[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.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
#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?!!!
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?!!!
Sunday, June 20, 2010
#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.
[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.
Friday, June 18, 2010
#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.
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.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
#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,
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,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
