[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. What is yours?]
[NOTE: The following items for prayer come from the Presidential Prayer Team(NOT associated with the White House but an independent Christian prayer minsitry.) These cover news items not mentioned previous in this blog; I trust also pray for regarding each subject mentioned in each of my posts. If you would like to sign up for a free subscription to their daily devotionals and prayer alerts, please go to: Info@PresidentialPrayerTeam .org I will try to present items from their alerts each week and encourage you to take time when you read each item to pray for the prayer requests listed. - Stan]
Wildfires and Floods Bring Devastation and Displacement, June 27, 2012; http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=430
"The wildfire burning near Colorado Springs, Colorado has chased some 32,000 residents from their homes. The fire doubled in size overnight and by Wednesday morning, 15,324 acres were burning with only 5% contained, said Rich Harvey, incident commander of the Waldo Canyon Fire.."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For protection and safety on the part of firefighters and hot shot crews in the Western U.S.
•For families and businesses who have sustained losses, and for their recovery, physical, material and emotional.
•About the nation being just at the "front end" of hurricane and wildfire seasons.
•That the Lord would bring rain to drought-stricken areas, and calm the wind and seas in the Atlantic and Gulf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers Accuse Air Force of Hostility Toward Religion, June 23, 2012, http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=418
"A group of 66 Republican lawmakers is accusing the Air Force of creating 'a culture that is hostile toward religion.' The House members wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking him to investigate whether recent incidents at the Air Force are having a "chilling effect" on people of faith. The lawmakers outlined several instances where they had problems with Air Force policy, particularly a memo last year from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, which said that 'chaplains, not commanders' should notify airmen about chaplains’ religious programs. The lawmakers wrote the memo was 'suggesting that the mere mention of these programs is impermissible.' They also took issue with the suspension of a briefing that discussed Bible references, the changing of a Latin office motto that included God and removing Bibles from Air Force Inn checklists. They wrote the policy of 'complete separation' between church and state is having a "chilling effect" down the chain of command. "The changes lend credence to the notion."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and members of the Pentagon who grapple with issues of "separation." [Question: Why in all of US history till now has this never been a concern?]
•For the members of our Armed Forces who are sustained by faith to be encouraged by the Lord and not discouraged by actions of others.
•For a military environment where faith in God is honored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaza terrorists fire 23 rockets hitting school and factory, June 23, 2012,(Source: The Times of Israel, Ha’artez)
"Gaza-based terrorists fired 23 rockets into southern Israel on Saturday, causing damage to a school and factory. The latest attacks bring the total number of rockets and other projectiles fired from the Strip to approximately 150 over the past six days. Iron Dome shot down five of the incoming rockets, according to Israel Radio."
"The mayor called on the government to act, and said that the city’s center for victims of stress and anxiety was open and had already received several residents.
During a visit to Sderot and neighboring towns surrounding the Gaza Strip on Saturday, Home Front Defense Minister Matan Vilnai said 'Israel cannot remain silent following the events in the South in recent days.' In an afternoon strike, the Air Force targeted and killed a terrorist in northern Gaza near Jabaliya who was making final preparations for a rocket launch. Later, the IAF bombed a second terrorist cell en route to launching rockets outside Gaza City. Palestinian sources reported one dead, 10 injured, and damage to nearby buildings."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•About increasing levels of terrorism coming from Gaza.
•About the probable disavowing of the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood candidate has been announced as the winner of Egypt’s elections.
•About the potential for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Prisoner to President - Islamist Wins in Egypt, June 24, 2012
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=420
"In a reversal of fortunes unthinkable a year and a half ago, an Islamist jailed by Hosni Mubarak has succeeded him as president of the biggest Arab nation in a victory at the ballot box which has historic consequences for Egypt and the Middle East..."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For calm throughout Egypt as the military plans to install Morsi as president later this week.
•For women, Christians, Jews and other minorities in Egypt who are facing the potential for harsh Sharia law.
•For wisdom for President Morsi and those who will be his primary advisors as they enter Egypt into democratic rule.
•For the impact of the election result upon Israel and other nations in the Middle East.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence Chief Takes New Steps to Crack Down on Leaks, June 25, 2012
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=423
"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Monday announced new steps intended to cut down on leaks after a furious backlash from Congress...Congress is demanding investigations and vowing to write new laws of its own after a series of national security leaks became major news stories, including reports on a U.S. cyberattack against Iran, a double agent infiltrating al Qaeda in Yemen and a terrorist 'kill list.'
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•About the damage done to the United States at home and abroad by leaks in matters of national security.
•For Director Clapper and members of Congress to work together in formulating appropriate measures to identify and deal with "leakers."
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
#247 (6/29) - American Voters, Not the SC, Will Finally Decide Obamacare
[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. What is yours?]
[NOTE: Like the majority of Americans who oppose the President's healthcare law, I was greatly surprised by the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday. But we must remember, the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision(1857)- declaring African-Americans to be non-persons and the decisions (yes, there were 2) legalizing abortion in 1973, when they say something is constitutional is sometimes simply wrong-headed. And as the expression goes, "let not your heart be troubled" my friend, because now it is up to the American people to speak up, as IS provided by our Constitution, as you will read below. Be assured also, that this will definitely be just the first of many articles that will be posted in the near future about this horrendous decision. Please begin decompressing from today's upsetting news by reading the following post. - Stan]
"The U.S. Supreme Court Does Nothing to Save Americans from Unconstitutional Government Overreach",June 28 2012; http://www.truthinaction.org/index.php/2012/06/decision-on-obamacare/?utm_source=TIA_Import_11_21_2011&utm_campaign=8c04d62a4e-Alert+6.28.12&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=8c04d62a4e&mc_eid=cca48189c6
In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts joined liberal justices in upholding the Individual Mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All Americans will be required to purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty tax to the IRS in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand the entirety of President Obama’s healthcare reform law, except for the provision that would require states to expand their Medicaid funding, is a grave disappointment for all Americans who treasure their freedoms and religious liberty.
Regardless of the fact that it placed limits on the Medicaid provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPHCA), the Court’s failure to strike down the entire Act will result in a major infringement on the freedoms and religious liberty of all Americans. Provisions in the law still require all participants to pay for and support abortion services for others. Included in Obamacare are provisions to:
■Subsidize with tax-payer dollars health plans in state exchanges that may include elective abortions.
■Prevent insurance companies from telling customers before signing up for their plan if their plan includes an abortion premium.
■Require religious organizations such as colleges and hospitals to provide coverage for abortion pills, contraceptives and sterilizations with no exemptions provided to recognize the right of religious conscience at these institutions.
Calling the Individual Mandate a tax, and requiring all Americans to participate in state health care exchange programs will expand the power and reach of government into the private health care decisions of all Americans. The Act sets up an Individual Patient Advisory Board, which will interfere with patient's most intimate personal health care decisions. Decisions regarding services and procedures that previously would be handled by patients, their families, and their doctors alone will now be subject to the arbitrary and invasive oversight of an impersonal government regulated board that will have the final say concerning which procedures may be allowed, even at the cost of the patient’s life.
This law is one of the most coercive, invasive, and clearly unconstitutional bills passed by any congress. The Supreme Court’s decision to leave the major portion of it in place, while selectively striking down only one section of it, places the health care of all Americans under the control of the heavy hand of government and allows us to be manipulated by the willful whims of government bureaucrats.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s opinion is not the final say. In fashioning our government, the Framers brilliantly designed a distribution of powers—including, and especially, the power of “we the people.”
The previous Congress clearly trampled on the concept of enumerated powers plainly set forth in the Constitution when it passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPHCA) in 2010. However, knowing that a government populated with fallible men and women would, from time to time, act outside the constraints of the Constitution, the Framers prepared for just such exigencies. James Madison pointed in the Federalist Paper No. 44 just who has the last word on such constitutional usurpations and how they should be corrected:
"In the first instance, the success of [Congress’] usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers [emphasis added]."
Recent history shows that this nullification process (i.e. elections) took place in 2010 when a sufficient number of “usurpers” were turned out and majority control shifted in the U.S. House of Representatives. This change resulted in the potential for a new Congress to exercise authority that would effectively remove any impact of the PPHCA. Writing in Federalist Paper No. 58, Madison observed the substantial constitutional power of Congress:
"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure"[emphasis added].
That’s right. By the determination of only one chamber of Congress to withhold the appropriation of money for the execution of programs related to PPAHCA, the new Congress can provide “a redress of [the] grievance” created by the Act and render it of no effect. Since both chambers must agree on the passage of any appropriations bill, all that is necessary to nullify the PPHCA is the resolute opposition of only one chamber of Congress.
The Framers of the Constitution believed that this “great experiment in liberty” would succeed only if “we the people” would be the custodians of our own freedoms. If we steadfastly elect only “faithful representatives” who reflect our fidelity to the Constitution, we will preserve the blessings of liberty handed down from our forefathers.
However, if we dare to think that this greatness will be preserved outside the will of the Creator, we would do well to remember the warning of John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is yet another urgent reminder that “we the people” must continue to resist any effort to seat additional liberal judges on the highest court of the land. With the Senate’s consent and approval President Obama placed two justices who do not see the need to adhere to the original meaning of the text of the Constitution. One more like them will tip the balance of the High Court.
For this reason, Truth in Action Ministries has produced Freedom on Trial, a two-part special that examines the constitutional role of the courts and the significant role of judges in upholding the values and truths inherent in the Constitution. It also reveals how judges with liberal agendas have essentially been legislating from the bench to undermine our religious liberties. The conclusion of this two-part program will show what “we the people” can do in the face of these attacks on our freedoms and liberties.
The special, Freedom on Trial, will air the first two weeks in July on television stations around the nation. To locate television stations in your area that will be broadcasting this two-part special click here. The special can also be viewed in July at the Truth in Action website: www.truthinaction.org.
Truth in Action Ministries, formerly Coral Ridge Ministries, is a Christian media outreach that seeks to advance biblical truth through television, radio, print, and the Internet at www.TruthInAction.org.
[bold and italics - outside of quotes - are mine for emphasis]
[NOTE: Like the majority of Americans who oppose the President's healthcare law, I was greatly surprised by the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday. But we must remember, the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision(1857)- declaring African-Americans to be non-persons and the decisions (yes, there were 2) legalizing abortion in 1973, when they say something is constitutional is sometimes simply wrong-headed. And as the expression goes, "let not your heart be troubled" my friend, because now it is up to the American people to speak up, as IS provided by our Constitution, as you will read below. Be assured also, that this will definitely be just the first of many articles that will be posted in the near future about this horrendous decision. Please begin decompressing from today's upsetting news by reading the following post. - Stan]
"The U.S. Supreme Court Does Nothing to Save Americans from Unconstitutional Government Overreach",June 28 2012; http://www.truthinaction.org/index.php/2012/06/decision-on-obamacare/?utm_source=TIA_Import_11_21_2011&utm_campaign=8c04d62a4e-Alert+6.28.12&utm_medium=email&mc_cid=8c04d62a4e&mc_eid=cca48189c6
In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts joined liberal justices in upholding the Individual Mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. All Americans will be required to purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty tax to the IRS in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let stand the entirety of President Obama’s healthcare reform law, except for the provision that would require states to expand their Medicaid funding, is a grave disappointment for all Americans who treasure their freedoms and religious liberty.
Regardless of the fact that it placed limits on the Medicaid provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPHCA), the Court’s failure to strike down the entire Act will result in a major infringement on the freedoms and religious liberty of all Americans. Provisions in the law still require all participants to pay for and support abortion services for others. Included in Obamacare are provisions to:
■Subsidize with tax-payer dollars health plans in state exchanges that may include elective abortions.
■Prevent insurance companies from telling customers before signing up for their plan if their plan includes an abortion premium.
■Require religious organizations such as colleges and hospitals to provide coverage for abortion pills, contraceptives and sterilizations with no exemptions provided to recognize the right of religious conscience at these institutions.
Calling the Individual Mandate a tax, and requiring all Americans to participate in state health care exchange programs will expand the power and reach of government into the private health care decisions of all Americans. The Act sets up an Individual Patient Advisory Board, which will interfere with patient's most intimate personal health care decisions. Decisions regarding services and procedures that previously would be handled by patients, their families, and their doctors alone will now be subject to the arbitrary and invasive oversight of an impersonal government regulated board that will have the final say concerning which procedures may be allowed, even at the cost of the patient’s life.
This law is one of the most coercive, invasive, and clearly unconstitutional bills passed by any congress. The Supreme Court’s decision to leave the major portion of it in place, while selectively striking down only one section of it, places the health care of all Americans under the control of the heavy hand of government and allows us to be manipulated by the willful whims of government bureaucrats.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s opinion is not the final say. In fashioning our government, the Framers brilliantly designed a distribution of powers—including, and especially, the power of “we the people.”
The previous Congress clearly trampled on the concept of enumerated powers plainly set forth in the Constitution when it passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPHCA) in 2010. However, knowing that a government populated with fallible men and women would, from time to time, act outside the constraints of the Constitution, the Framers prepared for just such exigencies. James Madison pointed in the Federalist Paper No. 44 just who has the last word on such constitutional usurpations and how they should be corrected:
"In the first instance, the success of [Congress’] usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers [emphasis added]."
Recent history shows that this nullification process (i.e. elections) took place in 2010 when a sufficient number of “usurpers” were turned out and majority control shifted in the U.S. House of Representatives. This change resulted in the potential for a new Congress to exercise authority that would effectively remove any impact of the PPHCA. Writing in Federalist Paper No. 58, Madison observed the substantial constitutional power of Congress:
"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure"[emphasis added].
That’s right. By the determination of only one chamber of Congress to withhold the appropriation of money for the execution of programs related to PPAHCA, the new Congress can provide “a redress of [the] grievance” created by the Act and render it of no effect. Since both chambers must agree on the passage of any appropriations bill, all that is necessary to nullify the PPHCA is the resolute opposition of only one chamber of Congress.
The Framers of the Constitution believed that this “great experiment in liberty” would succeed only if “we the people” would be the custodians of our own freedoms. If we steadfastly elect only “faithful representatives” who reflect our fidelity to the Constitution, we will preserve the blessings of liberty handed down from our forefathers.
However, if we dare to think that this greatness will be preserved outside the will of the Creator, we would do well to remember the warning of John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is yet another urgent reminder that “we the people” must continue to resist any effort to seat additional liberal judges on the highest court of the land. With the Senate’s consent and approval President Obama placed two justices who do not see the need to adhere to the original meaning of the text of the Constitution. One more like them will tip the balance of the High Court.
For this reason, Truth in Action Ministries has produced Freedom on Trial, a two-part special that examines the constitutional role of the courts and the significant role of judges in upholding the values and truths inherent in the Constitution. It also reveals how judges with liberal agendas have essentially been legislating from the bench to undermine our religious liberties. The conclusion of this two-part program will show what “we the people” can do in the face of these attacks on our freedoms and liberties.
The special, Freedom on Trial, will air the first two weeks in July on television stations around the nation. To locate television stations in your area that will be broadcasting this two-part special click here. The special can also be viewed in July at the Truth in Action website: www.truthinaction.org.
Truth in Action Ministries, formerly Coral Ridge Ministries, is a Christian media outreach that seeks to advance biblical truth through television, radio, print, and the Internet at www.TruthInAction.org.
[bold and italics - outside of quotes - are mine for emphasis]
Thursday, June 28, 2012
#246 (6/28) - "Imperial Presidency"
[NOTE: Yes, this returns to a theme past posts have adressed but this one includes a list of particulars others have not. But when speaking of the President's tendency to act imperially, we do speak of not AN incident but a PATTERN of behavior. And that makes this President especially troubling. - Stan]
- Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., June 22, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/morning-bell-imperial-presidency/
The United States was born when rebellious colonists declared their independence from an imperial ruler who had vastly overstepped his bounds. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” they wrote in their Declaration of Independence. Today’s presidency lacks the regal air of George III. But imperialism is back, in a big way.
Last week, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum instructing U.S. immigration officials to use their “prosecutorial discretion” to create a policy scheme contrary to existing law, designed to implement legislation that Congress hasn’t passed. The President himself has admitted he doesn’t have the authority to do this. “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works,” he told Hispanic activists last year. “That’s not how our democracy functions.”
Indeed. We can now see before us a persistent pattern of disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision-making without—and often in spite of—congressional action. This violates the spirit—and potentially the letter—of the Constitution’s separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the President.
Examples abound:
•Even though the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the President’s cap-and-trade plan, his Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide, the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
•After the Employee Free Choice Act— designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls— was defeated by Congress, the National Labor Relations Board announced a rule that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
•After an Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would regulate the Web anyway, even despite a federal court’s ruling that it had no authority to do so.
•Although Congress consistently has barred the Department of Education from getting involved in curriculum matters, the Administration has offered waivers for the No Child Left Behind law in exchange for states adopting national education standards, all without congressional authorization.
Likewise, the Administration has often simply refused to enforce laws duly enacted by Congress:
•Since it objects to existing federal immigration laws, the Administration has decided to apply those laws selectively and actively prevent the state (like Arizona) from enforcing those laws themselves.
•Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those laws.
•DOJ also has announced that it would stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act or defending it from legal challenge rather than seeking legislative recourse.
On Tuesday, the President invoked executive privilege to avoid handing over some 1,300 documents in an ongoing Congressional investigation. The Supreme Court has held that executive privilege cannot be invoked to shield wrongdoing. Is that what’s happening in this case? “Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more,” Heritage legal scholar Todd Gaziano writes.
Earlier this year the President crossed the threshold of constitutionality when he gave “recess appointments” to four officials who were subject to Senate confirmation, even though the Senate wasn’t in recess. Gaziano wrote at the time that such appointments “would render the Senate’s advice and consent role to normal appointments almost meaningless. It is a grave constitutional wrong.”
There is no telling where such disregard may go next, but the trend is clear, and it leads further and further away from the constitutional rule of law.
The President has unique and powerful responsibilities in our constitutional system as chief executive officer, head of state, and commander in chief. Those powers do not include the authority to make laws or to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The President – like judges or Members of Congress – takes an oath to uphold the Constitution in carrying out the responsibilities of his office.
Indeed, the President takes a unique oath, pledging he “shall faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We don’t need a new Declaration of Independence, but we do need a President who will defend and vigorously exert his or her legitimate powers, recognizing that those powers are not arbitrary or unlimited.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Matthew Spalding is the Vice President for American Studies and Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation. He is also the author of "We Still Hold These Truths".
- Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., June 22, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/morning-bell-imperial-presidency/
The United States was born when rebellious colonists declared their independence from an imperial ruler who had vastly overstepped his bounds. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” they wrote in their Declaration of Independence. Today’s presidency lacks the regal air of George III. But imperialism is back, in a big way.
Last week, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum instructing U.S. immigration officials to use their “prosecutorial discretion” to create a policy scheme contrary to existing law, designed to implement legislation that Congress hasn’t passed. The President himself has admitted he doesn’t have the authority to do this. “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works,” he told Hispanic activists last year. “That’s not how our democracy functions.”
Indeed. We can now see before us a persistent pattern of disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision-making without—and often in spite of—congressional action. This violates the spirit—and potentially the letter—of the Constitution’s separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the President.
Examples abound:
•Even though the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the President’s cap-and-trade plan, his Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide, the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
•After the Employee Free Choice Act— designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls— was defeated by Congress, the National Labor Relations Board announced a rule that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
•After an Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would regulate the Web anyway, even despite a federal court’s ruling that it had no authority to do so.
•Although Congress consistently has barred the Department of Education from getting involved in curriculum matters, the Administration has offered waivers for the No Child Left Behind law in exchange for states adopting national education standards, all without congressional authorization.
Likewise, the Administration has often simply refused to enforce laws duly enacted by Congress:
•Since it objects to existing federal immigration laws, the Administration has decided to apply those laws selectively and actively prevent the state (like Arizona) from enforcing those laws themselves.
•Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those laws.
•DOJ also has announced that it would stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act or defending it from legal challenge rather than seeking legislative recourse.
On Tuesday, the President invoked executive privilege to avoid handing over some 1,300 documents in an ongoing Congressional investigation. The Supreme Court has held that executive privilege cannot be invoked to shield wrongdoing. Is that what’s happening in this case? “Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more,” Heritage legal scholar Todd Gaziano writes.
Earlier this year the President crossed the threshold of constitutionality when he gave “recess appointments” to four officials who were subject to Senate confirmation, even though the Senate wasn’t in recess. Gaziano wrote at the time that such appointments “would render the Senate’s advice and consent role to normal appointments almost meaningless. It is a grave constitutional wrong.”
There is no telling where such disregard may go next, but the trend is clear, and it leads further and further away from the constitutional rule of law.
The President has unique and powerful responsibilities in our constitutional system as chief executive officer, head of state, and commander in chief. Those powers do not include the authority to make laws or to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The President – like judges or Members of Congress – takes an oath to uphold the Constitution in carrying out the responsibilities of his office.
Indeed, the President takes a unique oath, pledging he “shall faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We don’t need a new Declaration of Independence, but we do need a President who will defend and vigorously exert his or her legitimate powers, recognizing that those powers are not arbitrary or unlimited.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Matthew Spalding is the Vice President for American Studies and Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation. He is also the author of "We Still Hold These Truths".
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
#245 (6/27) - Understanding the Supreme Court Immirgration Decision
[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. What is yours?]
"Supreme Court Upholds Immigration Checks, but Administration Counters"- By Amy Payne, June 26, 2012
The Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Arizona immigration law yesterday, striking some portions of the law in a 5-3 ruling but unanimously upholding immigration status checks by law enforcement. The Obama Administration countered by announcing it would tell Arizona to release most of the people whose status was in question.
Following the Court’s decision, law enforcement officers must make [1] a “reasonable attempt…to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest for a non-immigration offense if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States.” That check would involve a call to the Department of Homeland Security, which maintains a 24/7 hotline for this purpose, as the federal government determines who may enter and remain in the country.
“That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status—but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls [2],” reports Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times. “Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, [they] will tell the local police to release the person.”
The Administration has shown little regard for the other branches of government [3] in most of its policy making, including immigration. President Obama’s recent move to exempt young illegals from the threat of deportation—without a law made by Congress [4]—drew the attention of Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent in the Arizona decision.“To say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing immigration law that the president declines to enforce [5] boggles the mind,” Scalia said.
In striking down some of the Arizona law’s provisions, the Court said that federal immigration law preempted the state law. That should mean that it is the federal government’s job to enforce these aspects of immigration law where the Court says the feds have exclusive jurisdiction. But the Obama Administration has made it clear that will not happen on its watch. Not only is Obama’s Homeland Security Department already planning to release most people questioned under the Arizona law, but it also is paving the way to challenge the law with allegations of racial profiling. This is despite the fact that the Arizona law (S.B. 1070) expressly prohibits racial profiling in immigration checks—and the Administration’s own attorney told the Supreme Court that its challenge to the law was not based on any racial or ethnic profiling concerns [6].The President’s statement yesterday planted the seeds for this strategy by saying, “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like [7].”
Though the Administration’s lawyer admitted that racial profiling was not an issue in the Arizona case, the Administration is certainly looking to make it an issue now—it has set up a hotline “for the public to report potential civil rights concerns [8] regarding the Arizona law,” the Associated Press reports.
Neither side got all of what it wanted in the Arizona immigration decision, but the Supreme Court confirmed that states have an important role to play in enforcing federal immigration law. States should not have to beg the federal government for permission to enforce laws within their borders. As Heritage’s John Malcolm noted:" Arizona and other border states bear the largest burden when immigration laws are not enforced federally or when rules are overlooked. And the burden is significant. There are 2,000 miles along the southwest border, 370 of which adjoin Arizona. Illegal entries and border smuggling by “coyotes” are rampant, with an accompanying influx of drugs, dangerous criminals, and vulnerable people (who often end up as victims of human trafficking). Between 2006 and 2010, in the border town of Nogales alone, 51 drug smuggling tunnels were discovered. Home invasions and kidnappings are common in Arizona."
Arizona is not alone. As The New York Times reports, “In sustaining one provision and blocking others, the decision amounted to a road map for permissible state efforts [6] in this area. Several other states have enacted tough measures to stem illegal immigration, including ones patterned after the Arizona law, among them Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.”
With this decision, the Court has reaffirmed the important principle that, much as he might want to, President Obama cannot prevent the states from taking action to enforce federal immigration laws just by saying that he doesn’t want them to do so.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/26/morning-bell-supreme-court-upholds-immigration-checks-but-administration-counters/
URLs in this post:
[1] must make: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/25/supreme-court-backs-arizonas-right-to-enforce-immigration-laws/
[2] to reject most of those calls: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/
[3] little regard for the other branches of government: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/morning-bell-imperial-presidency/
[4] without a law made by Congress: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/19/imperial-immigration-policy/
[5] immigration law that the president declines to enforce: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B50D692F-D399-4C65-ACF6-68CE3A3EDF31
[6] was not based on any racial or ethnic profiling concerns: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-rejects-part-of-arizona-immigration-law.html?_r=2
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Supreme Court Backs Arizona’s Right to Enforce Immigration Laws" - John G. Malcolm,June 25, 2012, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/25/supreme-court-backs-arizonas-right-to-enforce-immigration-laws/
"Today’s decision means that the Obama Administration may not, by executive order, prevent states like Arizona from participating in an immigration verification process set up by Congress. The President may disagree, but for his disagreement to actually have the force of law, he will have to persuade members of Congress—a refreshing change for a President who has seen fit to go it alone far too frequently..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Immigration Ruling: What's the Ripple Effect? - By John Jessup, CBN News Washington Correspondent, Monday, June 25, 2012;http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Sup-Court-Strikes-Down-Parts-of-AZ-Immigration-Law/
"Supreme Court Upholds Immigration Checks, but Administration Counters"- By Amy Payne, June 26, 2012
The Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Arizona immigration law yesterday, striking some portions of the law in a 5-3 ruling but unanimously upholding immigration status checks by law enforcement. The Obama Administration countered by announcing it would tell Arizona to release most of the people whose status was in question.
Following the Court’s decision, law enforcement officers must make [1] a “reasonable attempt…to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest for a non-immigration offense if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States.” That check would involve a call to the Department of Homeland Security, which maintains a 24/7 hotline for this purpose, as the federal government determines who may enter and remain in the country.
“That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status—but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls [2],” reports Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times. “Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, [they] will tell the local police to release the person.”
The Administration has shown little regard for the other branches of government [3] in most of its policy making, including immigration. President Obama’s recent move to exempt young illegals from the threat of deportation—without a law made by Congress [4]—drew the attention of Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent in the Arizona decision.“To say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing immigration law that the president declines to enforce [5] boggles the mind,” Scalia said.
In striking down some of the Arizona law’s provisions, the Court said that federal immigration law preempted the state law. That should mean that it is the federal government’s job to enforce these aspects of immigration law where the Court says the feds have exclusive jurisdiction. But the Obama Administration has made it clear that will not happen on its watch. Not only is Obama’s Homeland Security Department already planning to release most people questioned under the Arizona law, but it also is paving the way to challenge the law with allegations of racial profiling. This is despite the fact that the Arizona law (S.B. 1070) expressly prohibits racial profiling in immigration checks—and the Administration’s own attorney told the Supreme Court that its challenge to the law was not based on any racial or ethnic profiling concerns [6].The President’s statement yesterday planted the seeds for this strategy by saying, “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like [7].”
Though the Administration’s lawyer admitted that racial profiling was not an issue in the Arizona case, the Administration is certainly looking to make it an issue now—it has set up a hotline “for the public to report potential civil rights concerns [8] regarding the Arizona law,” the Associated Press reports.
Neither side got all of what it wanted in the Arizona immigration decision, but the Supreme Court confirmed that states have an important role to play in enforcing federal immigration law. States should not have to beg the federal government for permission to enforce laws within their borders. As Heritage’s John Malcolm noted:" Arizona and other border states bear the largest burden when immigration laws are not enforced federally or when rules are overlooked. And the burden is significant. There are 2,000 miles along the southwest border, 370 of which adjoin Arizona. Illegal entries and border smuggling by “coyotes” are rampant, with an accompanying influx of drugs, dangerous criminals, and vulnerable people (who often end up as victims of human trafficking). Between 2006 and 2010, in the border town of Nogales alone, 51 drug smuggling tunnels were discovered. Home invasions and kidnappings are common in Arizona."
Arizona is not alone. As The New York Times reports, “In sustaining one provision and blocking others, the decision amounted to a road map for permissible state efforts [6] in this area. Several other states have enacted tough measures to stem illegal immigration, including ones patterned after the Arizona law, among them Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.”
With this decision, the Court has reaffirmed the important principle that, much as he might want to, President Obama cannot prevent the states from taking action to enforce federal immigration laws just by saying that he doesn’t want them to do so.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/26/morning-bell-supreme-court-upholds-immigration-checks-but-administration-counters/
URLs in this post:
[1] must make: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/25/supreme-court-backs-arizonas-right-to-enforce-immigration-laws/
[2] to reject most of those calls: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/
[3] little regard for the other branches of government: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/morning-bell-imperial-presidency/
[4] without a law made by Congress: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/19/imperial-immigration-policy/
[5] immigration law that the president declines to enforce: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B50D692F-D399-4C65-ACF6-68CE3A3EDF31
[6] was not based on any racial or ethnic profiling concerns: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-rejects-part-of-arizona-immigration-law.html?_r=2
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Supreme Court Backs Arizona’s Right to Enforce Immigration Laws" - John G. Malcolm,June 25, 2012, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/25/supreme-court-backs-arizonas-right-to-enforce-immigration-laws/
"Today’s decision means that the Obama Administration may not, by executive order, prevent states like Arizona from participating in an immigration verification process set up by Congress. The President may disagree, but for his disagreement to actually have the force of law, he will have to persuade members of Congress—a refreshing change for a President who has seen fit to go it alone far too frequently..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Immigration Ruling: What's the Ripple Effect? - By John Jessup, CBN News Washington Correspondent, Monday, June 25, 2012;http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Sup-Court-Strikes-Down-Parts-of-AZ-Immigration-Law/
#244(6/26) - "The Morality of Conservatism "
[FYI - My GENday is Sept.19th. What is yours?]
[NOTE: So many Christians have kept silent about anything "political" because they believe that a Christian should only be concerned with the "spiritual." But like the evil of abortion, what is considred "political" often has a moral/spiritual component. For instance, it is immoral to purposefully leave a crushing debt to our children in our private lives, and no less immoral to do so on a nationial level, which is what the out of control growth of our national debt has become. Similarly, as discussed below, it is immoral to allow government to grow to an unsustainable size. Too often on too many issues, liberals have sought to paint conservatives as "the bad guy," as the ones who seeks to hurt the most vulnerable when the truth is furthest from being so. Conservatives should rightly reclaim the moral high ground in the discussions on the issues of our day and stop surrendering to the shrill voice of those who are actually advocating that which is truly IMmoral! - Stan]
- David Weinberger,June 7, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/07/the-morality-of-conservatism/
Liberals often appeal to morality in policy debates with conservatives—with much success. But conservatives should not cede the moral high ground<. In fact, a strong case for conservatism can be made on the basis of morality.
Consider why shrinking government is moral. The more the federal government provides for people, the more it deprives them not only of their dignity, but of one of the most sacred rights, penned by Thomas Jefferson: the right to pursue happiness. Why? Because fulfilling happiness comes from earned success, not from unearned handouts. Think about the person we all knew growing up whose parents spoiled him or her. Even if that person wasn’t unhappy at the time (though chances are he or she was unhappy), it teaches that individual to expect handouts, which will likely result in an unhappy adulthood. Sewing the seeds of entitlement is a recipe for misery.
During the recent [it's over?] recession, unemployment benefits were extended from six months to nearly two years . Does not an extension of such length send the message to people who receive them that they can depend on government? How dignifying is that?
Certainly in tough times people may need help, but the tragedy of governmental aid is that it crowds out assistance from families, private charities and local communities, which is much more personal, not to mention much more effective. Jonathan Gruber, an economist from MIT, conducted a study of the New Deal government in the 1930s, and concluded that private charity spending “fell by 30% in response to the New Deal, and that government relief spending can explain virtually all of the decline in charitable church activity observed between 1933 and 1939.”
Private charities are able to make distinctions between people who truly need help and those who do not, as well as between those who need material assistance and those who need moral refocus, personal counseling, relationship repair or spiritual commitment. Government, no matter how well-intentioned, does not and cannot make such distinctions. In fact, the more ubiquitous government programs become, the less needed families and communities are to help those who require it.
Though well-intentioned, leftism’s commitment to government undermines both the individual pursuit of happiness, which results from earned success, and private charity of families and communities who can best provide it to those experiencing hardship. Conservatism, on the other hand, is committed to both, and is precisely why moving the country to the right is moral.
[bold and italics emphasis]
[NOTE: So many Christians have kept silent about anything "political" because they believe that a Christian should only be concerned with the "spiritual." But like the evil of abortion, what is considred "political" often has a moral/spiritual component. For instance, it is immoral to purposefully leave a crushing debt to our children in our private lives, and no less immoral to do so on a nationial level, which is what the out of control growth of our national debt has become. Similarly, as discussed below, it is immoral to allow government to grow to an unsustainable size. Too often on too many issues, liberals have sought to paint conservatives as "the bad guy," as the ones who seeks to hurt the most vulnerable when the truth is furthest from being so. Conservatives should rightly reclaim the moral high ground in the discussions on the issues of our day and stop surrendering to the shrill voice of those who are actually advocating that which is truly IMmoral! - Stan]
- David Weinberger,June 7, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/07/the-morality-of-conservatism/
Liberals often appeal to morality in policy debates with conservatives—with much success. But conservatives should not cede the moral high ground<. In fact, a strong case for conservatism can be made on the basis of morality.
Consider why shrinking government is moral. The more the federal government provides for people, the more it deprives them not only of their dignity, but of one of the most sacred rights, penned by Thomas Jefferson: the right to pursue happiness. Why? Because fulfilling happiness comes from earned success, not from unearned handouts. Think about the person we all knew growing up whose parents spoiled him or her. Even if that person wasn’t unhappy at the time (though chances are he or she was unhappy), it teaches that individual to expect handouts, which will likely result in an unhappy adulthood. Sewing the seeds of entitlement is a recipe for misery.
During the recent [it's over?] recession, unemployment benefits were extended from six months to nearly two years . Does not an extension of such length send the message to people who receive them that they can depend on government? How dignifying is that?
Certainly in tough times people may need help, but the tragedy of governmental aid is that it crowds out assistance from families, private charities and local communities, which is much more personal, not to mention much more effective. Jonathan Gruber, an economist from MIT, conducted a study of the New Deal government in the 1930s, and concluded that private charity spending “fell by 30% in response to the New Deal, and that government relief spending can explain virtually all of the decline in charitable church activity observed between 1933 and 1939.”
Private charities are able to make distinctions between people who truly need help and those who do not, as well as between those who need material assistance and those who need moral refocus, personal counseling, relationship repair or spiritual commitment. Government, no matter how well-intentioned, does not and cannot make such distinctions. In fact, the more ubiquitous government programs become, the less needed families and communities are to help those who require it.
Though well-intentioned, leftism’s commitment to government undermines both the individual pursuit of happiness, which results from earned success, and private charity of families and communities who can best provide it to those experiencing hardship. Conservatism, on the other hand, is committed to both, and is precisely why moving the country to the right is moral.
[bold and italics emphasis]
Monday, June 25, 2012
#243 (6/25) - "President Obama’s Fast and Furious Scandal Grows"
[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. Do you know yours?]
[NOTE: Here is an issue that has been around for about 18 months but has not gotten much attention with the news being dominated by the economy and the Republican Presidenntial primaries. But now it's taking center stage. Could this become another Watergate type scandal? With this possibly going before the full House for a vote AND the most critical Supreme Court decisions in decades expected this week, this should be quite an explosive week of news events.-Stan]
- By Rory Cooper, June 21, 2012
On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed by an untraceable assault weapon that was deliberately handed to Mexican drug lords by U.S. officials via Operation Fast and Furious [2].Ever since, the Terry family and Americans across the nation have asked how this could have happened. And ever since, Attorney General Eric Holder has stonewalled Congress in its attempts to find these answers. Yesterday, President Obama joined this stonewalling effort, asserting executive privilege over many of the documents about the operation that Congress had subpoenaed but still had not received.
Executive privilege is legitimate when properly invoked. But even then, the Supreme Court has maintained that it is not absolute. The Department of Justice (DOJ) must provide a compelling rationale for each assertion. Shielding wrongdoing has never been a qualifying rationale. Heritage legal expert and former Department of Justice counsel Todd Gaziano explains [3]: "First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that [President] Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more."
It is now up to Congress to ascertain the specific reasoning for executive privilege with every withheld document. Even in the unlikely case it is determined that this was a proper invocation of executive privilege, the administration is still not off the hook to inform Congress of what they know.
Gaziano explains further: "[T]he President is required when invoking executive privilege to try to accommodate the other branches’ legitimate information needs in some other way. For example, it does not harm executive power for the President to selectively waive executive privilege in most instances, even if it hurts him politically by exposing a terrible policy failure or wrongdoing among his staff. The history of executive–congressional relations is filled with accommodations and waivers of privilege. In contrast to voluntary waivers of privilege, Watergate demonstrates that wrongful invocations of privilege can seriously damage the office of the presidency when Congress and the courts impose new constraints on the President’s discretion or power (some rightful and some not)."
President Obama now owns the Fast and Furious scandal. It is entirely up to him whether he wants to live up to the transparency promises he made four years ago, or further develop a shroud of secrecy that would make President Richard Nixon blush. If the stonewalling continues, and the privilege is not waived, it will be up to the American people and the media to demand the reasoning for the cover-up.
It is also time for the media to begin responsibly covering this scandal. For more than 16 months, only a handful of reporters have appropriately researched the facts and sought answers. Most members of the national media would not even acknowledge the existence of the scandal. Reportedly, NBC Nightly News ran its first story on the scandal [4] just this past Tuesday.
The national media must now follow the lead of their colleagues CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson or Townhall’s Katie Pavlich and investigate the specific facts and details of the operation and administration involvement. Attkisson, as you may remember, was screamed and cussed at by White House spokesman Eric Schultz [5] in October for asking questions about Operation Fast and Furious.
Answers must be demanded. When was the first time President Obama was briefed on this operation? Given his previous conflicting testimony, when in fact did Attorney General Eric Holder become involved? What exactly did he know and when did he know it? Despite the fact that Mexico was left in the dark by the Obama administration, this was still an international operation. If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must approve the Keystone pipeline, wouldn’t she also be consulted on this cross-border operation?
Liberals will try and pretend this operation that began in mid-2009 is connected to former President George W. Bush’s administration. The media should challenge this false assertion. Operation Wide Receiver in 2006 did not remotely resemble Fast and Furious, as National Review’s Andrew McCarthy has ably examined [6]. Mexico helped coordinate it, and there was traceable controlled delivery. Even Holder admitted in testimony that you cannot “equate the two.”
We will also hear that this is “election-year politics.” The problem with that refrain is that this investigation has been ongoing since early 2011, well before campaign season started. It has been Attorney General Holder’s evasiveness that has dragged this process closer to Election Day.
If it were not for conservative media outlets, bloggers, a few dogged reporters and the steadfastness of House Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), this troubling scandal would have been buried long ago.A brave American border agent is dead. At least 200 Mexicans have been slaughtered with these weapons. Drug violence on the border remains unabated. Now, President Obama is attempting to conceal the facts of what happened. This is an opportunity for Congress and the media to demand sunlight.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/21/morning-bell-president-obamas-fast-and-furious-scandal-grows/
URLs in this post:
[2] Operation Fast and Furious: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/operation-fast-and-furious-the-atf-gunrunning-scandal/
[3] Heritage legal expert and former Department of Justice counsel Todd Gaziano explains: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/20/fast-and-furious-executive-privilege-is-illegitimate-to-shield-wrongdoing/
[4] NBC Nightly News ran its first story on the scandal: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/13/nbc-swallows-pride-and-lot-crow-to-report-on-fast-and-furious-scandal/
[5] screamed and cussed at by White House spokesman Eric Schultz: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/cbs-white-house-screamed_n_995794.html
[6] ably examined: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282606/fast-furious-was-bushs-fault-andrew-c-mccarthy
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
[NOTE: Here is an issue that has been around for about 18 months but has not gotten much attention with the news being dominated by the economy and the Republican Presidenntial primaries. But now it's taking center stage. Could this become another Watergate type scandal? With this possibly going before the full House for a vote AND the most critical Supreme Court decisions in decades expected this week, this should be quite an explosive week of news events.-Stan]
- By Rory Cooper, June 21, 2012
On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed by an untraceable assault weapon that was deliberately handed to Mexican drug lords by U.S. officials via Operation Fast and Furious [2].Ever since, the Terry family and Americans across the nation have asked how this could have happened. And ever since, Attorney General Eric Holder has stonewalled Congress in its attempts to find these answers. Yesterday, President Obama joined this stonewalling effort, asserting executive privilege over many of the documents about the operation that Congress had subpoenaed but still had not received.
Executive privilege is legitimate when properly invoked. But even then, the Supreme Court has maintained that it is not absolute. The Department of Justice (DOJ) must provide a compelling rationale for each assertion. Shielding wrongdoing has never been a qualifying rationale. Heritage legal expert and former Department of Justice counsel Todd Gaziano explains [3]: "First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that [President] Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more."
It is now up to Congress to ascertain the specific reasoning for executive privilege with every withheld document. Even in the unlikely case it is determined that this was a proper invocation of executive privilege, the administration is still not off the hook to inform Congress of what they know.
Gaziano explains further: "[T]he President is required when invoking executive privilege to try to accommodate the other branches’ legitimate information needs in some other way. For example, it does not harm executive power for the President to selectively waive executive privilege in most instances, even if it hurts him politically by exposing a terrible policy failure or wrongdoing among his staff. The history of executive–congressional relations is filled with accommodations and waivers of privilege. In contrast to voluntary waivers of privilege, Watergate demonstrates that wrongful invocations of privilege can seriously damage the office of the presidency when Congress and the courts impose new constraints on the President’s discretion or power (some rightful and some not)."
President Obama now owns the Fast and Furious scandal. It is entirely up to him whether he wants to live up to the transparency promises he made four years ago, or further develop a shroud of secrecy that would make President Richard Nixon blush. If the stonewalling continues, and the privilege is not waived, it will be up to the American people and the media to demand the reasoning for the cover-up.
It is also time for the media to begin responsibly covering this scandal. For more than 16 months, only a handful of reporters have appropriately researched the facts and sought answers. Most members of the national media would not even acknowledge the existence of the scandal. Reportedly, NBC Nightly News ran its first story on the scandal [4] just this past Tuesday.
The national media must now follow the lead of their colleagues CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson or Townhall’s Katie Pavlich and investigate the specific facts and details of the operation and administration involvement. Attkisson, as you may remember, was screamed and cussed at by White House spokesman Eric Schultz [5] in October for asking questions about Operation Fast and Furious.
Answers must be demanded. When was the first time President Obama was briefed on this operation? Given his previous conflicting testimony, when in fact did Attorney General Eric Holder become involved? What exactly did he know and when did he know it? Despite the fact that Mexico was left in the dark by the Obama administration, this was still an international operation. If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must approve the Keystone pipeline, wouldn’t she also be consulted on this cross-border operation?
Liberals will try and pretend this operation that began in mid-2009 is connected to former President George W. Bush’s administration. The media should challenge this false assertion. Operation Wide Receiver in 2006 did not remotely resemble Fast and Furious, as National Review’s Andrew McCarthy has ably examined [6]. Mexico helped coordinate it, and there was traceable controlled delivery. Even Holder admitted in testimony that you cannot “equate the two.”
We will also hear that this is “election-year politics.” The problem with that refrain is that this investigation has been ongoing since early 2011, well before campaign season started. It has been Attorney General Holder’s evasiveness that has dragged this process closer to Election Day.
If it were not for conservative media outlets, bloggers, a few dogged reporters and the steadfastness of House Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), this troubling scandal would have been buried long ago.A brave American border agent is dead. At least 200 Mexicans have been slaughtered with these weapons. Drug violence on the border remains unabated. Now, President Obama is attempting to conceal the facts of what happened. This is an opportunity for Congress and the media to demand sunlight.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org; URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/21/morning-bell-president-obamas-fast-and-furious-scandal-grows/
URLs in this post:
[2] Operation Fast and Furious: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/29/operation-fast-and-furious-the-atf-gunrunning-scandal/
[3] Heritage legal expert and former Department of Justice counsel Todd Gaziano explains: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/20/fast-and-furious-executive-privilege-is-illegitimate-to-shield-wrongdoing/
[4] NBC Nightly News ran its first story on the scandal: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/13/nbc-swallows-pride-and-lot-crow-to-report-on-fast-and-furious-scandal/
[5] screamed and cussed at by White House spokesman Eric Schultz: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/cbs-white-house-screamed_n_995794.html
[6] ably examined: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282606/fast-furious-was-bushs-fault-andrew-c-mccarthy
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
#242 (6/24) - Sunday Special: Mr. Mandela Meets the Missionary
[FYI - My GENday is Sept. 19th. Do you know yours?]
----------------------------------------------------------------
[NOTE: I remember years back when Nelson Mandela first came to world attention. I'd heard stories about his support by communist/socialist factions in his country. Of course, I never heard anything about this in the mainstream media, which has lionized him endlessly. But in this month's edition of the newsletter of Truth In Action Ministries, I came across this jaw-dropping account by a missionary who met with Mr. Mandela. It is amazing as to what it reveals about the missionary's boldness in Christ as well as what it tells us about the famous South African. Please read the following account and be amazed!
ALSO, as always, I invite you to watch today the broadcast of “Truth That Transforms”, the program of the ministry of the late Dr. Kennedy(in Orlando, 5 pm, ch. 55.1; or check your listing) or visit www.TruthinAction.org - Stan]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missionary to Africa gives Dr. Kennedy book to Nelson Mandela
- June 1, 2012 http://www.truthimpact.me/index.php/2012/06/missionary-africa?utm_source=Impact+e-Newsletter&utm_campaign=0ef9758ae8-Impact_Newsletter_5_8_2012&utm_medium=email
I have led many marches to parliament including one in which the police estimated the crowd to be in excess of 30,000. My protests against Nelson Mandela’s plans to legalise abortion-on-demand in South Africa led me to be summoned to meet the president. It was May 1996 and we had marched tens of thousands of people to parliament to protest the paganisation of South Africa through the policies of the African National Congress. We had marched on Tuesday and on Thursday I was summoned to meet the president in his official residence. During the hour with Nelson Mandela I handed him a copy of Dr. James Kennedy’s book Foundations for Your Faith.
The first question from President Mandela was: “So, Mr. Hammond what were you doing in the years of struggle?” “I was fighting people like you, sir.” I answered. Nelson Mandela laughed and reached out his hand saying: “I’m so pleased to meet an honest white man! Every other white has told me how they always supported me and opposed apartheid. I wondered how the National Party stayed in power for over 40 years!”
“Well, Mr. President, make no mistake, I was not fighting for apartheid. I was fighting against communism and against terrorism.”At this the president declared that “apartheid was the greatest evil in history of the world.”
“I cannot agree Mr. President, that prize has to go to your friends and supporters, the communists. Secular humanist, communist regimes have killed well over 160 Million people during the 20th Century. That’s not 160 Million people killed in war by invading armies. That’s 160 Million people killed by their own governments: secular, socialist states.”
As the president was still staring at me without response, I continued and detailed out the 36 Million killed under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, the over 68 Million murdered under Mao Tse Tung oppression in Communist China. The over 2 Million killed under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The millions more killed under Mengistu in Ethiopia, under Samora Machel in Mozambique, and Agistino Neto in Angola, and under Fidel Castro in Cuba.
Nelson Mandela stared at me impassively and then, leaning back, he stared at the ceiling and started to drift off down memory lane talking about how when he was a prisoner on Robben Island, the Boers had refused to allow him sunglasses. As his eyes were very sensitive, it was most painful being outside without shade for his sensitive eyes. I responded: “Mr. President I also have very sensitive eyes and I can fully understand how uncomfortable and painful that must have been, but it hardly compares with the atrocities documented by Aleksandra Solzenitzen and in The Black Book of Communism.”
And so the conversation went. At one point Nelson Mandela expressed his surprise that we wanted to “restrict the rights of women” by opposing abortion. I responded: “Mr. President you are questioning the Christianity of people who 40 years ago justified apartheid. I tell you, sir, it will not be 40 years from now and people will question your humanity for legalising abortion. You are seeking to replace apartheid with abortion. And abortion is even worse than apartheid. Abortion does not just place the baby on a separate voter’s role and restrict where they can live or swim. Abortion takes the baby’s life. Life begins at conception and abortion is the violent taking of that life. Abortion is the worst type of apartheid, for it separates a baby from its own mother and from its life support, at its most crucial state of development. You are seeking to replace discrimination on the basis of race with discrimination on the basis of age.”
At the end of the hour, Nelson Mandela stood up and told us that we could now take our pictures. I did not mean to be rude, but we honestly hadn’t even thought about that: “No thank you,” I said. He turned mouth agape in apparent shock. Perhaps we were the first delegation to meet with him who didn’t want to have pictures taken with him. I then hastened to add:“But, we would like to pray for you.”
“No! No! That’s very private and personal.” I pretended not to hear and put a hand on one shoulder while Rev. Soon Zevenster placed his hand on the other shoulder. We prayed that the Lord would not grant Mr. Mandela any peace until he did what he knew what was right, until he introduced legislation for the protection of babies from the violence and injustice of abortion. I prayed that Mr. Mandela would find peace in Christ by bowing the knee and surrendering to Almighty God to do His will.
At the end of our impassioned prayer, we handed over the book from Dr. Kennedy and Mr. Mandela thanked us and assured us that he was always responsive to the concerns of our constituency and that his door was always open should we have any other concerns. However the next week senior investigators of his Revenue Service began a 7 year Audit of our mission and family!
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Peter Hammond, Founder and Director of Frontline Fellowship
----------------------------------------------------------------
[NOTE: I remember years back when Nelson Mandela first came to world attention. I'd heard stories about his support by communist/socialist factions in his country. Of course, I never heard anything about this in the mainstream media, which has lionized him endlessly. But in this month's edition of the newsletter of Truth In Action Ministries, I came across this jaw-dropping account by a missionary who met with Mr. Mandela. It is amazing as to what it reveals about the missionary's boldness in Christ as well as what it tells us about the famous South African. Please read the following account and be amazed!
ALSO, as always, I invite you to watch today the broadcast of “Truth That Transforms”, the program of the ministry of the late Dr. Kennedy(in Orlando, 5 pm, ch. 55.1; or check your listing) or visit www.TruthinAction.org - Stan]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missionary to Africa gives Dr. Kennedy book to Nelson Mandela
- June 1, 2012 http://www.truthimpact.me/index.php/2012/06/missionary-africa?utm_source=Impact+e-Newsletter&utm_campaign=0ef9758ae8-Impact_Newsletter_5_8_2012&utm_medium=email
I have led many marches to parliament including one in which the police estimated the crowd to be in excess of 30,000. My protests against Nelson Mandela’s plans to legalise abortion-on-demand in South Africa led me to be summoned to meet the president. It was May 1996 and we had marched tens of thousands of people to parliament to protest the paganisation of South Africa through the policies of the African National Congress. We had marched on Tuesday and on Thursday I was summoned to meet the president in his official residence. During the hour with Nelson Mandela I handed him a copy of Dr. James Kennedy’s book Foundations for Your Faith.
The first question from President Mandela was: “So, Mr. Hammond what were you doing in the years of struggle?” “I was fighting people like you, sir.” I answered. Nelson Mandela laughed and reached out his hand saying: “I’m so pleased to meet an honest white man! Every other white has told me how they always supported me and opposed apartheid. I wondered how the National Party stayed in power for over 40 years!”
“Well, Mr. President, make no mistake, I was not fighting for apartheid. I was fighting against communism and against terrorism.”At this the president declared that “apartheid was the greatest evil in history of the world.”
“I cannot agree Mr. President, that prize has to go to your friends and supporters, the communists. Secular humanist, communist regimes have killed well over 160 Million people during the 20th Century. That’s not 160 Million people killed in war by invading armies. That’s 160 Million people killed by their own governments: secular, socialist states.”
As the president was still staring at me without response, I continued and detailed out the 36 Million killed under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, the over 68 Million murdered under Mao Tse Tung oppression in Communist China. The over 2 Million killed under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The millions more killed under Mengistu in Ethiopia, under Samora Machel in Mozambique, and Agistino Neto in Angola, and under Fidel Castro in Cuba.
Nelson Mandela stared at me impassively and then, leaning back, he stared at the ceiling and started to drift off down memory lane talking about how when he was a prisoner on Robben Island, the Boers had refused to allow him sunglasses. As his eyes were very sensitive, it was most painful being outside without shade for his sensitive eyes. I responded: “Mr. President I also have very sensitive eyes and I can fully understand how uncomfortable and painful that must have been, but it hardly compares with the atrocities documented by Aleksandra Solzenitzen and in The Black Book of Communism.”
And so the conversation went. At one point Nelson Mandela expressed his surprise that we wanted to “restrict the rights of women” by opposing abortion. I responded: “Mr. President you are questioning the Christianity of people who 40 years ago justified apartheid. I tell you, sir, it will not be 40 years from now and people will question your humanity for legalising abortion. You are seeking to replace apartheid with abortion. And abortion is even worse than apartheid. Abortion does not just place the baby on a separate voter’s role and restrict where they can live or swim. Abortion takes the baby’s life. Life begins at conception and abortion is the violent taking of that life. Abortion is the worst type of apartheid, for it separates a baby from its own mother and from its life support, at its most crucial state of development. You are seeking to replace discrimination on the basis of race with discrimination on the basis of age.”
At the end of the hour, Nelson Mandela stood up and told us that we could now take our pictures. I did not mean to be rude, but we honestly hadn’t even thought about that: “No thank you,” I said. He turned mouth agape in apparent shock. Perhaps we were the first delegation to meet with him who didn’t want to have pictures taken with him. I then hastened to add:“But, we would like to pray for you.”
“No! No! That’s very private and personal.” I pretended not to hear and put a hand on one shoulder while Rev. Soon Zevenster placed his hand on the other shoulder. We prayed that the Lord would not grant Mr. Mandela any peace until he did what he knew what was right, until he introduced legislation for the protection of babies from the violence and injustice of abortion. I prayed that Mr. Mandela would find peace in Christ by bowing the knee and surrendering to Almighty God to do His will.
At the end of our impassioned prayer, we handed over the book from Dr. Kennedy and Mr. Mandela thanked us and assured us that he was always responsive to the concerns of our constituency and that his door was always open should we have any other concerns. However the next week senior investigators of his Revenue Service began a 7 year Audit of our mission and family!
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Peter Hammond, Founder and Director of Frontline Fellowship
Saturday, June 23, 2012
#241 (6/23) - PRAYER REMINDERS From the Past Week's News
[NOTE: The following 4 items for prayer come from the Presidential Prayer Team(NOT associated with the White House but an independent Christian prayer minsitry.) If you would like to sign up for a free subscription to their daily devotionals and prayer alerts, please go to: Info@PresidentialPrayerTeam .org I will try to present key items from their alerts each week and encourage you to take time when you read each item to pray for the prayer requests listed. YOUR COUNTRY THANKS YOU! - Stan]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nation Awaits Supreme Court Rulings, Thursday, June 21, 2012,(Sources: Los Angeles Times, California Public Radio, New York Times, Reuters)
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=410
"Another morning of Supreme Court opinions came and went Thursday with no ruling on the national health care law or Arizona’s SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law, pushing the court’s most anticipated decisions in years to [next]week...If the law is upheld in full, the decision will be hailed as a triumph for Obama and his leadership. If it is struck down entirely, Republicans will claim vindication in their unanimous opposition to what they see as a massive overreach of government. And if only part of the law survives, both sides will scramble to reposition. The Obama administration and its allies will do their best to protect what is left. Republicans have vowed to repeal it all as soon as they can, and eventually, to offer an alternative. However the court comes down, most Americans are not likely to be happy with the result."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Americans to remain calm when the decisions are rendered, regardless of their outcomes.
•That the already scheduled protests will be orderly, without injury or arrest.
•For federal and state legislators as they are already promulgating bills that would reinforce their positions with respect to health care and immigration.
•About God’s plans for America, as we know that His ways are not our ways, and we must trust His heart even when we don’t see His hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says June 14, 2012 (Source: Fox News)
"Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes. Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt 'global operations.' In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might."
"'We can’t yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation,' Dempsey told the senators. 'We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict.' Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad. Yet so far, Congress has not averted the planned cuts, which were set in place after lawmakers failed to reach a broader deficit-reduction deal."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Congressional members dealing with budget cuts and where to make them.
•About the issue of the mandated cuts on the U.S. military budget.
•For the Pentagon chiefs and others who are working on budgetary trimming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Islamist Claims Victory in Egypt’s Presidential Vote, Military Expands its PowersJune 18, 2012, http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=401
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For democratic stability within Egypt following the elections.
•About the increasing tensions on Egypt’s border with Israel.
•About the new leadership’s intentions to nullify Egypt’s treaty with Israel.
As the Lord leads, please pray:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Invokes Executive Privilege over Fast and Furious Documents, June 20, 2012 [article with more detail to be posted NEXT WEEK]
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=408
"Just as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was about to vote Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed up the attorney general’s position in refusing to turn over the material.
As the Lord leads, please pray: \
•For Attorney General Eric Holder and his legal advisers.
•About Constitutional issues being potentially raised by President Obama’s invoking executive privilege if Attorney General Holder’s prior testimony of no involvement by the president is true.
•For the members of the committee charged with oversight of the Executive Branch, as they seek to determine the remaining unknown facts about Fast and Furious.
•For the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, still seeking answers on their son’s death.
•About the costs of maintaining national security.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nation Awaits Supreme Court Rulings, Thursday, June 21, 2012,(Sources: Los Angeles Times, California Public Radio, New York Times, Reuters)
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=410
"Another morning of Supreme Court opinions came and went Thursday with no ruling on the national health care law or Arizona’s SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law, pushing the court’s most anticipated decisions in years to [next]week...If the law is upheld in full, the decision will be hailed as a triumph for Obama and his leadership. If it is struck down entirely, Republicans will claim vindication in their unanimous opposition to what they see as a massive overreach of government. And if only part of the law survives, both sides will scramble to reposition. The Obama administration and its allies will do their best to protect what is left. Republicans have vowed to repeal it all as soon as they can, and eventually, to offer an alternative. However the court comes down, most Americans are not likely to be happy with the result."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Americans to remain calm when the decisions are rendered, regardless of their outcomes.
•That the already scheduled protests will be orderly, without injury or arrest.
•For federal and state legislators as they are already promulgating bills that would reinforce their positions with respect to health care and immigration.
•About God’s plans for America, as we know that His ways are not our ways, and we must trust His heart even when we don’t see His hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandated defense cuts could lead to war, top US military official says June 14, 2012 (Source: Fox News)
"Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes. Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt 'global operations.' In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might."
"'We can’t yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation,' Dempsey told the senators. 'We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict.' Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad. Yet so far, Congress has not averted the planned cuts, which were set in place after lawmakers failed to reach a broader deficit-reduction deal."
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For Congressional members dealing with budget cuts and where to make them.
•About the issue of the mandated cuts on the U.S. military budget.
•For the Pentagon chiefs and others who are working on budgetary trimming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Islamist Claims Victory in Egypt’s Presidential Vote, Military Expands its PowersJune 18, 2012, http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=401
As the Lord leads, please pray:
•For democratic stability within Egypt following the elections.
•About the increasing tensions on Egypt’s border with Israel.
•About the new leadership’s intentions to nullify Egypt’s treaty with Israel.
As the Lord leads, please pray:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Invokes Executive Privilege over Fast and Furious Documents, June 20, 2012 [article with more detail to be posted NEXT WEEK]
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/Prayerwatch?pw=408
"Just as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was about to vote Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed up the attorney general’s position in refusing to turn over the material.
As the Lord leads, please pray: \
•For Attorney General Eric Holder and his legal advisers.
•About Constitutional issues being potentially raised by President Obama’s invoking executive privilege if Attorney General Holder’s prior testimony of no involvement by the president is true.
•For the members of the committee charged with oversight of the Executive Branch, as they seek to determine the remaining unknown facts about Fast and Furious.
•For the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, still seeking answers on their son’s death.
•About the costs of maintaining national security.
Friday, June 22, 2012
#240 (6/22) - Mr."So I Will" Does It Again
[NOTE: As the late President Reagan would have said,"There he goes again!" I don't know about you, but I was dumbfounded when President Obama suddenly announced he was bypassing Congress [and probably the Constitution] by instituting a roundabout way of implementing immigration policy that would have the impact of law. When he has done similar things in the past to bypass our elected representatives,he has used the phrase "..so I will." Mr. Obama seems to be under the impression he is not President, but King, and we should be outraged. Also, of course, while he says his actions are not political, it's no small coincidence this affects youth and Hispanics, two of the largest voting blocks in the upcoming elections. Can you say PANDERING?!! - Stan]
"Imperial Immigration Policy"-Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.,June 19, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/19/imperial-immigration-policy/
[Last]Friday, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum telling U.S. immigration officials how they should “enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.”
The Administration’s move is an attempt to implement major elements of the DREAM Act, a controversial bill that’s been introduced in both Democratic- and Republican-controlled Congresses but has always lacked the votes to be passed into law.
Having failed in the legislative branch, how can the executive do this?The Administration insists it has wide “prosecutorial discretion” when it comes to enforcing immigration law. No one doubts that judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers should have discretion about what charges to bring and how to handle particular cases. There are always exceptions to the rule. But Friday’s order, which uses the term discretion some 10 times, seems to go beyond discretion to the point of creating a policy scheme contrary to existing law. The exception has become the new rule.
Imagine a police chief instructing everyone on the police force to issue no speeding tickets to anyone under age 26, regardless of how fast the driver was going. That’s not discretion; it’s a policy instruction that changes the meaning of the law. Former Bush Administration lawyer John Yoo goes further:Imagine the precedent this claim would create. President Romney could lower tax rates simply by saying he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax. He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it.
As a policy matter, there are reasonable and targeted ways to address the problem of underage illegal immigrants that would uphold the principles of immigration reform and not open the door to a blanket amnesty. Finding an actual solution through the legislative process would give the law legitimacy and more permanency, and it might even result in a bipartisan agreement. It would be part of a larger effort to find effective, reasonable and pro-immigration solutions to safeguard the nation’s borders, promote the rule of law, and administer a fair and positive immigration and naturalization system.
The fundamental problem is that the Administration is trying to implement laws that Congress hasn’t passed. The President himself has admitted that he doesn’t have the constitutional authority to implement the DREAM Act: “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions,” he told Hispanic activists last year.
Indeed, the executive order seems to recognize its constitutional shortcomings:“This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship,” it admits. “Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.” Yet what the Administration can’t achieve as a matter of law it seems to be focused on accomplishing as a matter of fact.
The Administration is making a habit of overstepping its bounds. Last fall it issued sweeping waivers of the No Child Left Behind Act if states would implement national education standards not authorized by Congress. “Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will,” Obama announced then. Then there are the President’s recess appointments when the Senate isn’t in recess. The list goes on.
In our system of government, Congress is the legislative branch and is responsible for making the laws. Presidents are supposed to “faithfully execute” the laws to the best of their ability, not reshape them to suit their own policy goals.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Immigration Ploy, By: Thomas Sowell, 6/19/2012
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/19/the-immigration-ploy/
"President Obama's latest political ploy -- granting new "rights" out of thin air, by Executive Order, to illegal immigrants who claim that they were brought into the country when they were children -- is all too typical of his short-run approach to the country's long-run problems..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama's Puzzling Immigration DecisionBy Sean Trende, June 19, 2012,http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/19/obamas_puzzling_immigration_decision_114531.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Presidency, By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., June 22, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/morning-bell-imperial-presidency/
"Imperial Immigration Policy"-Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.,June 19, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/19/imperial-immigration-policy/
[Last]Friday, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum telling U.S. immigration officials how they should “enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.”
The Administration’s move is an attempt to implement major elements of the DREAM Act, a controversial bill that’s been introduced in both Democratic- and Republican-controlled Congresses but has always lacked the votes to be passed into law.
Having failed in the legislative branch, how can the executive do this?The Administration insists it has wide “prosecutorial discretion” when it comes to enforcing immigration law. No one doubts that judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers should have discretion about what charges to bring and how to handle particular cases. There are always exceptions to the rule. But Friday’s order, which uses the term discretion some 10 times, seems to go beyond discretion to the point of creating a policy scheme contrary to existing law. The exception has become the new rule.
Imagine a police chief instructing everyone on the police force to issue no speeding tickets to anyone under age 26, regardless of how fast the driver was going. That’s not discretion; it’s a policy instruction that changes the meaning of the law. Former Bush Administration lawyer John Yoo goes further:Imagine the precedent this claim would create. President Romney could lower tax rates simply by saying he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital-gains tax. He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it.
As a policy matter, there are reasonable and targeted ways to address the problem of underage illegal immigrants that would uphold the principles of immigration reform and not open the door to a blanket amnesty. Finding an actual solution through the legislative process would give the law legitimacy and more permanency, and it might even result in a bipartisan agreement. It would be part of a larger effort to find effective, reasonable and pro-immigration solutions to safeguard the nation’s borders, promote the rule of law, and administer a fair and positive immigration and naturalization system.
The fundamental problem is that the Administration is trying to implement laws that Congress hasn’t passed. The President himself has admitted that he doesn’t have the constitutional authority to implement the DREAM Act: “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions,” he told Hispanic activists last year.
Indeed, the executive order seems to recognize its constitutional shortcomings:“This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship,” it admits. “Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.” Yet what the Administration can’t achieve as a matter of law it seems to be focused on accomplishing as a matter of fact.
The Administration is making a habit of overstepping its bounds. Last fall it issued sweeping waivers of the No Child Left Behind Act if states would implement national education standards not authorized by Congress. “Congress hasn’t been able to do it, so I will,” Obama announced then. Then there are the President’s recess appointments when the Senate isn’t in recess. The list goes on.
In our system of government, Congress is the legislative branch and is responsible for making the laws. Presidents are supposed to “faithfully execute” the laws to the best of their ability, not reshape them to suit their own policy goals.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Immigration Ploy, By: Thomas Sowell, 6/19/2012
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/19/the-immigration-ploy/
"President Obama's latest political ploy -- granting new "rights" out of thin air, by Executive Order, to illegal immigrants who claim that they were brought into the country when they were children -- is all too typical of his short-run approach to the country's long-run problems..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama's Puzzling Immigration DecisionBy Sean Trende, June 19, 2012,http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/19/obamas_puzzling_immigration_decision_114531.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Presidency, By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., June 22, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/morning-bell-imperial-presidency/
Thursday, June 21, 2012
#239 (6/21) - "How Gay Was My Country? "
[NOTE: As a follow-up to yesterday's post about same-sex "marriage," I present this article that exposes the myth of the size of the homosexual population in the US and discusses the influence of media, academia, and the entertainment industry on our culture. - Stan]
- From The Atlantic Monthly, RJ Moeller, June 12, 2012
http://rjmoeller.com/2012/06/how-gay-was-my-country/
Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent. Let that soak in for a moment...How can this be?
First let me say that nothing I ever write about gay marriage or homosexuality in general is meant as a personal attack on gay people. I'm not obsessed with the issue and my goal is not to have gay people locked up or to prevent them from smooching whoever they want in the privacy of their own homes.
This specific story from Atlantic Monthly is interesting because it (at least partially) confirms something that many religious conservatives - like myself - believe and have been saying for years: our media, academia, and entertainment industry are lopsidedly influencing the culture. The culture, in turn, is what influences politics and decisions our government makes. There is an agenda at play, and not some nefarious, "dimly-lit back-room conspiracy" situation that the Left always accuse conservatives like Dick Cheney of being a party to.
As silly as they were, Vice President Biden's recent comments that the television show Will & Grace did more for impacting the way Americans thought about gay people than anything a politician could have said or done is absolutely true. Not just that show, but the overall barrage of "gay" content on television and in movies has without a doubt influenced the way people think.
An excerpt:"Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda. On the one hand, people who overestimate the percent of gay Americans by a factor of 12 seem likely to also wildly overestimate the cultural impact of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, the extraordinary confusion over the percentage of gay people may reflect a triumph of the gay and lesbian movement's decades-long fight against invisibility and the closet."
Notice the word "triumph." One side (the pro-gay movement) is allowed to look at the issue like a battle, and is dead-set on changing the way the culture looks at human sexuality and the institution of marriage in any way they can.
The other side (pro-traditional marriage) is told that they are "obsessed" with the topic of gay marriage. Should proponents of "one-man, one-woman" organize themselves to combat what they (correctly) identify as a coordinated movement from their Left flank, the media mocks and maligns their motivations.
I'm not looking to solve the matter in one short blog-post, but I thought the statistics revealed in this article are pertinent and noteworthy. I can't imagine anyone would deny that an effort exists in a place like Hollywood to re-shape the way young Americans think about this issue.Oh, and about ten minutes after reading this Atlantic Monthly piece, I saw this one about a new gay superhero: "One of DC Comics oldest heroes is super-coming out. The original Green Lantern - a DC Comics mainstay for the past 70 years - will be revealed to be a gay man in next week's issue of 'Earth 2.' Alan Scott - formerly a married father of two who first appeared in 1940 - tips readers off to his sexuality early on in the comic when he gives his boyfriend a welcome home kiss.'He's very much the character he was. He's still the pinnacle of bravery and idealism. He's also gay,' 'Earth 2'" writer James Robinson told The Post. The Emerald Guardian's sexuality was rebooted along with the rest of his fictional universe as part of DC's "New 52" initiative aimed at rejuvenating their characters. Robinson said he decided to make the change because making the character young again meant erasing Scott's gay superhero son out of existence.
All I want is clarity here: there is a gay movement, it is out to change the way your kids think, and if you care about the institution of marriage, it's time to wake up, get informed, and get involved.While it clearly shouldn't decide the outcome of this debate, I think letting people know that less than 2% of the population are gay gives it some much-needed context.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
R.J. is 'a young evangelical conservative' who's full-time job is as Director of Communications for syndicated talk show host and columnist Dennis Prager and his "Prager University" project. He also moonlights for the American Enterprise Institute as a blogger and the host of a weekly podcast for AEI's "Values and Capitalism" initiative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Case Against Homosexual Marriage by Albert Mohler June 12, 2012http://www.breakpoint.org/wvc-digest/featured-articles/17970-the-case-against-homosexual-marriage (Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.)
"The question of homosexual marriage presents the American people with an inescapable moral challenge. The words homosexual and marriage are inherently contradictory. The very fact that these terms are in public conflict demonstrates the radical character of the social revolutionaries that now demand the legalization of homosexual marriage..."
- From The Atlantic Monthly, RJ Moeller, June 12, 2012
http://rjmoeller.com/2012/06/how-gay-was-my-country/
Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent. Let that soak in for a moment...How can this be?
First let me say that nothing I ever write about gay marriage or homosexuality in general is meant as a personal attack on gay people. I'm not obsessed with the issue and my goal is not to have gay people locked up or to prevent them from smooching whoever they want in the privacy of their own homes.
This specific story from Atlantic Monthly is interesting because it (at least partially) confirms something that many religious conservatives - like myself - believe and have been saying for years: our media, academia, and entertainment industry are lopsidedly influencing the culture. The culture, in turn, is what influences politics and decisions our government makes. There is an agenda at play, and not some nefarious, "dimly-lit back-room conspiracy" situation that the Left always accuse conservatives like Dick Cheney of being a party to.
As silly as they were, Vice President Biden's recent comments that the television show Will & Grace did more for impacting the way Americans thought about gay people than anything a politician could have said or done is absolutely true. Not just that show, but the overall barrage of "gay" content on television and in movies has without a doubt influenced the way people think.
An excerpt:"Such a misunderstanding of the basic demographics of sexual behavior and identity in America has potentially profound implications for the acceptance of the gay-rights agenda. On the one hand, people who overestimate the percent of gay Americans by a factor of 12 seem likely to also wildly overestimate the cultural impact of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, the extraordinary confusion over the percentage of gay people may reflect a triumph of the gay and lesbian movement's decades-long fight against invisibility and the closet."
Notice the word "triumph." One side (the pro-gay movement) is allowed to look at the issue like a battle, and is dead-set on changing the way the culture looks at human sexuality and the institution of marriage in any way they can.
The other side (pro-traditional marriage) is told that they are "obsessed" with the topic of gay marriage. Should proponents of "one-man, one-woman" organize themselves to combat what they (correctly) identify as a coordinated movement from their Left flank, the media mocks and maligns their motivations.
I'm not looking to solve the matter in one short blog-post, but I thought the statistics revealed in this article are pertinent and noteworthy. I can't imagine anyone would deny that an effort exists in a place like Hollywood to re-shape the way young Americans think about this issue.Oh, and about ten minutes after reading this Atlantic Monthly piece, I saw this one about a new gay superhero: "One of DC Comics oldest heroes is super-coming out. The original Green Lantern - a DC Comics mainstay for the past 70 years - will be revealed to be a gay man in next week's issue of 'Earth 2.' Alan Scott - formerly a married father of two who first appeared in 1940 - tips readers off to his sexuality early on in the comic when he gives his boyfriend a welcome home kiss.'He's very much the character he was. He's still the pinnacle of bravery and idealism. He's also gay,' 'Earth 2'" writer James Robinson told The Post. The Emerald Guardian's sexuality was rebooted along with the rest of his fictional universe as part of DC's "New 52" initiative aimed at rejuvenating their characters. Robinson said he decided to make the change because making the character young again meant erasing Scott's gay superhero son out of existence.
All I want is clarity here: there is a gay movement, it is out to change the way your kids think, and if you care about the institution of marriage, it's time to wake up, get informed, and get involved.While it clearly shouldn't decide the outcome of this debate, I think letting people know that less than 2% of the population are gay gives it some much-needed context.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
R.J. is 'a young evangelical conservative' who's full-time job is as Director of Communications for syndicated talk show host and columnist Dennis Prager and his "Prager University" project. He also moonlights for the American Enterprise Institute as a blogger and the host of a weekly podcast for AEI's "Values and Capitalism" initiative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Case Against Homosexual Marriage by Albert Mohler June 12, 2012http://www.breakpoint.org/wvc-digest/featured-articles/17970-the-case-against-homosexual-marriage (Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.)
"The question of homosexual marriage presents the American people with an inescapable moral challenge. The words homosexual and marriage are inherently contradictory. The very fact that these terms are in public conflict demonstrates the radical character of the social revolutionaries that now demand the legalization of homosexual marriage..."
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
#238 (6/20) - For Christian Celebrities - the Responsibility To Speak Truth-fully
[NOTE: With it being so rare to find outspoken Christians in the "Hollywood" culture of our day, I believe it is to be expected that believers get excited when one does make himself or herself known. I was made to believe from other sources that Carrie Underwood is a Christian (as is her husband). It does seem, however, that her recent music and performance style does not line up with one who has really said "Jesus Take the Wheel" and not just sung the lyrics. Assuming she is a Christian, LET'S PRAY that, with so many millions influenced by them, she and other Christian celebrites who so define themselves, will be very careful that when they do speak out on issues of the day, their comments are informed by Biblical truth and not driven by the morally relativistic, "if it works for you" mentality of so many celebrities of our pop culture. Let's PRAY that Christian celebrities will realize that with their great fame, comes great responsibility to speak Truth-fully, ie, Biblically. ALSO, let us AS BELIEVERS, be certain that when we speak on the issues of our day, WE speak also speak informed by Scripture, not our culture. - Stan
"Carrie Underwood and the ‘gay friendly’ Christians"Written by La by Shawn Barber, June 13, 2012
http://online.worldmag.com/2012/06/13/carrie-underwood-and-the-gay-friendly-christians/
I’ll admit it. When I find out some actor, singer, or novelist I like is a liberal and/or supports what I oppose, I’m a little disappointed. And I’m disappointed a lot. Even if I try not to care, I care. But what bothers me most is when Christians, well known or obscure, openly approve what God condemns and sound as if they’ve never cracked open a Bible.
In an interview with The Independent published last Saturday [6/9], Carrie Underwood, professing Christian, country singer, and star of the movie Soul Surfer (I’m not a youth pastor, but I play one on TV.)came out in favor of redefining the word “marriage” to include two people of the same sex. While Underwood doesn’t say, “I support same-sex marriage,” the implication is clear:
“As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry. I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love.”
So it’s that simple. Two men should have the right to redefine not a mere word but an entire institution and call themselves “married.” Otherwise, we’re interfering with their right to “love.” Who is stopping homosexuals from “loving” one another? Homosexuality no longer is illegal, and the American Psychiatric Association bowed to pressure more than a generation ago and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. They can even adopt children, for crying out loud.
Underwood continued:“Our church is gay friendly. Above all, God wanted us to love others. It’s not about setting rules, or [saying] ‘everyone has to be like me’. No. We’re all different. That’s what makes us special. We have to love each other and get on with each other. It’s not up to me to judge anybody.” By “gay friendly,” does Underwood mean that homosexuals who engage in the behavior (as opposed to those who’ve repented) are comfortable in her church and receive approval and validation of their continuing sin?
Underwood, like other immature or misinformed or willfully ignorant Christians, throw Bible-believing Christians under the bus, condemning “people who use the Bible for hate,” and added, “That’s not how I would want myself as a Christian to be represented.” Does Underwood believe that sharing the Gospel and telling the unrepentant what God requires of them is hateful? Never mind Paul’s unequivocal teachings on homosexuality. If we quote him, if we quote Christ himself, if we call out sin, we’re hateful. Or is just the sin of homosexuality that’s off limits? Would Underwood and other “gay friendly” Christians refrain from condemning the habitual liar or the brazen adulterer? “Our church is adulterer friendly!”
To some unbelievers(and too many Christians),the Gospel is a free-love-can’t-we-all-just-get-along guide to life instead of that which gives life. Christ’s call to repentance and obedience is incompatible with a “gay friendly” anything.
[bold and italics emphasis mine
"Carrie Underwood and the ‘gay friendly’ Christians"Written by La by Shawn Barber, June 13, 2012
http://online.worldmag.com/2012/06/13/carrie-underwood-and-the-gay-friendly-christians/
I’ll admit it. When I find out some actor, singer, or novelist I like is a liberal and/or supports what I oppose, I’m a little disappointed. And I’m disappointed a lot. Even if I try not to care, I care. But what bothers me most is when Christians, well known or obscure, openly approve what God condemns and sound as if they’ve never cracked open a Bible.
In an interview with The Independent published last Saturday [6/9], Carrie Underwood, professing Christian, country singer, and star of the movie Soul Surfer (I’m not a youth pastor, but I play one on TV.)came out in favor of redefining the word “marriage” to include two people of the same sex. While Underwood doesn’t say, “I support same-sex marriage,” the implication is clear:
“As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love, and want to marry. I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love.”
So it’s that simple. Two men should have the right to redefine not a mere word but an entire institution and call themselves “married.” Otherwise, we’re interfering with their right to “love.” Who is stopping homosexuals from “loving” one another? Homosexuality no longer is illegal, and the American Psychiatric Association bowed to pressure more than a generation ago and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. They can even adopt children, for crying out loud.
Underwood continued:“Our church is gay friendly. Above all, God wanted us to love others. It’s not about setting rules, or [saying] ‘everyone has to be like me’. No. We’re all different. That’s what makes us special. We have to love each other and get on with each other. It’s not up to me to judge anybody.” By “gay friendly,” does Underwood mean that homosexuals who engage in the behavior (as opposed to those who’ve repented) are comfortable in her church and receive approval and validation of their continuing sin?
Underwood, like other immature or misinformed or willfully ignorant Christians, throw Bible-believing Christians under the bus, condemning “people who use the Bible for hate,” and added, “That’s not how I would want myself as a Christian to be represented.” Does Underwood believe that sharing the Gospel and telling the unrepentant what God requires of them is hateful? Never mind Paul’s unequivocal teachings on homosexuality. If we quote him, if we quote Christ himself, if we call out sin, we’re hateful. Or is just the sin of homosexuality that’s off limits? Would Underwood and other “gay friendly” Christians refrain from condemning the habitual liar or the brazen adulterer? “Our church is adulterer friendly!”
To some unbelievers(and too many Christians),the Gospel is a free-love-can’t-we-all-just-get-along guide to life instead of that which gives life. Christ’s call to repentance and obedience is incompatible with a “gay friendly” anything.
[bold and italics emphasis mine
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
#237(6/19) - Why"The Duke" Was A Transcendent Actor
[NOTE: I remember being on a ministry trip to Pakistan in June of 1979 when I heard about the death of John Wayne. For me he had been a movie icon, but in reading the article below, I came to understand that the characters he played represented for many in the the rugged individualism that people had always associated with America. The author of the fascinating article below shares how that image of America is fading. Interestingly, it also shares how both Stalin and Mao saw Wayne’s image as such a threat that they reportedly sent assassins after him! Don't miss reading this! - Stan]
"Rugged Individualism Fades from National Character" - Marion Smith, June 11, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/rugged-individualism-fades-from-national-character/
“That’ll be the day!” John Wayne’s gravelly, dry voice connected with millions who recognized in its tenor something of America’s pioneer character. In dozens of popular movies, Wayne— who died on this day in 1979—played the no-nonsense, self-reliant cowboy who had an innate and profound, if not quite scholarly, understanding of justice. Wherever he found himself, he was in his own way a force for good, for law and order.
Wayne’s favorite setting on the big screen represented a period when hundreds of thousands of Americans headed west. Despite violence, disorder, natural obstacles, and a civilizational void, they forged ahead. Adventure-seeking individuals, enterprising businessmen, fervent missionaries, and ordinary families looking for a new beginning established towns and communities across the American West.
They extended American society largely without government support and certainly without government direction or regulation. This was a time of opportunity, of energy, of hope. And even though the West had long been settled by the time Wayne came along, his films with director John Ford kept the spirit of the West alive. Their films showed the sometimes harsh realities of human nature, but also served to reinforce the political principles of America’s founding as the best form of government.
“Out here a man settles his own problems,” said Wayne’s character in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962), summing up the idea of personal responsibility. This so-called rugged individualism, unique to America, was not detrimental to community; indeed, it was the key to building strong communities. It was this attitude that settled new territory, built cities, established industry, and fostered greater prosperity. Wayne’s and Ford’s movies and countless other examples from popular culture of the post–World War II era helped maintain an American spirit of individualism and enterprise, as Americans began navigating new frontiers including space, communications technology, and the darkened borders of the “captive nations” long occupied by Soviet forces.
Enemies of the United States also noticed America’s exceptional national character and, in particular, John Wayne. Wayne’s rugged individualism challenged the idea of collectivism. Although Soviet leader Joseph Stalin enjoyed watching American westerns, he recognized them as an ideological threat, and the Duke’s vocal anti-communism made him a clear target.
According to multiple accounts, Stalin ordered John Wayne’s assassination in the 1950s. Wayne reportedly survived two assassination attempts by Soviet agents, in Los Angeles and on a movie set in Mexico. For similar reasons, China’s Communist leader Mao Tse Tung also put a price on the actor’s head. It turns out that his fictional portrayals of a very real American idea were an important element of U.S. public diplomacy and useful to the success of America’s foreign policy.
The political culture and societal values reflected in his movies are slipping. Increasingly, Americans look to government as a source of financial, physical, and emotional well-being. Americans’ growing dependency on government is both a symptom and a cause of the move away from constitutional government and toward an ever-greater role for government in the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
This trend not only weakens the U.S. constitutional order at home, but also undermines America’s ability to maintain its proper and constitutional role abroad. In foreign policy, the U.S. is becoming entangled in an ever-increasing number of multilateral agreements and global governance institutions that restrict America’s freedom of action. [Note the danger posed by the Law of the Sea Treaty now in Congress.] This complex web inhibits our ability to respond to future threats, saddles America with extra-constitutional limitations, and unduly confers legitimacy on foreign nations that share values hostile to our own.
As we approach celebrations of Independence Day, The Heritage Foundation and its members are concerned about these trends. Heritage has offered practical recommendations for getting America back on the road to limited, constitutional government. This path demands something of all Americans, for it requires that we tap into the wellspring of America’s exceptional national character. We must practice individual responsibility if we are to remain the land of the free. And we must safeguard our sovereign independence abroad if we are to continue our indispensable role in the world.
A return to constitutional government and individual responsibility won’t make life perfect, but it will keep alive the possibility and hope that tomorrow will be better than today. And as John Wayne once said, “Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.”
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
"Rugged Individualism Fades from National Character" - Marion Smith, June 11, 2012
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/rugged-individualism-fades-from-national-character/
“That’ll be the day!” John Wayne’s gravelly, dry voice connected with millions who recognized in its tenor something of America’s pioneer character. In dozens of popular movies, Wayne— who died on this day in 1979—played the no-nonsense, self-reliant cowboy who had an innate and profound, if not quite scholarly, understanding of justice. Wherever he found himself, he was in his own way a force for good, for law and order.
Wayne’s favorite setting on the big screen represented a period when hundreds of thousands of Americans headed west. Despite violence, disorder, natural obstacles, and a civilizational void, they forged ahead. Adventure-seeking individuals, enterprising businessmen, fervent missionaries, and ordinary families looking for a new beginning established towns and communities across the American West.
They extended American society largely without government support and certainly without government direction or regulation. This was a time of opportunity, of energy, of hope. And even though the West had long been settled by the time Wayne came along, his films with director John Ford kept the spirit of the West alive. Their films showed the sometimes harsh realities of human nature, but also served to reinforce the political principles of America’s founding as the best form of government.
“Out here a man settles his own problems,” said Wayne’s character in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962), summing up the idea of personal responsibility. This so-called rugged individualism, unique to America, was not detrimental to community; indeed, it was the key to building strong communities. It was this attitude that settled new territory, built cities, established industry, and fostered greater prosperity. Wayne’s and Ford’s movies and countless other examples from popular culture of the post–World War II era helped maintain an American spirit of individualism and enterprise, as Americans began navigating new frontiers including space, communications technology, and the darkened borders of the “captive nations” long occupied by Soviet forces.
Enemies of the United States also noticed America’s exceptional national character and, in particular, John Wayne. Wayne’s rugged individualism challenged the idea of collectivism. Although Soviet leader Joseph Stalin enjoyed watching American westerns, he recognized them as an ideological threat, and the Duke’s vocal anti-communism made him a clear target.
According to multiple accounts, Stalin ordered John Wayne’s assassination in the 1950s. Wayne reportedly survived two assassination attempts by Soviet agents, in Los Angeles and on a movie set in Mexico. For similar reasons, China’s Communist leader Mao Tse Tung also put a price on the actor’s head. It turns out that his fictional portrayals of a very real American idea were an important element of U.S. public diplomacy and useful to the success of America’s foreign policy.
The political culture and societal values reflected in his movies are slipping. Increasingly, Americans look to government as a source of financial, physical, and emotional well-being. Americans’ growing dependency on government is both a symptom and a cause of the move away from constitutional government and toward an ever-greater role for government in the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
This trend not only weakens the U.S. constitutional order at home, but also undermines America’s ability to maintain its proper and constitutional role abroad. In foreign policy, the U.S. is becoming entangled in an ever-increasing number of multilateral agreements and global governance institutions that restrict America’s freedom of action. [Note the danger posed by the Law of the Sea Treaty now in Congress.] This complex web inhibits our ability to respond to future threats, saddles America with extra-constitutional limitations, and unduly confers legitimacy on foreign nations that share values hostile to our own.
As we approach celebrations of Independence Day, The Heritage Foundation and its members are concerned about these trends. Heritage has offered practical recommendations for getting America back on the road to limited, constitutional government. This path demands something of all Americans, for it requires that we tap into the wellspring of America’s exceptional national character. We must practice individual responsibility if we are to remain the land of the free. And we must safeguard our sovereign independence abroad if we are to continue our indispensable role in the world.
A return to constitutional government and individual responsibility won’t make life perfect, but it will keep alive the possibility and hope that tomorrow will be better than today. And as John Wayne once said, “Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.”
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Monday, June 18, 2012
#236 (6/18) - "Public School Textbooks Whitewashing Islam"
[NOTE:Since I began working with high school and middle school students 14 years ago, I've been particularly concerned about what exactly is being taught in our public schools. The article below gives one reason why we should all be concerned and in prayer for our public schools and their students. - Stan]
- By Erick Stakelbeck, Islam/CBN News Terrorism Analyst, May 02, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/May/Report-Public-School-Textbooks-Whitewashing-
Through the years, American public schools have taught students that Nazism, communism, and other totalitarian ideologies should be opposed. But when it comes to the current war with Islamic jihadists, public schools are taking a much different course. According to a new report, students are getting a white-washed version of what our enemies believe, and it could have dangerous implications for America's future.
Sugar-coating Islam
For students in America's middle and high schools, 9/11 is a distant memory. Some were still toddlers when the World Trade Center towers fell. But if they're looking for answers in their history textbooks about who attacked the United States and why, they may be disappointed. One 2003 world geography textbook widely used in public schools gives the following explanation for the 9/11 attacks:
"On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four passenger planes, crashing two of them into New York City's World Trade Center and the third into the Pentagon. The devastation and loss of so many lives made the United States firmly resolved to rid the world of terrorism." Guy Rodgers, a former public school teacher who is now executive director of ACT! for America Education, noted that while the text mentions terrorism or a terrorist attack, it never mentions Islam or that the attackers were Muslim. "The closest they'll get to it is they'll mention al Qaeda," Rodgers told CBN News. "But they don't typically define what al Qaeda is or describe it."Education or Indoctrination?
ACT! for America Education recently studied 38 textbooks widely used in 6th through 12th grade classrooms nationwide to teach about Islam. They published their findings in a new report called "Education or Indoctrination?" According to the report, the books contained a sanitized version of some of the most radical aspects of Islam, including the oppressive system known as Sharia law.
"Virtually every school district in America is using one or more of these textbooks-and probably a lot of private schools, too," Rodgers told CBN News. One textbook, World History: Patterns of Interaction, reads that Sharia "requires Muslim leaders to extend religious tolerance to Christians and Jews." Yet another text taught that Muslims were "extremely tolerant of those they conquered" and "allowed Christians and Jews to keep their churches and synagogues and promised them security."
Rodgers says such teachings are factually and historically incorrect. "There's nothing in Sharia law that requires Muslim leaders to extend tolerance to Christians and Jews," Rodgers said. "And this idea that there was full religious freedom granted? Well, let me refer to one Muslim historian - he estimated that some 30,000 Christian churches were destroyed during the first two centuries of jihad after (the Islamic prophet) Mohammed died," he added.
Islam and Women
Then there's the treatment of women. One frequently used book stated that the Koran "granted women Koran spiritual and social equality with men" and gave them the right to own and inherit property - a claim Rodgers disputes. "In the Muslim world, do women enjoy anything approaching what we would call social equality with men? Even in the more moderate Muslim countries, that's not the case," Rodgers said.
Most of the books researched for the study were written after 9/11, when accurate information about Islam has never been more crucial for the next generation of American leaders. Yet Rodgers told CBN News that what American students are learning about jihad -- or holy war - in their most formative years is anything but accurate.
He cited a passage from one textbook that calls Jihad "an Islamic term that is often misunderstood," explaining that it means "to struggle" and "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil" --acting only in self-defense. "Islamic armies developed an empire from the Atlantic Ocean on the West all the way to India on the East. They didn't do it through handing out tracts," Rodgers.
ACT! for America Education has mailed the textbooks report to over 70,000 state and local school board members nationwide. Rodgers said it's not only a matter of education but of national security.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
FURTHER INFORMATION:
ACT for America > http://www.actforamericaeducation.com/welcome/
"Elites Failing America in Battle against Terrorism" By Erick Stakelbeck,April 16, 2012 http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/April/Elites-Failing-America-in-Battle-against-Terrorism/
US Tunnel Vision Strengthening Jihad against AmericaBy Erick Stakelbeck,October 31, 2011, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/October/US-Tunnel-Vision-Compromising-War-on-Terror/
Mask of Peace: Brotherhood's Plot for Global Rule - By Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter, November 27, 2011; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/October/Mask-of-Peace-Brotherhoods-Plot-for-Global-Rule/
- By Erick Stakelbeck, Islam/CBN News Terrorism Analyst, May 02, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/May/Report-Public-School-Textbooks-Whitewashing-
Through the years, American public schools have taught students that Nazism, communism, and other totalitarian ideologies should be opposed. But when it comes to the current war with Islamic jihadists, public schools are taking a much different course. According to a new report, students are getting a white-washed version of what our enemies believe, and it could have dangerous implications for America's future.
Sugar-coating Islam
For students in America's middle and high schools, 9/11 is a distant memory. Some were still toddlers when the World Trade Center towers fell. But if they're looking for answers in their history textbooks about who attacked the United States and why, they may be disappointed. One 2003 world geography textbook widely used in public schools gives the following explanation for the 9/11 attacks:
"On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four passenger planes, crashing two of them into New York City's World Trade Center and the third into the Pentagon. The devastation and loss of so many lives made the United States firmly resolved to rid the world of terrorism." Guy Rodgers, a former public school teacher who is now executive director of ACT! for America Education, noted that while the text mentions terrorism or a terrorist attack, it never mentions Islam or that the attackers were Muslim. "The closest they'll get to it is they'll mention al Qaeda," Rodgers told CBN News. "But they don't typically define what al Qaeda is or describe it."Education or Indoctrination?
ACT! for America Education recently studied 38 textbooks widely used in 6th through 12th grade classrooms nationwide to teach about Islam. They published their findings in a new report called "Education or Indoctrination?" According to the report, the books contained a sanitized version of some of the most radical aspects of Islam, including the oppressive system known as Sharia law.
"Virtually every school district in America is using one or more of these textbooks-and probably a lot of private schools, too," Rodgers told CBN News. One textbook, World History: Patterns of Interaction, reads that Sharia "requires Muslim leaders to extend religious tolerance to Christians and Jews." Yet another text taught that Muslims were "extremely tolerant of those they conquered" and "allowed Christians and Jews to keep their churches and synagogues and promised them security."
Rodgers says such teachings are factually and historically incorrect. "There's nothing in Sharia law that requires Muslim leaders to extend tolerance to Christians and Jews," Rodgers said. "And this idea that there was full religious freedom granted? Well, let me refer to one Muslim historian - he estimated that some 30,000 Christian churches were destroyed during the first two centuries of jihad after (the Islamic prophet) Mohammed died," he added.
Islam and Women
Then there's the treatment of women. One frequently used book stated that the Koran "granted women Koran spiritual and social equality with men" and gave them the right to own and inherit property - a claim Rodgers disputes. "In the Muslim world, do women enjoy anything approaching what we would call social equality with men? Even in the more moderate Muslim countries, that's not the case," Rodgers said.
Most of the books researched for the study were written after 9/11, when accurate information about Islam has never been more crucial for the next generation of American leaders. Yet Rodgers told CBN News that what American students are learning about jihad -- or holy war - in their most formative years is anything but accurate.
He cited a passage from one textbook that calls Jihad "an Islamic term that is often misunderstood," explaining that it means "to struggle" and "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil" --acting only in self-defense. "Islamic armies developed an empire from the Atlantic Ocean on the West all the way to India on the East. They didn't do it through handing out tracts," Rodgers.
ACT! for America Education has mailed the textbooks report to over 70,000 state and local school board members nationwide. Rodgers said it's not only a matter of education but of national security.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
FURTHER INFORMATION:
ACT for America > http://www.actforamericaeducation.com/welcome/
"Elites Failing America in Battle against Terrorism" By Erick Stakelbeck,April 16, 2012 http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/April/Elites-Failing-America-in-Battle-against-Terrorism/
US Tunnel Vision Strengthening Jihad against AmericaBy Erick Stakelbeck,October 31, 2011, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/October/US-Tunnel-Vision-Compromising-War-on-Terror/
Mask of Peace: Brotherhood's Plot for Global Rule - By Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter, November 27, 2011; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/October/Mask-of-Peace-Brotherhoods-Plot-for-Global-Rule/
Sunday, June 17, 2012
#235 (6/17) - Sunday Special: When Fathers Make A Difference, and Are "Courageous"
[NOTE:Don’t forget to check out “Truth That Transforms” (in Orlando, 5 pm, ch. 55.1) or visit www.TruthinAction.org.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To the fathers reading this, HAPPY FATHER'S DAY! "One need look no further than the latest sitcom or celebrity pronouncement to witness the strained state of fatherhood in American culture. As men have become expendable in the eyes of pop culture, fewer adults see the necessity of ensuring their children are raised in intact, married families, where they can experience the unique benefits of both a mother and a father." That is the opening of the article cited at the end of this post. It speaks about the movie "Courageous" which opened in theatres last year, and is the one movie I encourage every father and young man planning to be one some day to watch. It will inspire you and challenge you as few movies do any more. - Stan]
Beyond Breadwinner: How Fathers Make a Difference in Their Children’s Life Prospects - http://familyfacts.org/briefs/13/beyond-breadwinner-how-fathers-make-a-difference-in-their-childrens-life-prospects
Fathers’ involvement is an important factor in children’s well-being, from health and behavioral outcomes to school performance. Research shows that religious participation appears to bolster fathers’ involvement.
◦Fathers’ religiosity is linked to higher quality of parent-child relationships. A greater degree of religiousness among fathers was associated with better relationships with their children, greater expectations for positive relationships in the future, investment of thought and effort into their relationships with their children, greater sense of obligation to stay in regular contact with their children, and greater likelihood of providing emotional support and unpaid assistance to their children and grandchildren. Fathers’ religiousness was measured on six dimensions, including the importance of faith, guidance provided by faith, religious attendance, religious identity, denominational affiliation, and belief in the importance of religion for their children.1
◦Fathers who regularly attend religious services are more likely to be engaged in one-on-one activities with their children. Frequency of church attendance was a stronger predictor of paternal involvement in one-on-one activities with children than employment or income, and comparable to race, ethnicity, and education. Fathers who were active in conservative or mainline Protestant congregations were significantly more engaged with their children in one-on-one activities and other youth activities than their unaffiliated counterparts.2
◦Civically active fathers are more likely to participate in youth-related activities. Among fathers who lived with their children—whether biological, adopted, or step—those who participated more in civic, work-related, and service groups tended to be more involved in youth-related activities than fathers who were less civically engaged.3
◦Fathers’ engagement in their children’s activities was linked to higher academic performance. Preteens whose fathers spent leisure time away from the home (picnics, movies, sports, etc.) with them, shared meals with them, helped with homework or reading, and engaged in other home activities with them earned better grades in school, on average, than peers whose fathers spent less time with them. Similarly, teens whose fathers engaged in activities in the home and outdoors, spent leisure time, and talked with them earned better grades, on average, than teens whose fathers spent less time with them.4
◦Among adolescent boys, those who receive more parenting from their fathers are less likely to exhibit anti-social and delinquent behaviors. For adolescent boys, a lack of father’s parenting was significantly correlated with adolescent conduct problems, such as anti-social behavior and delinquency. Quality of parenting by fathers was measured by adolescents’ responses to a set of 14 questions such as asked how often their fathers talked with them, supported their mothers’ decisions and enforced discipline.5
◦Among adolescent girls, those who have a strong relationship with their fathers are less likely to report experiencing depression. The higher adolescent girls rated the relationship with their fathers, the less likely they were to experience depression.6
◦Close father-adolescent bonds protect against the negative influence of peer drug use. Although having friends who used drugs was associated with an increased likelihood that adolescents would use marijuana, this association was weakened if the youths felt close to their fathers or if they felt that their parents would catch them using marijuana.7
◦Adolescent girls who have a close relationship with their fathers are more likely to delay sexual activity. Among a sample of adolescent virgins from intact two-parent families, females who reported having a close relationship with their father during the initial interview were less likely to report having engaged in sexual intercourse during a follow-up interview one year later, when compared to similar females who did not report having a close relationship with their father.8
◦Adolescent girls whose fathers were present during their childhood are less likely to become pregnant. Even when controlling for differences in family background, father absence was associated with the likelihood that adolescent girls will be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. This association was strongest for daughters whose fathers were absent when they were younger. Compared with the pregnancy rates of girls whose fathers were present, rates of teenage pregnancy were seven to eight times higher among girls whose fathers were absent early in their childhoods and two to three times higher among those who suffered father-absence later in their childhood.9
◦Adolescent males who report a close relationship with their fathers are more likely to anticipate having a stable marriage in the future. Compared with peers who did not feel close to their biological fathers, adolescent males who did feel close to their fathers were less likely to expect that they would themselves divorce in the future, whether or not they lived with their fathers.10
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
FOOTNOTES:
1.Valarie King, “The Influence of Religion on Fathers’ Relationships with Their Children,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65, No. 2 (May 2003): 382-395.
2.W. Bradford Wilcox, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 115.
3.W. Bradford Wilcox, “Religion, Convention, and Paternal Involvement,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64, No. 3 (August 2002): 780-792.
4.Elizabeth C. Cooksey and Michelle M. Fondell, “Spending Time with His Kids: Effects of Family Structure on Fathers’ and Children’s Lives,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (August 1996): 693- 707.
5.Ronald L. Simons et al., “Explaining the Higher Incidence of Adjustment Problems Among Children of Divorce Compared with Those in Two-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (November 1999): 1020-1033.
6.Tami M. Videon, “The Effects of Parent-Adolescent Relationships and Parental Separation on Adolescent Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64, No. 2 (May 2002): 489-503.
7.Cassandra J. Dorius et al., “Parenting Practices as Moderators of the Relationship Between Peers and Adolescent Marijuana Use,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66, No. 1 (February 2004): 163-178.
8.Mark D. Regnerus and Laura B. Luchies, “The Parent-Child Relationship and Opportunities for Adolescents’ First Sex,” Journal of Family Issues 27, No. 2 (2006): 159-183.
9.Bruce J. Ellis et al., “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?” Child Development 74, No. 3 (2003): 801-821.
10.Sharon Risch, Kathleen M. Jodl, and Jaquelynne S. Eccles, “Role of the Father-Adolescent Relationship in Shaping Adolescents’ Attitudes Toward
Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66, No. 1 (February 2004): 46-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"'Courageous' Film Highlights Importance of Fathers" - Sarah Torre, June 16, 2011
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/16/spotlight-on-civil-society-courageous-film-highlights-importance-of-fathers/
One need look no further than the latest sitcom or celebrity pronouncement to witness the strained state of fatherhood in American culture. As men have become expendable in the eyes of pop culture, fewer adults see the necessity of ensuring their children are raised in intact, married families, where they can experience the unique benefits of both a mother and a father.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To the fathers reading this, HAPPY FATHER'S DAY! "One need look no further than the latest sitcom or celebrity pronouncement to witness the strained state of fatherhood in American culture. As men have become expendable in the eyes of pop culture, fewer adults see the necessity of ensuring their children are raised in intact, married families, where they can experience the unique benefits of both a mother and a father." That is the opening of the article cited at the end of this post. It speaks about the movie "Courageous" which opened in theatres last year, and is the one movie I encourage every father and young man planning to be one some day to watch. It will inspire you and challenge you as few movies do any more. - Stan]
Beyond Breadwinner: How Fathers Make a Difference in Their Children’s Life Prospects - http://familyfacts.org/briefs/13/beyond-breadwinner-how-fathers-make-a-difference-in-their-childrens-life-prospects
Fathers’ involvement is an important factor in children’s well-being, from health and behavioral outcomes to school performance. Research shows that religious participation appears to bolster fathers’ involvement.
◦Fathers’ religiosity is linked to higher quality of parent-child relationships. A greater degree of religiousness among fathers was associated with better relationships with their children, greater expectations for positive relationships in the future, investment of thought and effort into their relationships with their children, greater sense of obligation to stay in regular contact with their children, and greater likelihood of providing emotional support and unpaid assistance to their children and grandchildren. Fathers’ religiousness was measured on six dimensions, including the importance of faith, guidance provided by faith, religious attendance, religious identity, denominational affiliation, and belief in the importance of religion for their children.1
◦Fathers who regularly attend religious services are more likely to be engaged in one-on-one activities with their children. Frequency of church attendance was a stronger predictor of paternal involvement in one-on-one activities with children than employment or income, and comparable to race, ethnicity, and education. Fathers who were active in conservative or mainline Protestant congregations were significantly more engaged with their children in one-on-one activities and other youth activities than their unaffiliated counterparts.2
◦Civically active fathers are more likely to participate in youth-related activities. Among fathers who lived with their children—whether biological, adopted, or step—those who participated more in civic, work-related, and service groups tended to be more involved in youth-related activities than fathers who were less civically engaged.3
◦Fathers’ engagement in their children’s activities was linked to higher academic performance. Preteens whose fathers spent leisure time away from the home (picnics, movies, sports, etc.) with them, shared meals with them, helped with homework or reading, and engaged in other home activities with them earned better grades in school, on average, than peers whose fathers spent less time with them. Similarly, teens whose fathers engaged in activities in the home and outdoors, spent leisure time, and talked with them earned better grades, on average, than teens whose fathers spent less time with them.4
◦Among adolescent boys, those who receive more parenting from their fathers are less likely to exhibit anti-social and delinquent behaviors. For adolescent boys, a lack of father’s parenting was significantly correlated with adolescent conduct problems, such as anti-social behavior and delinquency. Quality of parenting by fathers was measured by adolescents’ responses to a set of 14 questions such as asked how often their fathers talked with them, supported their mothers’ decisions and enforced discipline.5
◦Among adolescent girls, those who have a strong relationship with their fathers are less likely to report experiencing depression. The higher adolescent girls rated the relationship with their fathers, the less likely they were to experience depression.6
◦Close father-adolescent bonds protect against the negative influence of peer drug use. Although having friends who used drugs was associated with an increased likelihood that adolescents would use marijuana, this association was weakened if the youths felt close to their fathers or if they felt that their parents would catch them using marijuana.7
◦Adolescent girls who have a close relationship with their fathers are more likely to delay sexual activity. Among a sample of adolescent virgins from intact two-parent families, females who reported having a close relationship with their father during the initial interview were less likely to report having engaged in sexual intercourse during a follow-up interview one year later, when compared to similar females who did not report having a close relationship with their father.8
◦Adolescent girls whose fathers were present during their childhood are less likely to become pregnant. Even when controlling for differences in family background, father absence was associated with the likelihood that adolescent girls will be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. This association was strongest for daughters whose fathers were absent when they were younger. Compared with the pregnancy rates of girls whose fathers were present, rates of teenage pregnancy were seven to eight times higher among girls whose fathers were absent early in their childhoods and two to three times higher among those who suffered father-absence later in their childhood.9
◦Adolescent males who report a close relationship with their fathers are more likely to anticipate having a stable marriage in the future. Compared with peers who did not feel close to their biological fathers, adolescent males who did feel close to their fathers were less likely to expect that they would themselves divorce in the future, whether or not they lived with their fathers.10
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
FOOTNOTES:
1.Valarie King, “The Influence of Religion on Fathers’ Relationships with Their Children,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65, No. 2 (May 2003): 382-395.
2.W. Bradford Wilcox, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 115.
3.W. Bradford Wilcox, “Religion, Convention, and Paternal Involvement,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64, No. 3 (August 2002): 780-792.
4.Elizabeth C. Cooksey and Michelle M. Fondell, “Spending Time with His Kids: Effects of Family Structure on Fathers’ and Children’s Lives,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (August 1996): 693- 707.
5.Ronald L. Simons et al., “Explaining the Higher Incidence of Adjustment Problems Among Children of Divorce Compared with Those in Two-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (November 1999): 1020-1033.
6.Tami M. Videon, “The Effects of Parent-Adolescent Relationships and Parental Separation on Adolescent Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64, No. 2 (May 2002): 489-503.
7.Cassandra J. Dorius et al., “Parenting Practices as Moderators of the Relationship Between Peers and Adolescent Marijuana Use,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66, No. 1 (February 2004): 163-178.
8.Mark D. Regnerus and Laura B. Luchies, “The Parent-Child Relationship and Opportunities for Adolescents’ First Sex,” Journal of Family Issues 27, No. 2 (2006): 159-183.
9.Bruce J. Ellis et al., “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?” Child Development 74, No. 3 (2003): 801-821.
10.Sharon Risch, Kathleen M. Jodl, and Jaquelynne S. Eccles, “Role of the Father-Adolescent Relationship in Shaping Adolescents’ Attitudes Toward
Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and Family 66, No. 1 (February 2004): 46-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"'Courageous' Film Highlights Importance of Fathers" - Sarah Torre, June 16, 2011
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/16/spotlight-on-civil-society-courageous-film-highlights-importance-of-fathers/
One need look no further than the latest sitcom or celebrity pronouncement to witness the strained state of fatherhood in American culture. As men have become expendable in the eyes of pop culture, fewer adults see the necessity of ensuring their children are raised in intact, married families, where they can experience the unique benefits of both a mother and a father.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
#236 (6/18) - "Public School Textbooks Whitewashing Islam"
[NOTE:Since I began working with high school and middle school students 14 years ago, I've been particularly concerned about what exactly is being taught in our public schools. The article below gives one reason why we should all be concerned and in prayer for our public schools and their students. - Stan]
- By Erick Stakelbeck, Islam/CBN News Terrorism Analyst, May 02, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/May/Report-Public-School-Textbooks-Whitewashing-
Through the years, American public schools have taught students that Nazism, communism, and other totalitarian ideologies should be opposed. But when it comes to the current war with Islamic jihadists, public schools are taking a much different course. According to a new report, students are getting a white-washed version of what our enemies believe, and it could have dangerous implications for America's future.
Sugar-coating Islam
For students in America's middle and high schools, 9/11 is a distant memory. Some were still toddlers when the World Trade Center towers fell. But if they're looking for answers in their history textbooks about who attacked the United States and why, they may be disappointed. One 2003 world geography textbook widely used in public schools gives the following explanation for the 9/11 attacks:
"On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four passenger planes, crashing two of them into New York City's World Trade Center and the third into the Pentagon. The devastation and loss of so many lives made the United States firmly resolved to rid the world of terrorism." Guy Rodgers, a former public school teacher who is now executive director of ACT! for America Education, noted that while the text mentions terrorism or a terrorist attack, it never mentions Islam or that the attackers were Muslim. "The closest they'll get to it is they'll mention al Qaeda," Rodgers told CBN News. "But they don't typically define what al Qaeda is or describe it."Education or Indoctrination?
ACT! for America Education recently studied 38 textbooks widely used in 6th through 12th grade classrooms nationwide to teach about Islam. They published their findings in a new report called "Education or Indoctrination?" According to the report, the books contained a sanitized version of some of the most radical aspects of Islam, including the oppressive system known as Sharia law.
"Virtually every school district in America is using one or more of these textbooks-and probably a lot of private schools, too," Rodgers told CBN News. One textbook, World History: Patterns of Interaction, reads that Sharia "requires Muslim leaders to extend religious tolerance to Christians and Jews." Yet another text taught that Muslims were "extremely tolerant of those they conquered" and "allowed Christians and Jews to keep their churches and synagogues and promised them security."
Rodgers says such teachings are factually and historically incorrect. "There's nothing in Sharia law that requires Muslim leaders to extend tolerance to Christians and Jews," Rodgers said. "And this idea that there was full religious freedom granted? Well, let me refer to one Muslim historian - he estimated that some 30,000 Christian churches were destroyed during the first two centuries of jihad after (the Islamic prophet) Mohammed died," he added.
Islam and Women
Then there's the treatment of women. One frequently used book stated that the Koran "granted women Koran spiritual and social equality with men" and gave them the right to own and inherit property - a claim Rodgers disputes. "In the Muslim world, do women enjoy anything approaching what we would call social equality with men? Even in the more moderate Muslim countries, that's not the case," Rodgers said.
Most of the books researched for the study were written after 9/11, when accurate information about Islam has never been more crucial for the next generation of American leaders. Yet Rodgers told CBN News that what American students are learning about jihad -- or holy war - in their most formative years is anything but accurate.
He cited a passage from one textbook that calls Jihad "an Islamic term that is often misunderstood," explaining that it means "to struggle" and "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil" --acting only in self-defense. "Islamic armies developed an empire from the Atlantic Ocean on the West all the way to India on the East. They didn't do it through handing out tracts," Rodgers.
ACT! for America Education has mailed the textbooks report to over 70,000 state and local school board members nationwide. Rodgers said it's not only a matter of education but of national security.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
FURTHER INFORMATION:ACT for America > http://www.actforamericaeducation.com/welcome/
"Elites Failing America in Battle against Terrorism" By Erick Stakelbeck,April 16, 2012 http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/April/Elites-Failing-America-in-Battle-against-Terrorism/
US Tunnel Vision Strengthening Jihad against AmericaBy Erick Stakelbeck,October 31, 2011, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/October/US-Tunnel-Vision-Compromising-War-on-Terror/
Mask of Peace: Brotherhood's Plot for Global Rule - By Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter, November 27, 2011; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/October/Mask-of-Peace-Brotherhoods-Plot-for-Global-Rule/
- By Erick Stakelbeck, Islam/CBN News Terrorism Analyst, May 02, 2012
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/May/Report-Public-School-Textbooks-Whitewashing-
Through the years, American public schools have taught students that Nazism, communism, and other totalitarian ideologies should be opposed. But when it comes to the current war with Islamic jihadists, public schools are taking a much different course. According to a new report, students are getting a white-washed version of what our enemies believe, and it could have dangerous implications for America's future.
Sugar-coating Islam
For students in America's middle and high schools, 9/11 is a distant memory. Some were still toddlers when the World Trade Center towers fell. But if they're looking for answers in their history textbooks about who attacked the United States and why, they may be disappointed. One 2003 world geography textbook widely used in public schools gives the following explanation for the 9/11 attacks:
"On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four passenger planes, crashing two of them into New York City's World Trade Center and the third into the Pentagon. The devastation and loss of so many lives made the United States firmly resolved to rid the world of terrorism." Guy Rodgers, a former public school teacher who is now executive director of ACT! for America Education, noted that while the text mentions terrorism or a terrorist attack, it never mentions Islam or that the attackers were Muslim. "The closest they'll get to it is they'll mention al Qaeda," Rodgers told CBN News. "But they don't typically define what al Qaeda is or describe it."Education or Indoctrination?
ACT! for America Education recently studied 38 textbooks widely used in 6th through 12th grade classrooms nationwide to teach about Islam. They published their findings in a new report called "Education or Indoctrination?" According to the report, the books contained a sanitized version of some of the most radical aspects of Islam, including the oppressive system known as Sharia law.
"Virtually every school district in America is using one or more of these textbooks-and probably a lot of private schools, too," Rodgers told CBN News. One textbook, World History: Patterns of Interaction, reads that Sharia "requires Muslim leaders to extend religious tolerance to Christians and Jews." Yet another text taught that Muslims were "extremely tolerant of those they conquered" and "allowed Christians and Jews to keep their churches and synagogues and promised them security."
Rodgers says such teachings are factually and historically incorrect. "There's nothing in Sharia law that requires Muslim leaders to extend tolerance to Christians and Jews," Rodgers said. "And this idea that there was full religious freedom granted? Well, let me refer to one Muslim historian - he estimated that some 30,000 Christian churches were destroyed during the first two centuries of jihad after (the Islamic prophet) Mohammed died," he added.
Islam and Women
Then there's the treatment of women. One frequently used book stated that the Koran "granted women Koran spiritual and social equality with men" and gave them the right to own and inherit property - a claim Rodgers disputes. "In the Muslim world, do women enjoy anything approaching what we would call social equality with men? Even in the more moderate Muslim countries, that's not the case," Rodgers said.
Most of the books researched for the study were written after 9/11, when accurate information about Islam has never been more crucial for the next generation of American leaders. Yet Rodgers told CBN News that what American students are learning about jihad -- or holy war - in their most formative years is anything but accurate.
He cited a passage from one textbook that calls Jihad "an Islamic term that is often misunderstood," explaining that it means "to struggle" and "to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil" --acting only in self-defense. "Islamic armies developed an empire from the Atlantic Ocean on the West all the way to India on the East. They didn't do it through handing out tracts," Rodgers.
ACT! for America Education has mailed the textbooks report to over 70,000 state and local school board members nationwide. Rodgers said it's not only a matter of education but of national security.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
FURTHER INFORMATION:ACT for America > http://www.actforamericaeducation.com/welcome/
"Elites Failing America in Battle against Terrorism" By Erick Stakelbeck,April 16, 2012 http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/April/Elites-Failing-America-in-Battle-against-Terrorism/
US Tunnel Vision Strengthening Jihad against AmericaBy Erick Stakelbeck,October 31, 2011, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/October/US-Tunnel-Vision-Compromising-War-on-Terror/
Mask of Peace: Brotherhood's Plot for Global Rule - By Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter, November 27, 2011; http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/October/Mask-of-Peace-Brotherhoods-Plot-for-Global-Rule/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
