Debt, Default, and Worldview, By: Chuck Colson| July 28, 2011 http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/17549
Our worldview determines how we live -- and how we manage our fiscal affairs as individuals and a nation.
The clock is ticking. The United States is on the verge of default. Congress and the president seem unable to come together and find an agreement avoiding an economic catastrophe. How in the world did we get into this fix? Well, it didn’t happen overnight. It’s been coming for a generation. For years, fiscal conservatives have warned about the dangers of out-of-control borrowing and spending, but current and previous presidents and congresses have ignored them, rolling up a massive national debt.
The bigger question is why did the American people stand for this? The answer is painfully clear. Because the people themselves were busy borrowing and spending like fiends. Americans as a rule used to be a frugal people. They believed in the Protestant work ethic — an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, save for a rainy day, don’t go deep into debt. But something changed, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman — whom I respect though often disagree with — hit the nail on the head.“The generation that came of age in the last 50 years,” he writes, “will be remembered most for the incredible bounty and freedom it received from its parents and the incredible debt burden and constraints it left on its kids.” Friedman calls this the “clash of generations.” The greatest generation scrimped and saved; their kids, the boomers, went on a big shopping binge.
This is what happens when a false worldview comes home to roost. Remember that it was in the 1960s that existentialism and relativism took over college campuses. If there truly were no God and life were devoid of meaning, well, live it up while you can. Throw off the burden of moral restraints, of civic duty and responsibility. Find fulfillment in pleasure and self-actualization; not in service to others or in building a good and just society. Thus was ushered in what Christopher Lasch called the age of narcissism. There’s only one problem with the existentialist/relativistic worldview and the self-centeredness it breeds: It doesn’t work. It doesn’t foster the self-discipline, prudence, and moral character that individuals and societies need in order to flourish.
No wonder then, according to the Department of Commerce, when adjusting for inflation Americans spent more than they earned in most months from 2000 through 2008. Even without adjusting for inflation, monthly personal saving was usually less than three percent. This means people were borrowing more than they could repay.
Jesus asked the right question. Who would set out to build a tower who did not “first sit down and estimate the cost” (Luke 14:28). Actually, we’re worse off than that. We borrowed heavily to build the tower, only to find out now it is about to be repossessed! Not all the news is bad, though. Since 2008, Americans have awakened to reality and begun to spend less and save more. We’ve put off that vacation, coaxed a few thousand more miles out of the old car. We’ve tightened our belts. Now it’s time to make sure the government does the same.
Are folks beginning to figure out that we’ve been building a tower on a false worldview? That chasing self-fulfillment and living for the moment lead inevitably to moral and economic poverty? Well, we’ll see. But it’s a fair question, and we, the Church, must raise it again and again. For our good and for the good of all.
Further Reading and Information
The Clash of Generations, Thomas L. Friedman | New York Times | July 16, 2011
The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch | W. W. Norton & Co. | 1991
Wake Up and Smell the Corruption!,Chuck Colson | Two-Minute Warning |July 25, 2011
Nothing Like It Before,Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | July 27, 2011
Chuck personally invites you to become a charter member of the Colson Center for Christian worldview. This is where we equip Christians to effectively engage and impact our culture. Go to Join Colson.com to learn more.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
#105 -The Terror of Evil and Sin
[As I post this, the tension over the negotiations in Congress to deal with our out of control national debt and the debt ceiling intensifies. It goes without saying that we each need to be earnestly praying that our leaders will have the wisdom and courage to do what is right and best for our economy, and not merely settle for some compromise that will do nothing to address the systemic problem of government overspending. But before we get any further from the evil experienced in Norway last week, I would like to share this Christian worldview perspective on what happened. - Stan]
The Tragedy in Norway - By: Chuck Colson| July 26, 2011
What ever can explain the horrible events that took place in Oslo? The answer is hard for moderns to accept.
Norway is one of the most beautiful places on earth. A Nordic paradise of fjords, coastline, glaciers, forests. Norwegians are rightfully proud of their prosperous, peaceful society. Well, today, Norway is in a state of absolute, total shock in the aftermath of one of the most cold-blooded, heartless acts of terrorism since 9/11. The Norwegians are desperately trying to explain this senseless slaughter. The killer has been described as a right-wing extremist, a fundamentalist Christian, an anti-immigrant fanatic, and mentally ill. Most likely, in my opinion, a fascist.
But here are two root causes of this horrible act that few in Norway, or the rest of the Western world for that matter, will acknowledge: Evil and sin. You see, Norway is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe. Hardly a shred left of the Christian faith that once dominated the country.
So, without that Christian understanding of fallen human nature, the people of Norway are left in mourning, but without an explanation for the horror that has befallen them.
I can’t help but think of a visit I made to a maximum-security prison outside of Oslo back in the 1980s. I tell this story in my book How Now Shall We Live? I was greeted by the warden, who was a psychiatrist. She gave me a tour of the place, which seemed more like a laboratory than a prison. We met so many other psychiatrists that I asked the warden how many of the inmates here were mental cases.
She replied, “All of them, of course.” I was stunned. Really? “Well,” she said, “anyone who commits a violent crime is obviously mentally unbalanced.” This was the ultimate expression of the therapeutic model. People, the reasoning goes, are basically good, so anyone who could do something so terrible as this must be mentally ill. And the solution is therapy. It is a tragically flawed and inaccurate view of human nature. And, as I learned just a few days later, a very dangerous one.
During that visit I preached the Gospel to the prisoners. They were completely numb to the message. But as I was leaving, a young correctional officer, a Christian, came up to me. She said she had prayed for someone to confront the prisoners with the message of sin and salvation. She was frustrated by the corrections system in Norway, where there was no concept of personal responsibility, and therefore no reason for prisoners to seek personal transformation. Only days later, I learned the tragic news: The young officer I had met was assigned to escort an inmate out to see a movie as part of his therapy. On the way back to prison, he murdered her.
The point is this: when we attempt to explain away moral evil, we will fail to constrain it. We cannot account for human behavior without recognizing that we are fallen creatures prone to sin.As a sad footnote to the Oslo tragedy, the maximum sentence a criminal can receive in Norway is 21 years. Thus, barring some extraordinary event, the Oslo terrorist will back on the streets in 2032. An Oslo police spokesperson put it this way: “What the world needs to understand about Norway, is that this incident represents our loss of innocence, because we’ve been a very safe country to live in until now.” She then added: “There’s been no reason to keep people in prison for life.”
But there has been and always will be. It’s called sin.
Further Reading and Information
How Now Shall We Live? Charles W. Colson & Nancy R. Pearcey | Tyndale House Publisher | 1999
Norway terror suspect could get more than the maximum sentencePeter O'Neil | National Post | July 24, 2011
The Tragedy in Norway - By: Chuck Colson| July 26, 2011
What ever can explain the horrible events that took place in Oslo? The answer is hard for moderns to accept.
Norway is one of the most beautiful places on earth. A Nordic paradise of fjords, coastline, glaciers, forests. Norwegians are rightfully proud of their prosperous, peaceful society. Well, today, Norway is in a state of absolute, total shock in the aftermath of one of the most cold-blooded, heartless acts of terrorism since 9/11. The Norwegians are desperately trying to explain this senseless slaughter. The killer has been described as a right-wing extremist, a fundamentalist Christian, an anti-immigrant fanatic, and mentally ill. Most likely, in my opinion, a fascist.
But here are two root causes of this horrible act that few in Norway, or the rest of the Western world for that matter, will acknowledge: Evil and sin. You see, Norway is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe. Hardly a shred left of the Christian faith that once dominated the country.
So, without that Christian understanding of fallen human nature, the people of Norway are left in mourning, but without an explanation for the horror that has befallen them.
I can’t help but think of a visit I made to a maximum-security prison outside of Oslo back in the 1980s. I tell this story in my book How Now Shall We Live? I was greeted by the warden, who was a psychiatrist. She gave me a tour of the place, which seemed more like a laboratory than a prison. We met so many other psychiatrists that I asked the warden how many of the inmates here were mental cases.
She replied, “All of them, of course.” I was stunned. Really? “Well,” she said, “anyone who commits a violent crime is obviously mentally unbalanced.” This was the ultimate expression of the therapeutic model. People, the reasoning goes, are basically good, so anyone who could do something so terrible as this must be mentally ill. And the solution is therapy. It is a tragically flawed and inaccurate view of human nature. And, as I learned just a few days later, a very dangerous one.
During that visit I preached the Gospel to the prisoners. They were completely numb to the message. But as I was leaving, a young correctional officer, a Christian, came up to me. She said she had prayed for someone to confront the prisoners with the message of sin and salvation. She was frustrated by the corrections system in Norway, where there was no concept of personal responsibility, and therefore no reason for prisoners to seek personal transformation. Only days later, I learned the tragic news: The young officer I had met was assigned to escort an inmate out to see a movie as part of his therapy. On the way back to prison, he murdered her.
The point is this: when we attempt to explain away moral evil, we will fail to constrain it. We cannot account for human behavior without recognizing that we are fallen creatures prone to sin.As a sad footnote to the Oslo tragedy, the maximum sentence a criminal can receive in Norway is 21 years. Thus, barring some extraordinary event, the Oslo terrorist will back on the streets in 2032. An Oslo police spokesperson put it this way: “What the world needs to understand about Norway, is that this incident represents our loss of innocence, because we’ve been a very safe country to live in until now.” She then added: “There’s been no reason to keep people in prison for life.”
But there has been and always will be. It’s called sin.
Further Reading and Information
How Now Shall We Live? Charles W. Colson & Nancy R. Pearcey | Tyndale House Publisher | 1999
Norway terror suspect could get more than the maximum sentencePeter O'Neil | National Post | July 24, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
#104 - Seven Reasons Why August 2 Isn’t the End of the World
Posted by Dean Clancy, Redstate.com, July 18, 2011
Washington is currently borrowing about 43 cents out of every dollar it spends, and is close to maxing out its credit limit. Current law says Uncle Sam cannot borrow more than $14.3 trillion. A few months back, the Obama Administration demanded that Congress increase the national credit line by $2.5 trillion by May 16, or else, it warned, the United States would default on its debts, causing an “economic Armageddon.” ($2.5 trillion is just enough to aver the need for another debt hike until after the 2012 election.) When May 16 came and went, and nothing happened, the Obama team set a new “Armageddon” date: August 2.
Unfortunately, a lot of folks in Washington and Wall Street – including some who should know better — seem to be taking this new deadline at face value. While it’s true that, at some point, the government will hit the ceiling and have to reduce spending by about 40 percent, exactly when that day will arrive, nobody knows for sure. And don’t believe anyone who tells you he does know. “No man knows the day or the hour.” Maxed Out Day could be August 2. It could be August 22. Or it could be in September. The exact date really depends on whether the President is willing to tap certain reserves available to him, or decides to force a political crisis.
I cannot tell you when Maxed Out Day will be. But I can – and will — prove to you that August 2 doesn’t have to be it. Before I do so, here are three key numbers to remember: 1) We are projected to take in between $170 billion and $200 billion in August, in revenues. 2) We will likely spend about $300 billion in August. 3) Therefore, we face a gap of somewhere between $100 billion and $130 billion.
So what will happen, come the August 2 deadline?
1.The U.S. will still be able to pay its creditors (i.e., it won’t default). There’s no reason why the government needs to stop paying its creditors. Ever. Debt service payments (interest on the national debt) will only cost $30 billion in August. As I’ve noted, we will take in $170-200 billion.
2.Social Security checks will still go out. On July 12, President Obama suggested that, come August 2, he might not be able to send out the 50 million Social Security checks slated to go out in August. But since those checks only cost $50 billion, compared to $170-200 billion coming in, there will obviously be sufficient funds to mail them.
3.Medicare and Medicaid payments will go out as usual. Experts predict we’ll owe about $50 billion to doctors and hospitals. Well, with $170-200 billion coming in, granny will get her health care, just like always.
4.Veterans and active-duty military personnel will get paid. Paying our veterans will cost about $3 billion. Ditto our soldiers in uniform. That $6 billion is chump change by DC standards.
So that’s a total bill of $136 billion, easily covered by the $170-200 billion we’ll take in. Of course, we won’t be able to afford everything the government currently spends on. The Departments of HUD, Transportation, Commerce, Energy, and Education, for example, may have to take a pause while Congress works out a deal with the President. But is that really “the end of the world”?
Earlier, I mentioned the reserve funds the President can tap. As the Senate Finance Committee Republican staff helpfully point out:
5. The Treasury Department has $5 billion sitting idle in an account at the Federal Reserve. It can tap this account any time.
6. Treasury has close to $100 billion in mortgage-backed securities it can sell. It bought these securities during the financial crisis to bail out housing markets. Just last month, it sold $10.6 billion worth.
Finally, there’s a seventh reason why August 2 needn’t be anything more than another pleasant summer day in America.
7. Congress can pass the Cut Cap Balance Act (H.R.2560). This bill would give President Obama his $2.5 trillion debt increase — in exchange for three things: 1) $111 billion in cuts this coming year, 2) tight spending caps for the coming decade, and 3) congressional approval of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. By strong, I mean one that makes it much harder for Congress to spend more than a fixed share of the economy, raise taxes, or add to the debt.
[The Cut Cap Balance Act was passed by the House but defeated in the Senate, where it was supported by all Republicans and no Democrats. It would have made this the last debt ceiling hike, ever. Unfortunately, President Obama ... threatened to veto it.] ...
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks’ Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy. http://www.redstate.com/deanclancy/2011/07/18/seven-reasons-why-august-2-isnt-the-end-of-the-world/
Washington is currently borrowing about 43 cents out of every dollar it spends, and is close to maxing out its credit limit. Current law says Uncle Sam cannot borrow more than $14.3 trillion. A few months back, the Obama Administration demanded that Congress increase the national credit line by $2.5 trillion by May 16, or else, it warned, the United States would default on its debts, causing an “economic Armageddon.” ($2.5 trillion is just enough to aver the need for another debt hike until after the 2012 election.) When May 16 came and went, and nothing happened, the Obama team set a new “Armageddon” date: August 2.
Unfortunately, a lot of folks in Washington and Wall Street – including some who should know better — seem to be taking this new deadline at face value. While it’s true that, at some point, the government will hit the ceiling and have to reduce spending by about 40 percent, exactly when that day will arrive, nobody knows for sure. And don’t believe anyone who tells you he does know. “No man knows the day or the hour.” Maxed Out Day could be August 2. It could be August 22. Or it could be in September. The exact date really depends on whether the President is willing to tap certain reserves available to him, or decides to force a political crisis.
I cannot tell you when Maxed Out Day will be. But I can – and will — prove to you that August 2 doesn’t have to be it. Before I do so, here are three key numbers to remember: 1) We are projected to take in between $170 billion and $200 billion in August, in revenues. 2) We will likely spend about $300 billion in August. 3) Therefore, we face a gap of somewhere between $100 billion and $130 billion.
So what will happen, come the August 2 deadline?
1.The U.S. will still be able to pay its creditors (i.e., it won’t default). There’s no reason why the government needs to stop paying its creditors. Ever. Debt service payments (interest on the national debt) will only cost $30 billion in August. As I’ve noted, we will take in $170-200 billion.
2.Social Security checks will still go out. On July 12, President Obama suggested that, come August 2, he might not be able to send out the 50 million Social Security checks slated to go out in August. But since those checks only cost $50 billion, compared to $170-200 billion coming in, there will obviously be sufficient funds to mail them.
3.Medicare and Medicaid payments will go out as usual. Experts predict we’ll owe about $50 billion to doctors and hospitals. Well, with $170-200 billion coming in, granny will get her health care, just like always.
4.Veterans and active-duty military personnel will get paid. Paying our veterans will cost about $3 billion. Ditto our soldiers in uniform. That $6 billion is chump change by DC standards.
So that’s a total bill of $136 billion, easily covered by the $170-200 billion we’ll take in. Of course, we won’t be able to afford everything the government currently spends on. The Departments of HUD, Transportation, Commerce, Energy, and Education, for example, may have to take a pause while Congress works out a deal with the President. But is that really “the end of the world”?
Earlier, I mentioned the reserve funds the President can tap. As the Senate Finance Committee Republican staff helpfully point out:
5. The Treasury Department has $5 billion sitting idle in an account at the Federal Reserve. It can tap this account any time.
6. Treasury has close to $100 billion in mortgage-backed securities it can sell. It bought these securities during the financial crisis to bail out housing markets. Just last month, it sold $10.6 billion worth.
Finally, there’s a seventh reason why August 2 needn’t be anything more than another pleasant summer day in America.
7. Congress can pass the Cut Cap Balance Act (H.R.2560). This bill would give President Obama his $2.5 trillion debt increase — in exchange for three things: 1) $111 billion in cuts this coming year, 2) tight spending caps for the coming decade, and 3) congressional approval of a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. By strong, I mean one that makes it much harder for Congress to spend more than a fixed share of the economy, raise taxes, or add to the debt.
[The Cut Cap Balance Act was passed by the House but defeated in the Senate, where it was supported by all Republicans and no Democrats. It would have made this the last debt ceiling hike, ever. Unfortunately, President Obama ... threatened to veto it.] ...
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks’ Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy. http://www.redstate.com/deanclancy/2011/07/18/seven-reasons-why-august-2-isnt-the-end-of-the-world/
Friday, July 15, 2011
#103 - The College Scam
[I'd appreciate your prayers as my health has not been good the past 2 days. I hope to post a Sunday Special; please be looking for it. Also, "The Coral Ridge Hour" on Sundays is now called "Truth That Transforms." (5pm, channel 55.1 here in Orlando) Please do your best to catch this weekly program.]
Personal Note : The following is a discussion that has become a recent news item. I don’t necessarily endorse the viewpoint presented here, but the writer does point out some things worth considering. When I graduated from high school more than 40 years ago, it was just accepted that you went to college and you had a successful future secured. It was never asked, “Is college the best choice for him or her?” My sister-in-law’s widowed Mom gave her 2 daughters the option of money for college or money to start whatever career they wanted. My sister-in-law took the money and started what has been a successful business. My own Mom and Dad had no more than an 8th grade education but for their entire adult lives they ran successful restaurant businesses with just their hard work and their intrinsic knack for cooking delicious food and showing personal interest in their customers. It always amazed me how in later years they drew customers as well as the franchise fast food places that sprang up all around them. (For their lack of business acumen, they simply an accountant to handle their books. That’s the reason why, by the way, my Mom always wanted me to become an accountant so that I could make a lot of money. I can only imagine her profound disappointment when I told her when in the 8th grade that I would never be good at math AND I had no desire to make a lot of money.) With this as a preface, I invite you to read the following commentary and post your response at the end.
by John Stossel http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44662 07/06/2011
What do Michael Dell, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and Mark Cuban have in common?
They're all college dropouts. Richard Branson, Simon Cowell and Peter Jennings have in common? They never went to college at all. But today all kids are told: To succeed, you must go to college. Hillary Clinton tells students: "Graduates from four-year colleges earn nearly twice as much as high school graduates, an estimated $1 million more." We hear that from people who run colleges. And it's true. But it leaves out some important facts. That's why I say: For many people, college is a scam.
I spoke with Richard Vedder, author of "Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much," and Naomi Schafer Riley, who just published "Faculty Lounges and Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For." Vedder explained why that million-dollar comparison is ridiculous: "People that go to college are different kind of people ... (more) disciplined ... smarter. They did better in high school." They would have made more money even if they never went to college. Riley says some college students don't get what they pay for because their professors have little incentive to teach. "You think you're paying for them to be in the classroom with you, but every hour a professor spends in the classroom, he gets paid less. The incentives are all for more research." The research is often on obscure topics for journals nobody reads.
Also, lots of people not suited for higher education get pushed into it. This doesn't do them good. They feel like failures when they don't graduate. Vedder said two out of five students entering four-year programs don't have a bachelor's degree after year six. "Why do colleges accept (these students) in the first place?" Because money comes with the student -- usually government-guaranteed loans. "There are 80,000 bartenders in the United States with bachelor's degrees," Vedder said. He says that 17 percent of baggage porters and bellhops have a college degree, 15 percent of taxi and limo drivers. It's hard to pay off student loans with jobs like those.These days, many students graduate with big debts.
Entrepreneur Peter Thiel, who got rich helping to build good things like PayPal and Facebook, is so eager to wake people up to alternatives to college that he's paying students $100,000 each if they drop out of college and do something else, like start a business. "We're asking nothing in return other than meetings so we make sure (they) work hard, and not be in school for two years," said Jim O'Neill, who runs the foundation. For some reason, this upsets the left. A Slate.com writer called Thiel's grant a "nasty idea" that leads students into "halting their intellectual development ... maintaining a narrow-minded focus on getting rich." But Darren Zhu, a grant winner who quit Yale for the $100,000, told me, "Building a start-up and learning the sort of hardships that are associated with building a company is a much better education path." I agree. Much better. Zhu plans to start a biotech company.
What puzzles is me is why the market doesn't punish colleges that don't serve their customers well. The opposite has happened: Tuitions have risen four times faster than inflation. "There's a lot of bad information out there," Vedder replied. "We don't know ... if (students) learned anything" during their college years. "Do kids learn anything at Harvard? People at Harvard tell us they do. ... They were bright when they entered Harvard, but do ... seniors know more than freshman? The literacy rate among college graduates is lower today than it was 15 or 20 year ago. It is kind of hard for people to respond in market fashion when you don't have full information."
Despite the scam, the Obama administration plans to increase the number of students getting Pell grants by 50 percent. And even a darling of conservatives, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, says college is a must: "Graduating from high school is just the first step." We need to wake people up. [emphases mine]
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at >johnstossel.com.
Personal Note : The following is a discussion that has become a recent news item. I don’t necessarily endorse the viewpoint presented here, but the writer does point out some things worth considering. When I graduated from high school more than 40 years ago, it was just accepted that you went to college and you had a successful future secured. It was never asked, “Is college the best choice for him or her?” My sister-in-law’s widowed Mom gave her 2 daughters the option of money for college or money to start whatever career they wanted. My sister-in-law took the money and started what has been a successful business. My own Mom and Dad had no more than an 8th grade education but for their entire adult lives they ran successful restaurant businesses with just their hard work and their intrinsic knack for cooking delicious food and showing personal interest in their customers. It always amazed me how in later years they drew customers as well as the franchise fast food places that sprang up all around them. (For their lack of business acumen, they simply an accountant to handle their books. That’s the reason why, by the way, my Mom always wanted me to become an accountant so that I could make a lot of money. I can only imagine her profound disappointment when I told her when in the 8th grade that I would never be good at math AND I had no desire to make a lot of money.) With this as a preface, I invite you to read the following commentary and post your response at the end.
by John Stossel http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44662 07/06/2011
What do Michael Dell, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and Mark Cuban have in common?
They're all college dropouts. Richard Branson, Simon Cowell and Peter Jennings have in common? They never went to college at all. But today all kids are told: To succeed, you must go to college. Hillary Clinton tells students: "Graduates from four-year colleges earn nearly twice as much as high school graduates, an estimated $1 million more." We hear that from people who run colleges. And it's true. But it leaves out some important facts. That's why I say: For many people, college is a scam.
I spoke with Richard Vedder, author of "Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much," and Naomi Schafer Riley, who just published "Faculty Lounges and Other Reasons Why You Won't Get the College Education You Paid For." Vedder explained why that million-dollar comparison is ridiculous: "People that go to college are different kind of people ... (more) disciplined ... smarter. They did better in high school." They would have made more money even if they never went to college. Riley says some college students don't get what they pay for because their professors have little incentive to teach. "You think you're paying for them to be in the classroom with you, but every hour a professor spends in the classroom, he gets paid less. The incentives are all for more research." The research is often on obscure topics for journals nobody reads.
Also, lots of people not suited for higher education get pushed into it. This doesn't do them good. They feel like failures when they don't graduate. Vedder said two out of five students entering four-year programs don't have a bachelor's degree after year six. "Why do colleges accept (these students) in the first place?" Because money comes with the student -- usually government-guaranteed loans. "There are 80,000 bartenders in the United States with bachelor's degrees," Vedder said. He says that 17 percent of baggage porters and bellhops have a college degree, 15 percent of taxi and limo drivers. It's hard to pay off student loans with jobs like those.These days, many students graduate with big debts.
Entrepreneur Peter Thiel, who got rich helping to build good things like PayPal and Facebook, is so eager to wake people up to alternatives to college that he's paying students $100,000 each if they drop out of college and do something else, like start a business. "We're asking nothing in return other than meetings so we make sure (they) work hard, and not be in school for two years," said Jim O'Neill, who runs the foundation. For some reason, this upsets the left. A Slate.com writer called Thiel's grant a "nasty idea" that leads students into "halting their intellectual development ... maintaining a narrow-minded focus on getting rich." But Darren Zhu, a grant winner who quit Yale for the $100,000, told me, "Building a start-up and learning the sort of hardships that are associated with building a company is a much better education path." I agree. Much better. Zhu plans to start a biotech company.
What puzzles is me is why the market doesn't punish colleges that don't serve their customers well. The opposite has happened: Tuitions have risen four times faster than inflation. "There's a lot of bad information out there," Vedder replied. "We don't know ... if (students) learned anything" during their college years. "Do kids learn anything at Harvard? People at Harvard tell us they do. ... They were bright when they entered Harvard, but do ... seniors know more than freshman? The literacy rate among college graduates is lower today than it was 15 or 20 year ago. It is kind of hard for people to respond in market fashion when you don't have full information."
Despite the scam, the Obama administration plans to increase the number of students getting Pell grants by 50 percent. And even a darling of conservatives, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, says college is a must: "Graduating from high school is just the first step." We need to wake people up. [emphases mine]
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at >johnstossel.com.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
#102 - Debt Ceiling Negotiations - Clarifying What's Happening
[Yeah, I know, this stuff seems WAY to complicated for us ordinary citizens to understand. But this article by The Heritage Foundation from last Friday clarifies the important things being discussed. What they decide will not only impact our economy now but for many years to come. If not just for ourselves but for the future generations who will bear the burden of wrong actions, we must do our best to undersand what is going on. The Bible has much to say about the evil of debt, and so this is in essence a MORAL issue.]
Are Higher Taxes The Answer to Debt Limit Questions? http://www.askheritage.org/are-higher-taxes-the-answer-to-debt-limit-questions/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-07-08-10&utm_campaign=2011_Brand July 8, 2011
Republican congressional leaders will meet in the White House today with their Democratic counterparts and President Obama in an effort to reach an agreement on the debt ceiling. Reports are sketchy as to whether they will succumb to arm-twisting by the White House, amplified in the media, to cut a deal in which “everyone has to give a little”—or fill your preferred clich. It is thus an appropriate time to remind everyone that Americans have already given all they can, especially to the IRS, and, no, it isn’t time to raise taxes—on the contrary, it’s time for politicians to curb their spending habits.
But just in case dire warnings about defaulting on the debt don’t work and the Republican leadership holds its ground today, a small team of Treasury officials along with friends of the White House are carving out a Plan B ploy to borrow more money on its own authority. It is based, to be charitable to its originators, on a dangerously flawed reading of the 14th Amendment. The core issue that has Washington in a deadlock is the $14.3 trillion federal debt ceiling—Congress either has to borrow more money to pay its bills, cut spending, or raise taxes—the last option being so unpopular that even its liberal proponents call it by another name: “revenue enhancements.” President Barack Obama would have you believe that the problem is one of priorities, that Republicans are fighting for “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help,” while he’s fighting for things like college scholarships, Medicare for seniors and cancer research.
But don’t get dragged into Obama’s rhetorical labyrinth. Spending is the problem; low revenue is not. The trouble is that President Obama wants to keep borrowing, taxing, and spending as far as the eye can see. And that’s no way to solve the problem. Heritage’s Emily Goff explains: "The historical average for federal spending is 20.3 percent of GDP, but spending will reach 24.7 percent by the end of this year and continue to climb from there. By mid-century, funding the federal government under current policy will consume more than half the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, tax revenues will return to their historical average by the end of the decade and then continue to rise."
Republican leadership should be very careful not to lose their grip on the tax issue. An overhaul of the tax code is long overdue, and it should be revenue neutral and growth oriented. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has opened the door to a possible tax compromise that would “endorse ending some business tax breaks targeted by Democrats if they also agreed to renew other business-backed tax benefits.” According to Cantor:"I have said from day one, we are not for tax hikes on the American people or businesses, and if the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes. We are not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else."
If the strategy of “closing loopholes” entails taxes targeted at industries that don’t fall under the President’s favor—particularly oil companies—the American people may be the ultimate losers if offsetting tax cuts don’t occur. In the case of oil companies, these tax hikes will take money that companies would otherwise invest in new drilling and cleaner technologies, so the consumers and the environment both suffer. Companies don’t pay taxes; companies collect taxes.And at any rate cherry-picking tax hikes here and there is a short-term fix that doesn’t get to the root of the problem—spending. Getting debt under control is vital. Even the International Monetary Fund has warned the United States that it must reduce its debt or face serious economic consequences. Without action, the national debt could eventually reach a staggering 344 percent of GDP by mid-century.
Nor is this the time to balance the budget with defense cuts. Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner writes that the military is already suffering from lack of funding and that drastic cuts should not be on the table:"[W]e’ve been living for a while now off past military buildups. But things wear out. Equipment breaks down, and it can be patched up only so many times before it’s unable to do the job it’s meant to do . . . When we cut too deeply, as we did during President Carter’s time in office, we degrade our ability to defend ourselves." If charting a course of tax hikes and defense cuts is wrongheaded, President Obama’s Plan B in the debt ceiling debate is disastrous. Heritage’s Andrew Grossman writes:"All of a sudden, politicians who have never cared much for constitutional fidelity are citing a little-known section of the Fourteenth Amendment as grounds for President Obama to evade the congressionally-imposed debt ceiling. Their goal is to punt on spending reductions that would be part of any debt-ceiling deal and are essential to putting the budget in order."
Their argument, which is based on a creatively devious misreading of the 14th Amendment, would constitute unilateral action by the President to borrow money with no congressional authorization—tantamount to an unconstitutional usurpation of Article I legislative power. And today, there are other reports that suggest that Social Security and Medicare reform is back on the table. This is all the more reason that lawmakers and the American public should have at least a full 72 hours to review any deal, given the complexity of the issues being negotiated. Washington is at a crossroads. On the one hand, Congress could cave in to the President’s demands, raising taxes in the short run while dodging the nation’s long-term spending problems. Such actions will be neither forgiven nor forgotten. On the other hand, the President stands ready to violate the Constitution in order to achieve his ends irrespective of the will of the American people.
In the debt limit debate, the reality is that the U.S. government will NOT default. The President and the Democrats have just about admitted as such by talking about “all the government obligations” being equally important. In other words, they know that our creditors—those who hold our debt—will get paid no matter what. Not raising the debt ceiling means only that the government will be forced to cut spending elsewhere. And cutting spending is the only remedy to America’s long-term fiscal crisis.
[Note: emphases mine.]
Note: For a more UPDATED view of what is happening between the President and the Congress, please visit - "Do Not Compromise, John BoehnerThe American people are tired of making concessions to ruin."
by John Hayward http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44776
Are Higher Taxes The Answer to Debt Limit Questions? http://www.askheritage.org/are-higher-taxes-the-answer-to-debt-limit-questions/?utm_source=AH_Weekly&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2011-07-08-10&utm_campaign=2011_Brand July 8, 2011
Republican congressional leaders will meet in the White House today with their Democratic counterparts and President Obama in an effort to reach an agreement on the debt ceiling. Reports are sketchy as to whether they will succumb to arm-twisting by the White House, amplified in the media, to cut a deal in which “everyone has to give a little”—or fill your preferred clich. It is thus an appropriate time to remind everyone that Americans have already given all they can, especially to the IRS, and, no, it isn’t time to raise taxes—on the contrary, it’s time for politicians to curb their spending habits.
But just in case dire warnings about defaulting on the debt don’t work and the Republican leadership holds its ground today, a small team of Treasury officials along with friends of the White House are carving out a Plan B ploy to borrow more money on its own authority. It is based, to be charitable to its originators, on a dangerously flawed reading of the 14th Amendment. The core issue that has Washington in a deadlock is the $14.3 trillion federal debt ceiling—Congress either has to borrow more money to pay its bills, cut spending, or raise taxes—the last option being so unpopular that even its liberal proponents call it by another name: “revenue enhancements.” President Barack Obama would have you believe that the problem is one of priorities, that Republicans are fighting for “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help,” while he’s fighting for things like college scholarships, Medicare for seniors and cancer research.
But don’t get dragged into Obama’s rhetorical labyrinth. Spending is the problem; low revenue is not. The trouble is that President Obama wants to keep borrowing, taxing, and spending as far as the eye can see. And that’s no way to solve the problem. Heritage’s Emily Goff explains: "The historical average for federal spending is 20.3 percent of GDP, but spending will reach 24.7 percent by the end of this year and continue to climb from there. By mid-century, funding the federal government under current policy will consume more than half the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, tax revenues will return to their historical average by the end of the decade and then continue to rise."
Republican leadership should be very careful not to lose their grip on the tax issue. An overhaul of the tax code is long overdue, and it should be revenue neutral and growth oriented. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has opened the door to a possible tax compromise that would “endorse ending some business tax breaks targeted by Democrats if they also agreed to renew other business-backed tax benefits.” According to Cantor:"I have said from day one, we are not for tax hikes on the American people or businesses, and if the president wants to talk loopholes, we’ll be glad to talk loopholes. We are not for any proposal that increases taxes, and any type of discussion should be coupled with offsetting tax cuts somewhere else."
If the strategy of “closing loopholes” entails taxes targeted at industries that don’t fall under the President’s favor—particularly oil companies—the American people may be the ultimate losers if offsetting tax cuts don’t occur. In the case of oil companies, these tax hikes will take money that companies would otherwise invest in new drilling and cleaner technologies, so the consumers and the environment both suffer. Companies don’t pay taxes; companies collect taxes.And at any rate cherry-picking tax hikes here and there is a short-term fix that doesn’t get to the root of the problem—spending. Getting debt under control is vital. Even the International Monetary Fund has warned the United States that it must reduce its debt or face serious economic consequences. Without action, the national debt could eventually reach a staggering 344 percent of GDP by mid-century.
Nor is this the time to balance the budget with defense cuts. Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner writes that the military is already suffering from lack of funding and that drastic cuts should not be on the table:"[W]e’ve been living for a while now off past military buildups. But things wear out. Equipment breaks down, and it can be patched up only so many times before it’s unable to do the job it’s meant to do . . . When we cut too deeply, as we did during President Carter’s time in office, we degrade our ability to defend ourselves." If charting a course of tax hikes and defense cuts is wrongheaded, President Obama’s Plan B in the debt ceiling debate is disastrous. Heritage’s Andrew Grossman writes:"All of a sudden, politicians who have never cared much for constitutional fidelity are citing a little-known section of the Fourteenth Amendment as grounds for President Obama to evade the congressionally-imposed debt ceiling. Their goal is to punt on spending reductions that would be part of any debt-ceiling deal and are essential to putting the budget in order."
Their argument, which is based on a creatively devious misreading of the 14th Amendment, would constitute unilateral action by the President to borrow money with no congressional authorization—tantamount to an unconstitutional usurpation of Article I legislative power. And today, there are other reports that suggest that Social Security and Medicare reform is back on the table. This is all the more reason that lawmakers and the American public should have at least a full 72 hours to review any deal, given the complexity of the issues being negotiated. Washington is at a crossroads. On the one hand, Congress could cave in to the President’s demands, raising taxes in the short run while dodging the nation’s long-term spending problems. Such actions will be neither forgiven nor forgotten. On the other hand, the President stands ready to violate the Constitution in order to achieve his ends irrespective of the will of the American people.
In the debt limit debate, the reality is that the U.S. government will NOT default. The President and the Democrats have just about admitted as such by talking about “all the government obligations” being equally important. In other words, they know that our creditors—those who hold our debt—will get paid no matter what. Not raising the debt ceiling means only that the government will be forced to cut spending elsewhere. And cutting spending is the only remedy to America’s long-term fiscal crisis.
[Note: emphases mine.]
Note: For a more UPDATED view of what is happening between the President and the Congress, please visit - "Do Not Compromise, John BoehnerThe American people are tired of making concessions to ruin."
by John Hayward http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44776
Saturday, July 9, 2011
# 101 - Sunday Special - Barbecues for God
Personal Note: Whether I’ve been a member for many years or a first time visitor, one of the things that saddens me after a church worship service is to find people gathered in cliques of the familiar who never notice the stranger in their midst or the single or person otherwise alone. (I remember once experimenting at a church where I was a long time member and just wandering amongst the groups. Maybe I have bad breath or am not a “fun” person or whatever ): , but not once did anyone stop to engage me in conversation.) As to being new to a church, too often it is assumed the “greeters” will have done their job in welcoming the visitors and so the rest are absolved of any responsibility for hospitality. I believe that the church should be a place where there is the truest sense of community, of caring for one another, of EVERYONE looking out especially for those who may be hurting or just need someone to come alongside them. That’s what came to my mind when I came across this commentary in my files. I wanted share it with you as you may plan your next summer gathering of friends. Or maybe prompt you to just call someone you don’t know well and just fellowship over the phone.
Note:Don’t forget to tune into today’s broadcast of “The Coral Ridge Hour” today. Today’s program deals with the biblical basis for our Constitution and the nature of our religious freedom.
Meals as Ministry July 31, 2009 Breakpoint.com
This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley.
During the summer, many of us enjoy having friends over for a backyard barbecue. The food section of the newspaper is full of menu ideas to please every palate. But do you ever worry that, after all your hard work, your friends won’t show up? If they don’t, it seems to be a reflection on our importance—or popularity. It’s a nightmare scenario, believe it or not, for many a host and hostess. But maybe we’re worrying about the wrong thing. And just maybe, we’re inviting the wrong people.
In Luke 14, we find Jesus dining at the home of a ruler among the Pharisees. A discussion comes up about the importance of guests. Jesus tells his host, “When you give a...banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or...rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid.” Indeed, Jesus says, you should invite “the poor, the maimed, the lame, [and] the blind.” These guests would not be able to repay his hospitality, or yours. The man would, instead, be repaid “at the resurrection of the just.”This theme was echoed by one of Washington’s most famous pastors, the Rev. Peter Marshall, who in the 1940s was the chaplain of the Senate. In a collection of his sermons called Mr. Jones, Meet the Master, Marshall tells the story of an imaginary businessman who was reading his Bible one day and found the passage from Luke I just quoted. He made up engraved invitations to dinner and passed them out among the poor of Washington—men who were sick or out of work. On the appointed night, the businessman served his guests an elegant dinner. And then, he offered, in the name of Jesus, to help them any way he could.This is the approach to hospitality we all should have. I live in a town where people put a lot of effort into getting important people to come to dinner—Congressmen, big-time lawyers, Supreme Court justices. But that’s the secular worldview at work—that we should honor those with earthly power.
By contrast, Christianity teaches that we should concern ourselves with the poor, the sick and the powerless. Scripture makes it clear that our help should not be limited to dropping off groceries at a food bank, or working in the soup kitchen once a month. Instead, we should invite the poor into our very homes and churches.The next time you throw a party, don’t worry about hosting the smart set or the most important people at your church. Instead, invite neighbors who have lost their jobs and could use some cheering up. Invite someone from your office who is hard to get along with, and probably lonely. Invite the poor in your community—maybe that single mom down the street could use a night out. Or perhaps you should call your pastor; maybe he knows an ex-prisoner who has joined the congregation and needs fellowship. Find out which families from church are going through a difficult time, and invite them over.\
Invite people who cannot repay your hospitality.The Washington Post maybe won’t cover your get-together. But Someone far more important will notice, and rejoice. And you won’t have to worry about people not showing up. Your backyard barbecue will become a chance to minister to others—and bring down blessings on yourself. [emphases mine]
Note:Don’t forget to tune into today’s broadcast of “The Coral Ridge Hour” today. Today’s program deals with the biblical basis for our Constitution and the nature of our religious freedom.
Meals as Ministry July 31, 2009 Breakpoint.com
This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley.
During the summer, many of us enjoy having friends over for a backyard barbecue. The food section of the newspaper is full of menu ideas to please every palate. But do you ever worry that, after all your hard work, your friends won’t show up? If they don’t, it seems to be a reflection on our importance—or popularity. It’s a nightmare scenario, believe it or not, for many a host and hostess. But maybe we’re worrying about the wrong thing. And just maybe, we’re inviting the wrong people.
In Luke 14, we find Jesus dining at the home of a ruler among the Pharisees. A discussion comes up about the importance of guests. Jesus tells his host, “When you give a...banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or...rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid.” Indeed, Jesus says, you should invite “the poor, the maimed, the lame, [and] the blind.” These guests would not be able to repay his hospitality, or yours. The man would, instead, be repaid “at the resurrection of the just.”This theme was echoed by one of Washington’s most famous pastors, the Rev. Peter Marshall, who in the 1940s was the chaplain of the Senate. In a collection of his sermons called Mr. Jones, Meet the Master, Marshall tells the story of an imaginary businessman who was reading his Bible one day and found the passage from Luke I just quoted. He made up engraved invitations to dinner and passed them out among the poor of Washington—men who were sick or out of work. On the appointed night, the businessman served his guests an elegant dinner. And then, he offered, in the name of Jesus, to help them any way he could.This is the approach to hospitality we all should have. I live in a town where people put a lot of effort into getting important people to come to dinner—Congressmen, big-time lawyers, Supreme Court justices. But that’s the secular worldview at work—that we should honor those with earthly power.
By contrast, Christianity teaches that we should concern ourselves with the poor, the sick and the powerless. Scripture makes it clear that our help should not be limited to dropping off groceries at a food bank, or working in the soup kitchen once a month. Instead, we should invite the poor into our very homes and churches.The next time you throw a party, don’t worry about hosting the smart set or the most important people at your church. Instead, invite neighbors who have lost their jobs and could use some cheering up. Invite someone from your office who is hard to get along with, and probably lonely. Invite the poor in your community—maybe that single mom down the street could use a night out. Or perhaps you should call your pastor; maybe he knows an ex-prisoner who has joined the congregation and needs fellowship. Find out which families from church are going through a difficult time, and invite them over.\
Invite people who cannot repay your hospitality.The Washington Post maybe won’t cover your get-together. But Someone far more important will notice, and rejoice. And you won’t have to worry about people not showing up. Your backyard barbecue will become a chance to minister to others—and bring down blessings on yourself. [emphases mine]
Friday, July 8, 2011
#100 - Casey Anthony and the Legal System Win, But Did Justice?
ATTENTION: This is my 100th posting on this blog. I thank God for bringing me to this milestone. Yeah!
Note (1): I posted this in my notes of Facebook on July 6th - “With the news here in Orlando especially dominated first by the C. Anthony trial and now the unbelieveable verdict, I find I can only put my emotions to rest by realizing that it is after all just another reminder how, as we ponder who else could have been involved in that poor child's murder, God never said there would be fairness and justice in this life nor would we be able to know the answers to many of our questions. I rest in that He is God and that nothing will escape His final and perfect justice. I cannot help but believe His wrath will fall hardest on the injustice done to the most innocent and helpless among us. Apart from His mercy, it is truly a terrible thing to fall into the hands of a Just God.”
Note (2) : Of the many reactions to the verdict that I have come across so far, the following two stand out as expressing my further thoughts best, especially this first one. I realize this makes for a long posting but as much attention as this verdict has elicited I feel led to share them.
Why Are You Outraged?
Posted by Leon H. Wolf (Profile) Wednesday, July 6, 2011 http://www.redstate.com/robtaylor/2011/07/05/the-casey-anthony-verdict-is-not-an-endorsement-of-our-criminal-justice-system/
"To a certain extent, I live in a cave when it comes to following the news, particularly when it comes to media coverage of sensational trials, which tends to drive me around the bend. Therefore, I seriously had never heard of the Casey Anthony trial even as recently as Sunday night. Therefore, I have no strong opinions on whether Casey Anthony is actually guilty of the crime with which she was charged, or whether the result of the trial was a good or bad thing for our society."
"I gather, however, that many people are truly outraged at the fact that Casey Anthony is not going to jail, and I’m genuinely puzzled as to why. Let us suppose that everything the prosecution alleged about Casey Anthony is true – that she decided she didn’t want to be a mom anymore, killed her small child with chlorophyll, dumped her body unceremoniously in a swamp, and proceeded to go out partying for the next 30 days. While I agree that this is reprehensible behavior, our Supreme Court decided in 1973 that it was also constitutionally protected behavior, and that if mothers decide they want to kill their children in order to prevent an interruption in their nightlife, then the State can’t say “boo” about it one way or the other, so long as the child is in utero."
"Thousands of mothers every day decide they’d rather party/go to school/whatever than be a mom, and so they hire a doctor to kill their baby with either sharp instruments or chemicals and then have them dropped in a trash can. Thousands a day. Hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) a year in this country alone. And the only difference between them and and Casey Anthony is that they realized that they didn’t want to be a mom before the child escaped the womb. None of them will ever face even the threat of prosecution, thanks to the Supreme Court. It just seems harsh to me that we’d try to send Casey Anthony to jail for what amounts to lack of foresight." [emphasis mine]
The Casey Anthony Verdict is Not an Endorsement of Our Criminal Justice System
Posted by Rob Taylor (Profile) Tuesday, July 5, 2011thhttp://www.redstate.com/robtaylor/2011/07/05/the-casey-anthony-verdict-is-not-an-endorsement-of-our-criminal-justice-system/
"When the Casey Anthony verdict was announced I expected celebration from her defense team. I was more taken aback by the celebratory tone taken by pundits like Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano. Their position is the same one that many liberals, anti-death penalty activists and libertarians are promoting now: this proves the system works. But it doesn’t. The American justice system is the greatest legal system in the world but like any other it is fallible. In the interest of liberty we err on the side of caution in criminal cases, but that means that in many cases we do not get justice. Talking heads on Fox were making the point that this was justice, that the verdict is a victory for the Constitution. This is wrong. Criminals getting off is a byproduct of a our love of liberty but it certainly isn’t an endorsement of our system."
"Casey Anthony may or may not have killed her child but we know she committed several crimes afterward. She didn’t report her daughter missing for weeks. When police were finally involved she attempted to frame an innocent woman for murder. While her daughter was supposedly missing she was out partying. If not reporting your daughter missing for a month isn’t child abuse – or at least child neglect – nothing is. But a quirk in the law makes it so that that the same child abuse that can get your children taken away by CPS can’t put you in jail when that child turns up put in a garbage bag and thrown into a swamp. The best legal system in the world cannot bring justice to Caylee Anthony’s killer. This is the price we pay for liberty but it is hardly an endorsement of our system."
"Little Caylee Anthony was abused, possibly raped according to her own mother who claimed George Anthony was a child molester. She disappeared and her mother did nothing. She died a horrible death and her family hired lawyers. Her body was desecrated, thrown into a ditch like so much garbage and her mother will likely walk free at sentencing. How is this an endorsement of American justice? That our legal system lets the guilty walk free is sad but arguably necessary for the maintenance of liberty. That our pundits can find cause for celebrating the release of a woman who in the best case scenario simply didn’t care that her daughter was molested then later kidnapped is disgusting. This is a tragedy, not a victory for freedom and America."
"Casey Anthony got off because she worked the system. In a fair and impartial court system this happens. It’s too bad. But the worst part of this is the idea that we can take the denial of justice for a toddler who was brutally murdered and use it to pat ourselves on the back about what a great society we are. Are we a great society because a young, damaged single mother who claimed her own father molested her left her daughter with him to go drinking? Are we a great society because we produce people who would rather go to wet t-shirt contests than look for their missing children? Are we a great society because our citizens try to frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit? Or are we a great society because people like that can find a way to get off?"
"The Casey Anthony verdict doesn’t endorse our criminal justice system; it exposes our crumbling society. The courts can’t always dispense justice, it is up to society to protect our children. We need to bring back public shaming, we need to bring back the idea of moral responsibility separate from legal responsibility. Some people lament that Casey Anthony will not be able to hold a job or go out with her friends or meet a decent man because of the public scrutiny of the trial. Caylee Anthony will never be able to do those things either. The Anthony family deserves society’s scorn, not our philosophical justifications of why they aren’t in prison. Caylee Anthony paid the ultimate price for being born into a family of dysfunctional criminals who by their own admission lied to police again and again to cover up a crime they say they played no part in. Our justice system failed to hold them legally responsible, now it remains to be seen if our moral fiber is as easily deceived as our courts." [emphases mine]
Note: Chuck Colson has responded with what is arguably a more scriptual and rational view. It may be the most accurate commentary but at this posting I admit that the one above is more reflective of what I am feeling at this time. You can find the Colson posting at - http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/17414
Note (1): I posted this in my notes of Facebook on July 6th - “With the news here in Orlando especially dominated first by the C. Anthony trial and now the unbelieveable verdict, I find I can only put my emotions to rest by realizing that it is after all just another reminder how, as we ponder who else could have been involved in that poor child's murder, God never said there would be fairness and justice in this life nor would we be able to know the answers to many of our questions. I rest in that He is God and that nothing will escape His final and perfect justice. I cannot help but believe His wrath will fall hardest on the injustice done to the most innocent and helpless among us. Apart from His mercy, it is truly a terrible thing to fall into the hands of a Just God.”
Note (2) : Of the many reactions to the verdict that I have come across so far, the following two stand out as expressing my further thoughts best, especially this first one. I realize this makes for a long posting but as much attention as this verdict has elicited I feel led to share them.
Why Are You Outraged?
Posted by Leon H. Wolf (Profile) Wednesday, July 6, 2011 http://www.redstate.com/robtaylor/2011/07/05/the-casey-anthony-verdict-is-not-an-endorsement-of-our-criminal-justice-system/
"To a certain extent, I live in a cave when it comes to following the news, particularly when it comes to media coverage of sensational trials, which tends to drive me around the bend. Therefore, I seriously had never heard of the Casey Anthony trial even as recently as Sunday night. Therefore, I have no strong opinions on whether Casey Anthony is actually guilty of the crime with which she was charged, or whether the result of the trial was a good or bad thing for our society."
"I gather, however, that many people are truly outraged at the fact that Casey Anthony is not going to jail, and I’m genuinely puzzled as to why. Let us suppose that everything the prosecution alleged about Casey Anthony is true – that she decided she didn’t want to be a mom anymore, killed her small child with chlorophyll, dumped her body unceremoniously in a swamp, and proceeded to go out partying for the next 30 days. While I agree that this is reprehensible behavior, our Supreme Court decided in 1973 that it was also constitutionally protected behavior, and that if mothers decide they want to kill their children in order to prevent an interruption in their nightlife, then the State can’t say “boo” about it one way or the other, so long as the child is in utero."
"Thousands of mothers every day decide they’d rather party/go to school/whatever than be a mom, and so they hire a doctor to kill their baby with either sharp instruments or chemicals and then have them dropped in a trash can. Thousands a day. Hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) a year in this country alone. And the only difference between them and and Casey Anthony is that they realized that they didn’t want to be a mom before the child escaped the womb. None of them will ever face even the threat of prosecution, thanks to the Supreme Court. It just seems harsh to me that we’d try to send Casey Anthony to jail for what amounts to lack of foresight." [emphasis mine]
The Casey Anthony Verdict is Not an Endorsement of Our Criminal Justice System
Posted by Rob Taylor (Profile) Tuesday, July 5, 2011thhttp://www.redstate.com/robtaylor/2011/07/05/the-casey-anthony-verdict-is-not-an-endorsement-of-our-criminal-justice-system/
"When the Casey Anthony verdict was announced I expected celebration from her defense team. I was more taken aback by the celebratory tone taken by pundits like Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano. Their position is the same one that many liberals, anti-death penalty activists and libertarians are promoting now: this proves the system works. But it doesn’t. The American justice system is the greatest legal system in the world but like any other it is fallible. In the interest of liberty we err on the side of caution in criminal cases, but that means that in many cases we do not get justice. Talking heads on Fox were making the point that this was justice, that the verdict is a victory for the Constitution. This is wrong. Criminals getting off is a byproduct of a our love of liberty but it certainly isn’t an endorsement of our system."
"Casey Anthony may or may not have killed her child but we know she committed several crimes afterward. She didn’t report her daughter missing for weeks. When police were finally involved she attempted to frame an innocent woman for murder. While her daughter was supposedly missing she was out partying. If not reporting your daughter missing for a month isn’t child abuse – or at least child neglect – nothing is. But a quirk in the law makes it so that that the same child abuse that can get your children taken away by CPS can’t put you in jail when that child turns up put in a garbage bag and thrown into a swamp. The best legal system in the world cannot bring justice to Caylee Anthony’s killer. This is the price we pay for liberty but it is hardly an endorsement of our system."
"Little Caylee Anthony was abused, possibly raped according to her own mother who claimed George Anthony was a child molester. She disappeared and her mother did nothing. She died a horrible death and her family hired lawyers. Her body was desecrated, thrown into a ditch like so much garbage and her mother will likely walk free at sentencing. How is this an endorsement of American justice? That our legal system lets the guilty walk free is sad but arguably necessary for the maintenance of liberty. That our pundits can find cause for celebrating the release of a woman who in the best case scenario simply didn’t care that her daughter was molested then later kidnapped is disgusting. This is a tragedy, not a victory for freedom and America."
"Casey Anthony got off because she worked the system. In a fair and impartial court system this happens. It’s too bad. But the worst part of this is the idea that we can take the denial of justice for a toddler who was brutally murdered and use it to pat ourselves on the back about what a great society we are. Are we a great society because a young, damaged single mother who claimed her own father molested her left her daughter with him to go drinking? Are we a great society because we produce people who would rather go to wet t-shirt contests than look for their missing children? Are we a great society because our citizens try to frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit? Or are we a great society because people like that can find a way to get off?"
"The Casey Anthony verdict doesn’t endorse our criminal justice system; it exposes our crumbling society. The courts can’t always dispense justice, it is up to society to protect our children. We need to bring back public shaming, we need to bring back the idea of moral responsibility separate from legal responsibility. Some people lament that Casey Anthony will not be able to hold a job or go out with her friends or meet a decent man because of the public scrutiny of the trial. Caylee Anthony will never be able to do those things either. The Anthony family deserves society’s scorn, not our philosophical justifications of why they aren’t in prison. Caylee Anthony paid the ultimate price for being born into a family of dysfunctional criminals who by their own admission lied to police again and again to cover up a crime they say they played no part in. Our justice system failed to hold them legally responsible, now it remains to be seen if our moral fiber is as easily deceived as our courts." [emphases mine]
Note: Chuck Colson has responded with what is arguably a more scriptual and rational view. It may be the most accurate commentary but at this posting I admit that the one above is more reflective of what I am feeling at this time. You can find the Colson posting at - http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/17414
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
#99 - Same-Sex Spin- What Americans REALLY Believe About Marriage
["Hear,O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemy to give you victory." Deuteronomy 20:3-4)]
By: Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.com, June 30, 2011
We’ve been told so many times that same-sex “marri
age” is “inevitable” that we’re tempted to stop fighting it. But a newly released study tells a different story. The gap is widening, we’re told. The number of Americans in favor of so-called same-sex “marriage” is growing. Sooner or later, it will be the law of the land. There’s no stopping it. But not so fast.
On June 16, the Alliance Defense Fund and Public Opinion Strategies released the results of a new scientific survey that calls all that into question. The survey was part of a comprehensive examination of American attitudes toward marriage,” which included both polling and focus groups for added accuracy.The results? A full sixty-two percent of Americans agreed that “marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.” Fifty-three percent “strongly agred.” This is consistent with polling going back to 1998, when Alaska and Hawaii were the first two states to enact amendments to the constitution supporting traditional marriage. Since then there have been thirty-one state referenda defining marriage as one man and one woman. Over sixty-three million Americans have voted, with nearly forty million or sixty-three percent voting for traditional marriage.Alliance Defense Fund’s Senior Counsel Brian Raum noted, “Americans recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society,” and that we “strongly affirm the lifelong, faithful union of a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of civilization.”
So, what about all we’ve heard from the mainstream media about more and more Americans supporting same-sex “marriage”? The survey along with victories in courts, says Raum, “shows [that] the opposition has created an illusion of momentum, but not a real base of support or track record.”The idea that Americans are losing their faith in marriage between one man and one woman is just a PR spin on a lie. And yet, the state of New York, egged on by Governor Andrew Cuomo, has just foisted same-sex “marriage” on the Empire State. Said State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, “What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is. And that’s a good thing.” Senator Kruger is right about one thing: redefining marriage and family is precisely what the same-sex “marriage” debate is all about. But as to his claim that it’s “a good thing,” he’s dead wrong. Scary wrong.
As the Manhattan Declaration (manhattandeclaration.org)affirms,“Marriage [between one man and one woman]...is the first institution of human society -- indeed it is the institution on which all human institutions have their foundation.” It goes on to say, “Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits -- the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.”
If same-sex “marriage” advocates are successful in spite of their meager support, make no mistake, those pathologies will only grow, just like I've seen in prisons for 35 years.Three cheers for the Alliance Defense Fund! Listen, folks, we need to speak out and stand strong. Same-sex marriage is inevitable only if we give up. To which I say, as Winston Churchill famously said, "Never, never, never." [empases mine]
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
"Married to Marriage", Brian Raum | Alliance Defense Fund | June 16, 2011
The Manhattan Declaration - Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty | www.ManhattanDeclaration.org
By: Chuck Colson|Breakpoint.com, June 30, 2011
We’ve been told so many times that same-sex “marri
age” is “inevitable” that we’re tempted to stop fighting it. But a newly released study tells a different story. The gap is widening, we’re told. The number of Americans in favor of so-called same-sex “marriage” is growing. Sooner or later, it will be the law of the land. There’s no stopping it. But not so fast.
On June 16, the Alliance Defense Fund and Public Opinion Strategies released the results of a new scientific survey that calls all that into question. The survey was part of a comprehensive examination of American attitudes toward marriage,” which included both polling and focus groups for added accuracy.The results? A full sixty-two percent of Americans agreed that “marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.” Fifty-three percent “strongly agred.” This is consistent with polling going back to 1998, when Alaska and Hawaii were the first two states to enact amendments to the constitution supporting traditional marriage. Since then there have been thirty-one state referenda defining marriage as one man and one woman. Over sixty-three million Americans have voted, with nearly forty million or sixty-three percent voting for traditional marriage.Alliance Defense Fund’s Senior Counsel Brian Raum noted, “Americans recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society,” and that we “strongly affirm the lifelong, faithful union of a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of civilization.”
So, what about all we’ve heard from the mainstream media about more and more Americans supporting same-sex “marriage”? The survey along with victories in courts, says Raum, “shows [that] the opposition has created an illusion of momentum, but not a real base of support or track record.”The idea that Americans are losing their faith in marriage between one man and one woman is just a PR spin on a lie. And yet, the state of New York, egged on by Governor Andrew Cuomo, has just foisted same-sex “marriage” on the Empire State. Said State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, “What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is. And that’s a good thing.” Senator Kruger is right about one thing: redefining marriage and family is precisely what the same-sex “marriage” debate is all about. But as to his claim that it’s “a good thing,” he’s dead wrong. Scary wrong.
As the Manhattan Declaration (manhattandeclaration.org)affirms,“Marriage [between one man and one woman]...is the first institution of human society -- indeed it is the institution on which all human institutions have their foundation.” It goes on to say, “Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits -- the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.”
If same-sex “marriage” advocates are successful in spite of their meager support, make no mistake, those pathologies will only grow, just like I've seen in prisons for 35 years.Three cheers for the Alliance Defense Fund! Listen, folks, we need to speak out and stand strong. Same-sex marriage is inevitable only if we give up. To which I say, as Winston Churchill famously said, "Never, never, never." [empases mine]
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
"Married to Marriage", Brian Raum | Alliance Defense Fund | June 16, 2011
The Manhattan Declaration - Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty | www.ManhattanDeclaration.org
Sunday, July 3, 2011
#98 – Sunday Special – The Star-Spangled Banner, Asking A Profound Question
“Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.” - James Bryce (I believe he was a British jurist, historian and politician.)
[Please, as always, take the time to watch today's broadcast of "The Coral Ridge Hour" (5 pm, ch. 55.1 in Orlando)As we Americans again celebrate our nation’s founding on July 4th, I was struck by a Mennonite college saying recently that it would no longer be playing “The Star Spangled Banner” at its athletic events “…because of our Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem’s militaristic language.” The following is the first verse (of the original 4) that we are most familiar with:
"O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"
Of course, the school and the Mennnonite Church for that matter, has every right to live out their definition of their Christian faith as they define it. That is what freedom of religion in this country is all about. However, this incident does make me wonder how many of us who first learned this song in grade school (but who rarely seem to sing it out loud any more) really understand the story behind this anthem. (For a full background of the writing of the poem, I refer you to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner) Suffice it to say that it was written as the writer stood as a prisoner on an enemy ship watching the flag still flying over an American fort after it had been heavily bombarded. We can only imagine the assurance it gave this American that our then recently birthed country was able to withstand the onslaught of enemies from without. In this day when our nation faces grave threats – from terrorists and enemies abroad as well as those home-grown of all kinds, as well as an economy struggling in a way unfamiliar to most of us – we would all do well to reflect on the confidence in our nation presented in the words of our national anthem.
As we do this, I wonder though how many are aware (as I learned only recently) that the last two lines of the first verse end, not in a triumphant tone as it is usually sung with, but with a question. In essence, it asks “Do we still live in a country that is “free, and the home of the brave?” CAN IT STILL BE SO,as we allow our federal government to assume more and more say over how we live our lives (even to where in 2014 we will only be able to buy the kind of light bulbs the government says is okay?!!); as we become so dependent on our government that our seniors will panic that “we are throwing grandma over the cliff” if we talk of simply beginning to make incremental changes in the ponzi scheme known as Social Security? CAN WE BE AS FREE, if our Courts continue to refuse to define our most defenseless - the unborn - as a person to be protected and as our representatives pass laws defining certain speech as “hate speech” that is punishable by fine or jail time?
On this Fourth of July, I think of my late childhood friend Milton Ho, who struggled with a lot in his life, among them serving in the Vietnam War, something I never did. I’m ashamed to say that it was only upon his sudden death a number of years ago that I began to reflect upon what he possibly endured during not only those times on the battlefield but just going through boot camp. (Milton was not the most physically endowed nor mentally astute (I don’t mean that in a disparaging way, believe me) and so that time alone had to be grueling. Milton never talked about what he experienced and I never even thought to ask him once out of concern for what he went through. He served our country as so many millions have over the years, never getting the thanks and recognition that was due him. It still breaks my heart every time I think of him once slipping me a $5 bill which he said was to help me with my financial support needs to to full-time ministry. I tried to refuse to take his humble offering (he struggled to make ends meet) but he insisted. I will always regret that I did not put that bill in a special box of rememberance. I have asked the Lord to let me get a chance to meet up with Milton in Heaven to be able to give him that big hug and speak the words of appreciation to him that I never did, to my great shame.
As I think of the sacrifices of the many like Milton who have and continue each day to serve our country in battle, I can only wonder if we do not do a great disservice to their efforts by not caring enough for this country they so bravely fought for by choosing to withdraw from any discussion of things “political.” We Christians especially are so prone to think of politics only in terms of those who corrupt and shame the process by their actions that we forfeit staying informed and being involved in the struggle to keep this “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” So many of us consider ourselves too spiritual to stay on top of the issues that threaten the foundations (such as of marriage and the sanctity of life -abortion (and EMBRYONIC stem cell research) and euthanasia), to remain so ignorant of where our political leaders stand (based on their actions and non-actions) that we will blindly support those who say the right things at election time because they “sound so smart” or because they represent something that is “different, new, and even historic.” I believe we get bad leaders when we fail to scrutinize them and that the resultant policies and nation are an affront to the sacrifices our men and women in the armed services make for us each day.
And so, what will it be, my fellow Americans?
Does the flag that we see waving symbolize (and will continue to in the future) a nation with a firm foundation (in social and economic values that are Biblically sound) OR one that will continue to drift in the wrong direction as the latest polls have said 2/3 of Americans now believe is happening?
Will we stand before our God one day and have to explain how we allowed this country He has so blessed and given as citizens to be stewards (a very Biblical concept) to be debased and “thrown into the ash heap of history?”
My fellow citizens, it’s time that we stopped asking “God Bless America.” Hasn’t He done that beyond even Founders greatest hopes? Is it not time to say, as the bumper sticker on my car says, “America Bless God?”
(Note: I plan to write and post one defining Christian citizenship in more detail some time soon.)
[Please, as always, take the time to watch today's broadcast of "The Coral Ridge Hour" (5 pm, ch. 55.1 in Orlando)As we Americans again celebrate our nation’s founding on July 4th, I was struck by a Mennonite college saying recently that it would no longer be playing “The Star Spangled Banner” at its athletic events “…because of our Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem’s militaristic language.” The following is the first verse (of the original 4) that we are most familiar with:
"O! say can you see by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"
Of course, the school and the Mennnonite Church for that matter, has every right to live out their definition of their Christian faith as they define it. That is what freedom of religion in this country is all about. However, this incident does make me wonder how many of us who first learned this song in grade school (but who rarely seem to sing it out loud any more) really understand the story behind this anthem. (For a full background of the writing of the poem, I refer you to - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner) Suffice it to say that it was written as the writer stood as a prisoner on an enemy ship watching the flag still flying over an American fort after it had been heavily bombarded. We can only imagine the assurance it gave this American that our then recently birthed country was able to withstand the onslaught of enemies from without. In this day when our nation faces grave threats – from terrorists and enemies abroad as well as those home-grown of all kinds, as well as an economy struggling in a way unfamiliar to most of us – we would all do well to reflect on the confidence in our nation presented in the words of our national anthem.
As we do this, I wonder though how many are aware (as I learned only recently) that the last two lines of the first verse end, not in a triumphant tone as it is usually sung with, but with a question. In essence, it asks “Do we still live in a country that is “free, and the home of the brave?” CAN IT STILL BE SO,as we allow our federal government to assume more and more say over how we live our lives (even to where in 2014 we will only be able to buy the kind of light bulbs the government says is okay?!!); as we become so dependent on our government that our seniors will panic that “we are throwing grandma over the cliff” if we talk of simply beginning to make incremental changes in the ponzi scheme known as Social Security? CAN WE BE AS FREE, if our Courts continue to refuse to define our most defenseless - the unborn - as a person to be protected and as our representatives pass laws defining certain speech as “hate speech” that is punishable by fine or jail time?
On this Fourth of July, I think of my late childhood friend Milton Ho, who struggled with a lot in his life, among them serving in the Vietnam War, something I never did. I’m ashamed to say that it was only upon his sudden death a number of years ago that I began to reflect upon what he possibly endured during not only those times on the battlefield but just going through boot camp. (Milton was not the most physically endowed nor mentally astute (I don’t mean that in a disparaging way, believe me) and so that time alone had to be grueling. Milton never talked about what he experienced and I never even thought to ask him once out of concern for what he went through. He served our country as so many millions have over the years, never getting the thanks and recognition that was due him. It still breaks my heart every time I think of him once slipping me a $5 bill which he said was to help me with my financial support needs to to full-time ministry. I tried to refuse to take his humble offering (he struggled to make ends meet) but he insisted. I will always regret that I did not put that bill in a special box of rememberance. I have asked the Lord to let me get a chance to meet up with Milton in Heaven to be able to give him that big hug and speak the words of appreciation to him that I never did, to my great shame.
As I think of the sacrifices of the many like Milton who have and continue each day to serve our country in battle, I can only wonder if we do not do a great disservice to their efforts by not caring enough for this country they so bravely fought for by choosing to withdraw from any discussion of things “political.” We Christians especially are so prone to think of politics only in terms of those who corrupt and shame the process by their actions that we forfeit staying informed and being involved in the struggle to keep this “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” So many of us consider ourselves too spiritual to stay on top of the issues that threaten the foundations (such as of marriage and the sanctity of life -abortion (and EMBRYONIC stem cell research) and euthanasia), to remain so ignorant of where our political leaders stand (based on their actions and non-actions) that we will blindly support those who say the right things at election time because they “sound so smart” or because they represent something that is “different, new, and even historic.” I believe we get bad leaders when we fail to scrutinize them and that the resultant policies and nation are an affront to the sacrifices our men and women in the armed services make for us each day.
And so, what will it be, my fellow Americans?
Does the flag that we see waving symbolize (and will continue to in the future) a nation with a firm foundation (in social and economic values that are Biblically sound) OR one that will continue to drift in the wrong direction as the latest polls have said 2/3 of Americans now believe is happening?
Will we stand before our God one day and have to explain how we allowed this country He has so blessed and given as citizens to be stewards (a very Biblical concept) to be debased and “thrown into the ash heap of history?”
My fellow citizens, it’s time that we stopped asking “God Bless America.” Hasn’t He done that beyond even Founders greatest hopes? Is it not time to say, as the bumper sticker on my car says, “America Bless God?”
(Note: I plan to write and post one defining Christian citizenship in more detail some time soon.)
Friday, July 1, 2011
#97 - First Palin, Now Bachman – Scrutinized Like None Other, But Why?
[Note: 1) Please don’t miss my 4th of July Sunday Special. In it, I’ll share a special personal perspective; 2)Check out the editorial cartoons at: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/; and 3) "The Coral Ridge (Half)Hour" at 5 pm on Ch.55.1 in Orlando, which focuses this week on our spiritual and civil liberties, and an expose of the political correctness at our new US Capitol Visitor's Center.]\
Elitists Treat Bachmann the Same as PalinTuesday, 28 Jun 2011 http://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/ChrisWallace-MicheleBachmann-SarahPalin-Reagan/2011/06/28/id/401708 By David Limbaugh
…Indeed, there is an enormous elephant in the room of GOP presidential politics, which is that despite their individual popularity, both female contenders, [Michele] Bachmann and Sarah Palin, are dismissed in many circles as cartoon characters. I'm the last person who wants to inject identity politics into any equation, but I can't help but wonder what role, if any, their gender may be playing here — not just that they're females but also that they're attractive ones. Though I doubt these are major factors for most people, they are for some. In fact, a number of females have suggested that other women react negatively to Palin — and presumably to Bachmann, as well — specifically because they are women.
In other critics I detect a type of soft sexism leading to a stronger reaction to their gaffes than to, say, Obama's. They regard their mistakes (or supposed mistakes) as disqualifying while casually overlooking far worse errors from the Harvard-educated Obama. [”Within the last three years, the media’s self-appointed smartest President in modern history has insulted the Special Olympics, mixed up the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, falsely claimed that his American Uncle liberated Auschwitz, signed the Westminster Abbey guest book with the date 24 May 2008 when the date was really 24 May 2011, mispronounced “corpsman” when speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast, and perhaps most egregiously, God’s gift to the presidency couldn’t even distinguish between living and dead Medal of Honor recipients.” - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44517]
Bachmann and Palin are panned as inexperienced and lacking gravitas despite their records and accomplishments, and Obama is treated as a heavyweight despite his miserable record and voluminous verbal blunders. But much bigger factors driving the media narrative against Palin and Bachmann than their female attractiveness are their common personal and ideological characteristics. They are both fearless, combative, energizing, and unqualified conservatives. Don't get me wrong; they are two very different people, but these shared qualities make them especially contemptible to the left and to certain elitists on the right.
Bachmann and Palin happen to be among the most conservative of the GOP field, and leftists and elitists routinely cast conservatives as a dozen fries short of a Happy Meal. They consider Reagan conservatives — just as they regarded Reagan in his day — dangerous extremists and insufficiently nuanced for prime time. Those who pull no punches in challenging the Beltway dogma that got us into this calamity are quickly shunted aside by the elites. But they are adored by mainstream Americans, who are unencumbered by the numbing realities of Washington that prevent far too many career politicians from taking immediate action to reverse our nationally suicidal course.
So if you think Palin, Bachmann, and other such candidates sound exercised and frustrated at times, you should be grateful because that is precisely how they ought to sound. We should be far more concerned with those who are taking this national nightmare in stride. Where are their hearts? The fact is that both Bachmann and Palin are far more qualified and dispositionally equipped to be president than Barack Obama. Both have acquitted themselves very well in debates; Palin has a very impressive executive record, with plenty of gravitas (see "The Undefeated"), and Bachmann has powerful academic credentials.
I realize that some conservatives believe that Palin and Bachmann are unelectable or not particularly qualified for one reason or another. But even here, I think we are allowing the liberal media to control the narrative. Who can seem electable after the media get done savaging them? And what mainstream conservatives do the media not savage? Conversely, look at how they treat the Republican candidates who pay homage to global warming and other leftist pieties. Why are they always deemed electable?
We must reject the conventional wisdom that in general, only a centrist can be elected. But this is especially true of 2012, when all bets are off because we are facing an unprecedented national crisis that has been given to us by the very politicians accepted by the conventional wisdom as bursting with presidential DNA. The voters are smart enough to know that centrism won't save this nation. If elected, a centrist Republican would not only fail to energize the base; he most likely wouldn't do what it will take to reverse this crisis. If anyone should be worried about his extremism, it's Obama, yet we hear nothing about that from the media or the elites. Despite their cover-up, the world's worst-kept secret is that Obama is a disaster and is in deep trouble with the electorate.
Finally, for those who persist in misjudging Obama as unrivaled in mental acuity, please consider that you are using the wrong yardstick. In electing a president, wisdom and sound judgment are vastly more important than raw intelligence. All of the GOP candidates have more than enough intelligence to serve as chief executive, far more common sense and wisdom than Obama, and an incomparably better handle on the steps necessary to preserve the republic and the willingness to take them. [bold and italics emphases mine]
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at DavidLimbaugh.com.
Elitists Treat Bachmann the Same as PalinTuesday, 28 Jun 2011 http://www.newsmax.com/Limbaugh/ChrisWallace-MicheleBachmann-SarahPalin-Reagan/2011/06/28/id/401708 By David Limbaugh
…Indeed, there is an enormous elephant in the room of GOP presidential politics, which is that despite their individual popularity, both female contenders, [Michele] Bachmann and Sarah Palin, are dismissed in many circles as cartoon characters. I'm the last person who wants to inject identity politics into any equation, but I can't help but wonder what role, if any, their gender may be playing here — not just that they're females but also that they're attractive ones. Though I doubt these are major factors for most people, they are for some. In fact, a number of females have suggested that other women react negatively to Palin — and presumably to Bachmann, as well — specifically because they are women.
In other critics I detect a type of soft sexism leading to a stronger reaction to their gaffes than to, say, Obama's. They regard their mistakes (or supposed mistakes) as disqualifying while casually overlooking far worse errors from the Harvard-educated Obama. [”Within the last three years, the media’s self-appointed smartest President in modern history has insulted the Special Olympics, mixed up the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, falsely claimed that his American Uncle liberated Auschwitz, signed the Westminster Abbey guest book with the date 24 May 2008 when the date was really 24 May 2011, mispronounced “corpsman” when speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast, and perhaps most egregiously, God’s gift to the presidency couldn’t even distinguish between living and dead Medal of Honor recipients.” - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44517]
Bachmann and Palin are panned as inexperienced and lacking gravitas despite their records and accomplishments, and Obama is treated as a heavyweight despite his miserable record and voluminous verbal blunders. But much bigger factors driving the media narrative against Palin and Bachmann than their female attractiveness are their common personal and ideological characteristics. They are both fearless, combative, energizing, and unqualified conservatives. Don't get me wrong; they are two very different people, but these shared qualities make them especially contemptible to the left and to certain elitists on the right.
Bachmann and Palin happen to be among the most conservative of the GOP field, and leftists and elitists routinely cast conservatives as a dozen fries short of a Happy Meal. They consider Reagan conservatives — just as they regarded Reagan in his day — dangerous extremists and insufficiently nuanced for prime time. Those who pull no punches in challenging the Beltway dogma that got us into this calamity are quickly shunted aside by the elites. But they are adored by mainstream Americans, who are unencumbered by the numbing realities of Washington that prevent far too many career politicians from taking immediate action to reverse our nationally suicidal course.
So if you think Palin, Bachmann, and other such candidates sound exercised and frustrated at times, you should be grateful because that is precisely how they ought to sound. We should be far more concerned with those who are taking this national nightmare in stride. Where are their hearts? The fact is that both Bachmann and Palin are far more qualified and dispositionally equipped to be president than Barack Obama. Both have acquitted themselves very well in debates; Palin has a very impressive executive record, with plenty of gravitas (see "The Undefeated"), and Bachmann has powerful academic credentials.
I realize that some conservatives believe that Palin and Bachmann are unelectable or not particularly qualified for one reason or another. But even here, I think we are allowing the liberal media to control the narrative. Who can seem electable after the media get done savaging them? And what mainstream conservatives do the media not savage? Conversely, look at how they treat the Republican candidates who pay homage to global warming and other leftist pieties. Why are they always deemed electable?
We must reject the conventional wisdom that in general, only a centrist can be elected. But this is especially true of 2012, when all bets are off because we are facing an unprecedented national crisis that has been given to us by the very politicians accepted by the conventional wisdom as bursting with presidential DNA. The voters are smart enough to know that centrism won't save this nation. If elected, a centrist Republican would not only fail to energize the base; he most likely wouldn't do what it will take to reverse this crisis. If anyone should be worried about his extremism, it's Obama, yet we hear nothing about that from the media or the elites. Despite their cover-up, the world's worst-kept secret is that Obama is a disaster and is in deep trouble with the electorate.
Finally, for those who persist in misjudging Obama as unrivaled in mental acuity, please consider that you are using the wrong yardstick. In electing a president, wisdom and sound judgment are vastly more important than raw intelligence. All of the GOP candidates have more than enough intelligence to serve as chief executive, far more common sense and wisdom than Obama, and an incomparably better handle on the steps necessary to preserve the republic and the willingness to take them. [bold and italics emphases mine]
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at DavidLimbaugh.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
