to look back and give thanks to the General for the courage to put his career on the line to at least try to focus the nation's attention on those views.

P.S. - By the way, do you remember at the State of the Union address in January when the President (with 7 of the Justices sitting in front of him on national television)criticized their recent ruling on campaign finance reform? Historians all agreed that the President - representing one branch of the government - never uses such a forum to criticize those of the Judicial Branch of the federal government. And was he criticized? Not only was not, but those of his party present actually gave him a standing ovation. Talk about speaking out of turn and getting away with it? Hmm.. do you think maybe the President gets a free pass when his General doesn't? Can you say, "double standard?"

P.S.S. - Check out this article as well on the growing rift between the President and the Military:http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/mcchrystal-petraeus-obama-afghanistan/2010/06/23/id/362888?s=al&prom

2) The Demonization of British Petroleum and Its CEO. [The Obligatory Disclaimer - No one can argue that what has happened with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an incredible tragedy – for the environmental damage and the cost to the livelihood of those who live in the region. HOWEVER, you have to wonder if the nightly new coverage with obligatory pictures of oil soaked birds and endless interviews with local people who’ve been affected is just meant to stoke our emotional fires to demonize British Petroleum.]

Take, for example, when the two different heads of the company have spoken, there have been instances where their English and Sweedish (respectively) phrasing has been used to criticize them. When CEO Tony Hayward said that he wanted to “get back to his life,” why is it no one bothered to understand him to mean that he was just tired of being away from his family for so long. Why did people just see it as an insensitive statement regarding the people in the Gulf?. Then, when the President of the company used the phrase “the little people” to refer to the people who live in the Gulf, why did people jump on him as well without considering that it was just the way Sweedish people expressed themselves and was also not a denigration of the people in the Gulf. I wish that someone, anyone, in U.S. leadership would have asked people to take a deep breath and not be so caught up in their emotions that they were not so quick to turn blame into mindless demonization.

Speaking of which, how about that Congressional Inquisition several weeks ago? Those representatives called them an investigative group but all any of them did was verbally abuse that BP executive and ask him questions that they probably knew he could not answer. They just refused to believe that BP still hadn’t finished their evaluations of what could have caused the spill even though the representatives had no evaluations of their own to prevent from any experts. In fact, they kept pressing the executive to say that BP had been reckless when there was no way for him to state any such conclusion if they had not finished their evaluations. It was so obvious that the congressmen merely wanted a venue to show themselves being “tough” on BP for the voters back home – voters they would each face in the upcoming elections in November. The most outrageous was a congressman from Louisiana suggesting that the CEO should consider committing hara kiri or Japanese ritual suicide!

Ordinary citizens have also been acting in ways that are simply silly. Did you hear how early on a minor league baseball team in Florida announced that they were so mad at BP that they were no longer going to call their baseball practice sessions “BP” but would begin to refer them as “game rehearsal.” How silly!
Then there are the people who want to boycott BP gas stations even though they are aware that the local station owner would suffer and not BP. That also points to what is not often reported: BP is a corporation and thus is owned by tens of millions of shareholders, many of who have their pension funds in BP stock. Also, 40% of these are fellow Americans and so as the company has lost at least 50% of its stock value as a result of this oil spill, so have these Americans seen their savings severely hurt.

In trying to demonize BP, the media has also shined little spotlight on the government’s failures in helping to clean up the oil seepage. For example, sixteen barges sat stationary at one time although they had been sucking up thousands of gallons of BP’s oil. So why did these barges stop sucking oil? Because the Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board. (Were the firemen who rushed up the Twin Towers before they crashed held back until it was verified that they were rightly outfitted or didn’t the urgency of the moment simply override such a consideration?)

Another equally frustrating situation occurred when Louisiana Gov. Jindal requested that small “sand islands” be constructed to prevent oil from washing ashore. He was told by the government that his plans would have to wait until the Army Corp of Engineers did an environmental impact study first. As Newt Gingrich remarked, “It would take them longer to do the environmental impact study then it would take the oil to get to shore to impact the environment that they’re studying!”

I don’t know about you, but what really had me screaming at the television was when the lead off story last Saturday was that the CEO of BP had gone yachting after he had been removed from being the on-site spokesman for the company. In railing against his “insensitivity to the people in the Gulf,” the media’s reaction merely fueled sentiments against those who are wealthy capitalists. Never mind that the President himself hosted a Father’s Day Barbecue, played a round of golf, and flew to Chicago to watch the White Sox play. Wasn’t he also supposed to be focused on the oil spill? And how was the President’s actions explained: it was “good for the country” that the President took time to relax! Gee, can anyone say media bias and hypocrisy?!!!

#59 - Thank You, Dad!

[Please remember to tune in to the half hour broadcast of "The Coral Ridge Hour" today and every Sunday (5 pm, channel 40.1 in Orlando) You will never be disappointed with its balance of a great gospel message and a commentary as well of a current issue our country faces.]

[If you didn't read it last year, please read my blog posting last year on "Remembering My Father and THE Father, http://stanmyonashiro.blogspot.com/2009/06/22-remembering-my-father-and-father-on.html" Yes, it's about MY father and a comment about remembering OUR Heavenly Father.]

Reflections on My Father - by Chuck Colson, June 13, 2008, Breakpoint.com , June 13, 2008

As this Father's Day approaches, I have been thinking a lot about my own dad, and how blessed I was to have him in my life. I was born during the Depression; by today's standards, I guess you would say we grew up in fairly deprived circumstances. I just did not know it.
I remember that Dad was not around much when I was growing up. He had to drop out of high school when he was a young man to support his family after his father died. So, by the time I arrived, he was working full-time at a job, and going to accounting school—and later law school—at night: 12 years in total. One of my earliest childhood memories was my parents taking food to neighbors who had less than we did; and my mother taking me on the subway to meet my dad coming out of law school at nine o'clock at night. Then, we would accompany him home, but not before stopping for an ice cream. As I reflect on it, I think I developed my work ethic during those days. When I got out of the Marine Corps, I thought nothing about working full-time and going to school at night for four years to get my law degree. After all, my dad had set the example. Maybe one of the best days for my dad, and for me, was when I was admitted to the bar in Massachusetts and made a copy of the certificate, mailing it to my dad with a note on it saying, "Without you I could never have done this."
My dad worked so hard that I was accustomed to spending time with him only on Sunday afternoons. We would sit on the back porch, and there was never any wasted time. My dad would drill lessons into my head: Always do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay; be willing to do anything that you are required to do (that came in handy, by the way, when I had to clean toilets in Marine training); and always tell the truth. I testified 44 times under oath during Watergate and was never once accused of perjury. But if anybody accused me of self-righteousness, I would have to stand convicted. When I got to the White House, I was meticulous about avoiding conflicts of interest: I would put everything I owned in trusts. I would not see former clients. But I ended up in prison. Self-righteousness is a form of pride. One of the toughest things I ever experienced was stopping by my dad's hospital room on my way to prison. It was an emotional time, but at least I was able to witness to him about Christ. I will not know until I get to heaven what came of it. My worst day followed that, when I learned, in prison, that my dad had died. I had to attend the funeral under armed guard.
But one thing I knew for sure—and I knew it even as I grieved at my father's funeral: Dad had poured everything he had into me—and into his grandkids, who became the joy of his life. And he lived his life with great honor and dignity. All I can hope is that the same will be said of me some day by my children and grandchildren. I knew every minute my dad was proud of me—and I was proud of him. I told him how I felt many times when he was alive. But on reflection, I wish I had told him more often.
So, do not miss the opportunity this Father's Day to tell your father how much you love him and appreciate him. Or, if he is gone, as my father is, at least give a prayer of thanks to God that you had the dad you did.

#58 - BP’s New Deal is a Raw Deal

1. Be sure to check: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons Talk about how one picture can communicate a thousand words. Great stuff each Friday!
2. Be sure to watch “The Coral Ridge Hour” (half hour program) every Sunday (5pm, Channel 40.1 in Orlando) Great message plus great Christian perspective on critical issues for our country.
3. Check this Sunday for a special Father’s Day commentary (by Chuck Colson)

June 18, 2010, Amanda J. Reinecker, My Heritage.org (The Heritage Foundation)

It's TARP all over again. Yesterday, BP announced that it would "voluntarily" place $20 billion into a government-administered fund to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster and clean up the mess. The oil company also agreed to shell out another $100 million to a foundation that will support oil workers made unemployed by President Barack Obama's indefinite ban on offshore oil drilling.

Now, no one is disputing that this oil spill is real disaster wreaking enormous havoc on the environment and the economy. And BP should absolutely have to pick up the tab for all efforts to correct this mess. It's the beauty of the "you break it, you buy it" mentality. But there are right ways – legal and constitutional ways – to go about assigning responsibility, and the Obama Administration isn't following them.

Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky explains the law pertaining to the Gulf Coast situation: “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) sets out exactly what BP and anyone else who caused the spill have to pay for. Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702, BP is responsible for all removal costs; all injuries to real or personal property; damages for loss of subsistence use of natural resources; loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources or real or personal property; and damages for the cost of providing increased public services by any state. These categories of damages would cover all of the costs that everyone has been talking about…”

But the law says nothing about BP compensating the newly unemployed offshore oil workers. Why and how, then, can BP be liable? Legally, they can't. "Obama's moratorium is an unreasonable decision that is supported neither by the states in the Gulf nor experts in the oil and gas industry," von Spakovsky argues. In addition, the President's demand to transfer an immense portion of stockholders' wealth to the compensation fund without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome. So why would BP "voluntarily agree" to these costly measures? Perhaps the company was intimidated by Attorney General Eric Holder's threat to open a criminal investigation. Perhaps BP is under the impression this agreement places a cap on their costs. (It doesn't. The White House made clear that the $20 billion was just a down payment and in no way represented a cap on BP's liability.)

Or perhaps this so-called deal between the White House and BP represents little more than what Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) dubbed a political "shakedown"—a shakedown Heritage's Conn Carroll calls of "Godfather-like proportions." BP is by no means off the hook with this deal – it has to pay big-time; it is still liable to individual and state claims; and it received no assurances that economic damages would not be higher or that the White House wouldn't come back demanding more. But Carroll explains in a separate piece that BP is not the victim in this scenario. The rule of law is.

Wednesday's 'voluntary' deal between BP and the Obama administration was nothing less than a continuation of President Barack Obama's ongoing assault on the rule of law. Capitalism only succeeds if it is a profit and LOSS system. Well-managed firms should have every right to keep their profits, but mismanaged firms must be allowed to suffer losses… Failure is a necessary component of capitalism. But this administration refuses to allow the rule of law to work. From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.

#57 - Perfect Sportsmanship

[An Explanation: You haven't heard from me for several weeks now because until yesterday, I haven't been able to get on my computer because of an unexplainable problem that occurred. But thanks to the help of my friend, Dan Lum, over the past several days with three visits to my home, I finally am able to once again post things. I'm sorry if the following commentary is a bit dated but even with so much else to post, this is one story I feel needs to be posted. I trust you will enjoy what you read below.]

The Beauty of Forgiveness
Chuck Colson June 8, 2010, Breakpoint.com

The sports world received a beautiful lesson recently, a lesson made possible only because of Christianity.

Despite all the positive things we associate with the word “sportsmanship,” sports often brings out the worst in people: Little League parents behaving badly, drunken crowds, just for example. But it doesn’t have to be this way. As most of the world knows by now, Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers was one out away from throwing the 21st perfect game in Major League Baseball history. With two outs in the ninth, the Cleveland Indians batter hit a grounder to the Tiger first baseman. Galarraga, the pitcher, raced to cover first.

It’s a routine play, and the Tigers seemed to have pulled it off: Galarraga and the ball reached first base at least a step ahead of the runner. With that, Galarraga, who earlier in week had faced a possible demotion to the minor leagues, would become a baseball immortal. Except he didn’t. As you probably know, umpire Jim Joyce called the batter “safe.” Galarraga’s response was “a simple smile.” A smile that, as Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated said, seemed to ask “Are you sure? I really hope you are sure.” Galarraga was the only one smiling. The blown call outraged fans across the country. The most measured response called for Joyce to be fired. The more unhinged ones threatened Joyce and his family.

For his part, as soon as he saw the replay, Joyce knew that he had gotten it wrong. He told reporters “I just cost that kid a perfect game.” By baseball standards, such an admission was extraordinary: Umpires are paid to make judgment calls and stand by them. Players and managers can argue with them but only within limits, and with no expectation of having the call reversed. So, when Joyce apologized to Galarraga, we were already in unfamiliar territory. When Galarraga, in turn forgave Joyce, adding that Joyce probably felt worst than he did and “nobody’s perfect,” we were witnessing something extraordinary.The victim of what Posnanski calls one of “most absurd injustices in the history of baseball” went out his way to comfort the umpire who made the mistake. And the umpire was humble enough to ask for forgiveness. It was, as Posnanski called it, a “beautiful” lesson.

It was also a lesson made possible only by Christianity. I really don’t know anything about Galarraga’s or Joyce’s beliefs, but I do know that it was Christianity that taught the world the virtues of humility and forgiveness. Neither of these were considered virtues in the ancient world (or in any pagan or postmodern culture for that matter). On the contrary, they were signs of weakness.The Christian message summed up in the words “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,” provided a revolutionary new basis for human relationships. And it has the power to transform lives—both of victims and offenders—as I’ve witnessed over and over in 30 years of prison ministry. It has the power to heal nations, as the world witnessed in the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda.

What happened after that baseball game was more beautiful than Galarraga’s pitching. Especially for a postmodern culture that rejects the faith that gave meaning to the words “I’m sorry” and “I forgive you.” And that’s one call I’m sure of.

Further Reading and Information

The Lesson of Jim Joyce - Joe Posnanski | June 2, 2010

How a Botched Perfect-Game Call Brought Out the Best in Everybody (Except Us) Will Leitch | New York Sports | June 3, 2010

Perfect Game Thwarted by Faulty Call - Tyler Kepner | The New York Times | June 2,

#56 – Arizona’s Immigration ENFORCEMENT Law – What You Probably Haven’t Heard

[Please be sure to watch the second part of the presentation, “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger,” on “The Coral Ridge Hour,” this Sunday, May 23. Again, in Orlando, it airs on station 40.1 at 5-5:30 pm].

[from Stan – (1)Outrage is the only way to describe the visit the past few days by the President of Mexico. First, on Wed, he stands in the Rose Garden of the White House and denounces the recently signed Arizona immigration law, followed by our President who concurs with him. The following day, he stands before a special joint session of Congress and repeats the same unfounded charges, adding an accusation that our lack of an assault gun is what arms criminals in his country. On both counts he receives a standing ovation from the Democrats who are there. Can you imagine a U.S. President going in Iran or North Korea to speak out against their nuclear program and their human rights abuses? Can you imagine any foreign leader going to another country and criticizing THEIR policies about anything? And yet, not only is the Mexican President allowed to do so, but he is supported by our President, applauded by members of our Congress, and is even feted to a state dinner! As someone has correctly said, he should have been immediately deported!
(2) By the way, if you want to know how Mexico’s own immigration policy is even more restrictive and does “racial profiling” unlike even Arizona’s or even our Federal immigration law (which the Arizona law only seeks to enforce as the Federal government itself is not effectively doing so), then please check out the article by Michelle Malkin on April 28 entitled, “How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens,” at > http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/0428/how_mexico_treats_illegal_aliens?page=full&comments=true

Fact Sheet: Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Enforcement Law (from NumbersUSA.com, May 13)
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/fact-sheet-arizonas-sb1070-immigration-enforcement-law.html

A new Pew Research poll reveals that the majority of Americans support most of the provisions offered in Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. Seventy-three percent of Americans believe that individuals should carry proof of legal status, 67% support police being able to detain an individual that can't prove legal status, 62% support police questioning an individual they suspect to be in the country illegally, and 59% support the Arizona law. One of the biggest myths offered by opponents of Arizona's SB1070, including criticism made by Pres. Obama, is that Arizona residents will now have to carry their "immigration papers" wherever they go. Federal law already requires all legal immigrants over the age of 18 to carry proof of legal residence at all times. The Pew poll reveals that this requirement is supported by a large majority of Americans.

Arizona's Gov. Brewer signed SB1070 into law in April of 2010. Combined with HB2162 (which amends SB1070), the new law will:
· Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an "illegal alien" (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
· Allow police to detain people where there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they're illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what "reasonable suspicion" might entail)
· Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction.
70 percent of Arizona voters support the new law. Much of the outcry in the press has stemmed from misinformation about the law that may have originated with the local paper, The Arizona Republic.

Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements.
The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)

Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official "may not consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien's immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in "solely" considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.

Myth No. 3: "Reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: "Reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures"). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of "reasonable suspicion:"A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver's license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions. The SB1070 provision in question reads: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people. Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do. Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.

The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).

[By the way, as of 5/21, 17 states are planning to enact laws similar to Arizona’s!]

#55 – Did You Hear That…?

[I hope that you got to watch the broadcast on Sunday, “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger.” I’m looking forward to the second part of that presentation this Sunday (5/23). While I’m sure the book of the same title that’s offered for purchase is well-done (I haven’t decided yet whether to get a copy), I would recommend that you first consider getting a copy of the book I have mentioned often already: “Saving Freedom” by Jim DeMint. I got a “used” copy through Amazon.com for $9 with postage and the copy I received was actually in mint condition. Trust me, it’s the one book on current affairs you want to own and have everyone in your family read at some time.]

1. Late last week, President Obama stood in the Rose Garden of the White House and berated British Petroleum. a) He scolded them for not working faster to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf. I remember listening to the President and thinking of how it reminded me of a parent scolding their child who had just spilled milk on the kitchen floor and was busy cleaning it up. Sure, the child should have been more careful but in the end all of the parent’s yelling was not going to help the child clean up the spill any faster. It’s a parent blustering their authority and their indignation just to feel good about themselves – or in the case of the President and others who behave in such a way, a deplorable way to grand stand to your political advantage. It’s called political theater and its insulting whenever its performed. b) The President went on to also chide the executives of the companies involved in the oil spill for blaming each other at a Congressional hearing earlier in the week. But then what does he do but go on to blame the leaders in Washington of the past 10 years (when President Bush was mainly in office) for not doing more to prevent the disaster from happening. First he puts down others for not taking the blame and then right after wards he himself blames others. Can you say “hypocrisy?” [By the way, at the end of one news story on television, when asked why the President chose to say the things he did when he did, the reporter replied that the President was probably trying to lay the foundation of how the administration would defend itself in upcoming hearings. Sure enough, this week we are learning of how officials in the Obama administration itself has approved hundreds of oil contracts without much scrutiny even in the short time they have been in office. And, to take the heat off the administration, the official who oversaw those contracts suddenly retired (forced out) this week.]

2.The Attorney General, Eric Holder, testified in Congress last week regarding the immigration law that past last month in Arizona. For weeks, the AG had been criticizing the law and said that it needed to be challenged in court. At one point while he was being questioned by a congressman (a Republican, for no Democrat would have thought of asking such a question of one of theirs), the AG was asked if he had read the law. The surprising reply was a sheepish, “No, I haven’t had a chance to.” When the questioner said that the law was only about 10 pages long, much shorter than the 2000 page healthcare reform bill, you could almost hear the AG squirming in his seat and imagine his face flushing with embarrassment. [This had to be visualized because a recording of this interaction was played on conservative radio and was nowhere to be found on television where newscasters tend to be very favorable to the Obama administration. You can only imagine that if this was a Republican official that was so embarrassed it would have been the lead story throughout the media for DAYS!.] Of course, that the chief law enforcement officer had criticized a law he had not even read only demonstrates how the outrage towards the law has been based not on substance but on more on politics. Let’s just hope our Supreme Court justices (and all justices) are at least reading the laws they are supposed to interpret before they make any decisions. That justices at any level of the judiciary can be motivated more by their political views than their careful strict adherence to what the law (and the US Constitution) says is VERY scary and reason why their personal views on issues is always important to consider whenever they are appointed. All of this just emphasizes why the President’s SC nominee now being considered needs to be asked about the many political views she has expressed.

3. Also last week, former First Lady Laura Bush was interviewed many times regarding the publication of her memoirs. Most of the questions dealt with her experiences in growing up and in the White House. But what really caught my attention was her statements on abortion and homosexual marriage. She said the Roe v Wade should remain the law of the land as it is and that she saw nothing wrong with homosexual marriage! Talk about being struck by something out of “left field.” I was very surprised by her statements and then again not surprised. Former First Lady Barbara Bush also expressed a “pro-choice” view and Nancy Regan has come out in favor of embryonic stem cell research (mainly because she believes it could have cured her late husband, the late President Reagan, of his Alzheimer’s). Despite the pro-life views of their husbands, I can’t understand why the wives of conservative former Presidents share such opposite views. Could it be that they’ve bought into the liberal harangue that the killing of children is just a “woman’s issue,” ie that only women can understand why abortion is needed. This is such a joke when more and more women are coming forward sharing how they were themselves harmed emotionally and many times even physically by so-called “safe” abortions and the fact that about half of the lives destroyed in the womb by abortion are female is so conveniently disregarded. To say the least, this revelation has been very disappointing. [I hope to get a copy of her book from the library just to see if I can learn what lies behind Mrs. Bush’s views.]

4. Bush Kept His Entertaining Private – (from Newsmax.com, 5/16) “What’s well known to Washington insiders is that President George W. Bush and his wife Laura hosted few state dinners at the White House — just eight, the fewest of any postwar president. What’s not well known is that the Bushes in fact entertained frequently outside the White House — in part because their state dinner invitations were often declined. “The Bushes did a great deal of entertaining, but they never publicized it,” Lea Berman, their second social secretary, told Vanity Fair writer Bob Colacello. “In 2002 and 2003, they had over 100 private visits with heads of state. What was happening at that time, according to people at the National Security Council, was that foreign leaders were not asking for state visits.” Instead, they were asking to go to Camp David, or to the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas, because it was considered “more of an intimate thing, and it was building more of a personal friendship,” according to Colacello. ‘I’ve told many reporters this, and no one has ever reported it — it doesn’t fit the story of them not entertaining.’ ”