[Please remember to tune in to the half hour broadcast of "The Coral Ridge Hour" today and every Sunday (5 pm, channel 40.1 in Orlando) You will never be disappointed with its balance of a great gospel message and a commentary as well of a current issue our country faces.]
[If you didn't read it last year, please read my blog posting last year on "Remembering My Father and THE Father, http://stanmyonashiro.blogspot.com/2009/06/22-remembering-my-father-and-father-on.html" Yes, it's about MY father and a comment about remembering OUR Heavenly Father.]
Reflections on My Father - by Chuck Colson, June 13, 2008, Breakpoint.com , June 13, 2008
As this Father's Day approaches, I have been thinking a lot about my own dad, and how blessed I was to have him in my life. I was born during the Depression; by today's standards, I guess you would say we grew up in fairly deprived circumstances. I just did not know it.
I remember that Dad was not around much when I was growing up. He had to drop out of high school when he was a young man to support his family after his father died. So, by the time I arrived, he was working full-time at a job, and going to accounting school—and later law school—at night: 12 years in total. One of my earliest childhood memories was my parents taking food to neighbors who had less than we did; and my mother taking me on the subway to meet my dad coming out of law school at nine o'clock at night. Then, we would accompany him home, but not before stopping for an ice cream. As I reflect on it, I think I developed my work ethic during those days. When I got out of the Marine Corps, I thought nothing about working full-time and going to school at night for four years to get my law degree. After all, my dad had set the example. Maybe one of the best days for my dad, and for me, was when I was admitted to the bar in Massachusetts and made a copy of the certificate, mailing it to my dad with a note on it saying, "Without you I could never have done this."
My dad worked so hard that I was accustomed to spending time with him only on Sunday afternoons. We would sit on the back porch, and there was never any wasted time. My dad would drill lessons into my head: Always do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay; be willing to do anything that you are required to do (that came in handy, by the way, when I had to clean toilets in Marine training); and always tell the truth. I testified 44 times under oath during Watergate and was never once accused of perjury. But if anybody accused me of self-righteousness, I would have to stand convicted. When I got to the White House, I was meticulous about avoiding conflicts of interest: I would put everything I owned in trusts. I would not see former clients. But I ended up in prison. Self-righteousness is a form of pride. One of the toughest things I ever experienced was stopping by my dad's hospital room on my way to prison. It was an emotional time, but at least I was able to witness to him about Christ. I will not know until I get to heaven what came of it. My worst day followed that, when I learned, in prison, that my dad had died. I had to attend the funeral under armed guard.
But one thing I knew for sure—and I knew it even as I grieved at my father's funeral: Dad had poured everything he had into me—and into his grandkids, who became the joy of his life. And he lived his life with great honor and dignity. All I can hope is that the same will be said of me some day by my children and grandchildren. I knew every minute my dad was proud of me—and I was proud of him. I told him how I felt many times when he was alive. But on reflection, I wish I had told him more often.
So, do not miss the opportunity this Father's Day to tell your father how much you love him and appreciate him. Or, if he is gone, as my father is, at least give a prayer of thanks to God that you had the dad you did.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
#58 - BP’s New Deal is a Raw Deal
1. Be sure to check: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons Talk about how one picture can communicate a thousand words. Great stuff each Friday!
2. Be sure to watch “The Coral Ridge Hour” (half hour program) every Sunday (5pm, Channel 40.1 in Orlando) Great message plus great Christian perspective on critical issues for our country.
3. Check this Sunday for a special Father’s Day commentary (by Chuck Colson)
June 18, 2010, Amanda J. Reinecker, My Heritage.org (The Heritage Foundation)
It's TARP all over again. Yesterday, BP announced that it would "voluntarily" place $20 billion into a government-administered fund to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster and clean up the mess. The oil company also agreed to shell out another $100 million to a foundation that will support oil workers made unemployed by President Barack Obama's indefinite ban on offshore oil drilling.
Now, no one is disputing that this oil spill is real disaster wreaking enormous havoc on the environment and the economy. And BP should absolutely have to pick up the tab for all efforts to correct this mess. It's the beauty of the "you break it, you buy it" mentality. But there are right ways – legal and constitutional ways – to go about assigning responsibility, and the Obama Administration isn't following them.
Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky explains the law pertaining to the Gulf Coast situation: “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) sets out exactly what BP and anyone else who caused the spill have to pay for. Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702, BP is responsible for all removal costs; all injuries to real or personal property; damages for loss of subsistence use of natural resources; loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources or real or personal property; and damages for the cost of providing increased public services by any state. These categories of damages would cover all of the costs that everyone has been talking about…”
But the law says nothing about BP compensating the newly unemployed offshore oil workers. Why and how, then, can BP be liable? Legally, they can't. "Obama's moratorium is an unreasonable decision that is supported neither by the states in the Gulf nor experts in the oil and gas industry," von Spakovsky argues. In addition, the President's demand to transfer an immense portion of stockholders' wealth to the compensation fund without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome. So why would BP "voluntarily agree" to these costly measures? Perhaps the company was intimidated by Attorney General Eric Holder's threat to open a criminal investigation. Perhaps BP is under the impression this agreement places a cap on their costs. (It doesn't. The White House made clear that the $20 billion was just a down payment and in no way represented a cap on BP's liability.)
Or perhaps this so-called deal between the White House and BP represents little more than what Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) dubbed a political "shakedown"—a shakedown Heritage's Conn Carroll calls of "Godfather-like proportions." BP is by no means off the hook with this deal – it has to pay big-time; it is still liable to individual and state claims; and it received no assurances that economic damages would not be higher or that the White House wouldn't come back demanding more. But Carroll explains in a separate piece that BP is not the victim in this scenario. The rule of law is.
Wednesday's 'voluntary' deal between BP and the Obama administration was nothing less than a continuation of President Barack Obama's ongoing assault on the rule of law. Capitalism only succeeds if it is a profit and LOSS system. Well-managed firms should have every right to keep their profits, but mismanaged firms must be allowed to suffer losses… Failure is a necessary component of capitalism. But this administration refuses to allow the rule of law to work. From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.
2. Be sure to watch “The Coral Ridge Hour” (half hour program) every Sunday (5pm, Channel 40.1 in Orlando) Great message plus great Christian perspective on critical issues for our country.
3. Check this Sunday for a special Father’s Day commentary (by Chuck Colson)
June 18, 2010, Amanda J. Reinecker, My Heritage.org (The Heritage Foundation)
It's TARP all over again. Yesterday, BP announced that it would "voluntarily" place $20 billion into a government-administered fund to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster and clean up the mess. The oil company also agreed to shell out another $100 million to a foundation that will support oil workers made unemployed by President Barack Obama's indefinite ban on offshore oil drilling.
Now, no one is disputing that this oil spill is real disaster wreaking enormous havoc on the environment and the economy. And BP should absolutely have to pick up the tab for all efforts to correct this mess. It's the beauty of the "you break it, you buy it" mentality. But there are right ways – legal and constitutional ways – to go about assigning responsibility, and the Obama Administration isn't following them.
Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky explains the law pertaining to the Gulf Coast situation: “The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) sets out exactly what BP and anyone else who caused the spill have to pay for. Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702, BP is responsible for all removal costs; all injuries to real or personal property; damages for loss of subsistence use of natural resources; loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources or real or personal property; and damages for the cost of providing increased public services by any state. These categories of damages would cover all of the costs that everyone has been talking about…”
But the law says nothing about BP compensating the newly unemployed offshore oil workers. Why and how, then, can BP be liable? Legally, they can't. "Obama's moratorium is an unreasonable decision that is supported neither by the states in the Gulf nor experts in the oil and gas industry," von Spakovsky argues. In addition, the President's demand to transfer an immense portion of stockholders' wealth to the compensation fund without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome. So why would BP "voluntarily agree" to these costly measures? Perhaps the company was intimidated by Attorney General Eric Holder's threat to open a criminal investigation. Perhaps BP is under the impression this agreement places a cap on their costs. (It doesn't. The White House made clear that the $20 billion was just a down payment and in no way represented a cap on BP's liability.)
Or perhaps this so-called deal between the White House and BP represents little more than what Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) dubbed a political "shakedown"—a shakedown Heritage's Conn Carroll calls of "Godfather-like proportions." BP is by no means off the hook with this deal – it has to pay big-time; it is still liable to individual and state claims; and it received no assurances that economic damages would not be higher or that the White House wouldn't come back demanding more. But Carroll explains in a separate piece that BP is not the victim in this scenario. The rule of law is.
Wednesday's 'voluntary' deal between BP and the Obama administration was nothing less than a continuation of President Barack Obama's ongoing assault on the rule of law. Capitalism only succeeds if it is a profit and LOSS system. Well-managed firms should have every right to keep their profits, but mismanaged firms must be allowed to suffer losses… Failure is a necessary component of capitalism. But this administration refuses to allow the rule of law to work. From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
#57 - Perfect Sportsmanship
[An Explanation: You haven't heard from me for several weeks now because until yesterday, I haven't been able to get on my computer because of an unexplainable problem that occurred. But thanks to the help of my friend, Dan Lum, over the past several days with three visits to my home, I finally am able to once again post things. I'm sorry if the following commentary is a bit dated but even with so much else to post, this is one story I feel needs to be posted. I trust you will enjoy what you read below.]
The Beauty of Forgiveness
Chuck Colson June 8, 2010, Breakpoint.com
The sports world received a beautiful lesson recently, a lesson made possible only because of Christianity.
Despite all the positive things we associate with the word “sportsmanship,” sports often brings out the worst in people: Little League parents behaving badly, drunken crowds, just for example. But it doesn’t have to be this way. As most of the world knows by now, Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers was one out away from throwing the 21st perfect game in Major League Baseball history. With two outs in the ninth, the Cleveland Indians batter hit a grounder to the Tiger first baseman. Galarraga, the pitcher, raced to cover first.
It’s a routine play, and the Tigers seemed to have pulled it off: Galarraga and the ball reached first base at least a step ahead of the runner. With that, Galarraga, who earlier in week had faced a possible demotion to the minor leagues, would become a baseball immortal. Except he didn’t. As you probably know, umpire Jim Joyce called the batter “safe.” Galarraga’s response was “a simple smile.” A smile that, as Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated said, seemed to ask “Are you sure? I really hope you are sure.” Galarraga was the only one smiling. The blown call outraged fans across the country. The most measured response called for Joyce to be fired. The more unhinged ones threatened Joyce and his family.
For his part, as soon as he saw the replay, Joyce knew that he had gotten it wrong. He told reporters “I just cost that kid a perfect game.” By baseball standards, such an admission was extraordinary: Umpires are paid to make judgment calls and stand by them. Players and managers can argue with them but only within limits, and with no expectation of having the call reversed. So, when Joyce apologized to Galarraga, we were already in unfamiliar territory. When Galarraga, in turn forgave Joyce, adding that Joyce probably felt worst than he did and “nobody’s perfect,” we were witnessing something extraordinary.The victim of what Posnanski calls one of “most absurd injustices in the history of baseball” went out his way to comfort the umpire who made the mistake. And the umpire was humble enough to ask for forgiveness. It was, as Posnanski called it, a “beautiful” lesson.
It was also a lesson made possible only by Christianity. I really don’t know anything about Galarraga’s or Joyce’s beliefs, but I do know that it was Christianity that taught the world the virtues of humility and forgiveness. Neither of these were considered virtues in the ancient world (or in any pagan or postmodern culture for that matter). On the contrary, they were signs of weakness.The Christian message summed up in the words “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,” provided a revolutionary new basis for human relationships. And it has the power to transform lives—both of victims and offenders—as I’ve witnessed over and over in 30 years of prison ministry. It has the power to heal nations, as the world witnessed in the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda.
What happened after that baseball game was more beautiful than Galarraga’s pitching. Especially for a postmodern culture that rejects the faith that gave meaning to the words “I’m sorry” and “I forgive you.” And that’s one call I’m sure of.
Further Reading and Information
The Lesson of Jim Joyce - Joe Posnanski | June 2, 2010
How a Botched Perfect-Game Call Brought Out the Best in Everybody (Except Us) Will Leitch | New York Sports | June 3, 2010
Perfect Game Thwarted by Faulty Call - Tyler Kepner | The New York Times | June 2,
The Beauty of Forgiveness
Chuck Colson June 8, 2010, Breakpoint.com
The sports world received a beautiful lesson recently, a lesson made possible only because of Christianity.
Despite all the positive things we associate with the word “sportsmanship,” sports often brings out the worst in people: Little League parents behaving badly, drunken crowds, just for example. But it doesn’t have to be this way. As most of the world knows by now, Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers was one out away from throwing the 21st perfect game in Major League Baseball history. With two outs in the ninth, the Cleveland Indians batter hit a grounder to the Tiger first baseman. Galarraga, the pitcher, raced to cover first.
It’s a routine play, and the Tigers seemed to have pulled it off: Galarraga and the ball reached first base at least a step ahead of the runner. With that, Galarraga, who earlier in week had faced a possible demotion to the minor leagues, would become a baseball immortal. Except he didn’t. As you probably know, umpire Jim Joyce called the batter “safe.” Galarraga’s response was “a simple smile.” A smile that, as Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated said, seemed to ask “Are you sure? I really hope you are sure.” Galarraga was the only one smiling. The blown call outraged fans across the country. The most measured response called for Joyce to be fired. The more unhinged ones threatened Joyce and his family.
For his part, as soon as he saw the replay, Joyce knew that he had gotten it wrong. He told reporters “I just cost that kid a perfect game.” By baseball standards, such an admission was extraordinary: Umpires are paid to make judgment calls and stand by them. Players and managers can argue with them but only within limits, and with no expectation of having the call reversed. So, when Joyce apologized to Galarraga, we were already in unfamiliar territory. When Galarraga, in turn forgave Joyce, adding that Joyce probably felt worst than he did and “nobody’s perfect,” we were witnessing something extraordinary.The victim of what Posnanski calls one of “most absurd injustices in the history of baseball” went out his way to comfort the umpire who made the mistake. And the umpire was humble enough to ask for forgiveness. It was, as Posnanski called it, a “beautiful” lesson.
It was also a lesson made possible only by Christianity. I really don’t know anything about Galarraga’s or Joyce’s beliefs, but I do know that it was Christianity that taught the world the virtues of humility and forgiveness. Neither of these were considered virtues in the ancient world (or in any pagan or postmodern culture for that matter). On the contrary, they were signs of weakness.The Christian message summed up in the words “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,” provided a revolutionary new basis for human relationships. And it has the power to transform lives—both of victims and offenders—as I’ve witnessed over and over in 30 years of prison ministry. It has the power to heal nations, as the world witnessed in the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda.
What happened after that baseball game was more beautiful than Galarraga’s pitching. Especially for a postmodern culture that rejects the faith that gave meaning to the words “I’m sorry” and “I forgive you.” And that’s one call I’m sure of.
Further Reading and Information
The Lesson of Jim Joyce - Joe Posnanski | June 2, 2010
How a Botched Perfect-Game Call Brought Out the Best in Everybody (Except Us) Will Leitch | New York Sports | June 3, 2010
Perfect Game Thwarted by Faulty Call - Tyler Kepner | The New York Times | June 2,
Friday, May 21, 2010
#56 – Arizona’s Immigration ENFORCEMENT Law – What You Probably Haven’t Heard
[Please be sure to watch the second part of the presentation, “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger,” on “The Coral Ridge Hour,” this Sunday, May 23. Again, in Orlando, it airs on station 40.1 at 5-5:30 pm].
[from Stan – (1)Outrage is the only way to describe the visit the past few days by the President of Mexico. First, on Wed, he stands in the Rose Garden of the White House and denounces the recently signed Arizona immigration law, followed by our President who concurs with him. The following day, he stands before a special joint session of Congress and repeats the same unfounded charges, adding an accusation that our lack of an assault gun is what arms criminals in his country. On both counts he receives a standing ovation from the Democrats who are there. Can you imagine a U.S. President going in Iran or North Korea to speak out against their nuclear program and their human rights abuses? Can you imagine any foreign leader going to another country and criticizing THEIR policies about anything? And yet, not only is the Mexican President allowed to do so, but he is supported by our President, applauded by members of our Congress, and is even feted to a state dinner! As someone has correctly said, he should have been immediately deported!
(2) By the way, if you want to know how Mexico’s own immigration policy is even more restrictive and does “racial profiling” unlike even Arizona’s or even our Federal immigration law (which the Arizona law only seeks to enforce as the Federal government itself is not effectively doing so), then please check out the article by Michelle Malkin on April 28 entitled, “How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens,” at > http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/0428/how_mexico_treats_illegal_aliens?page=full&comments=true
Fact Sheet: Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Enforcement Law (from NumbersUSA.com, May 13)
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/fact-sheet-arizonas-sb1070-immigration-enforcement-law.html
A new Pew Research poll reveals that the majority of Americans support most of the provisions offered in Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. Seventy-three percent of Americans believe that individuals should carry proof of legal status, 67% support police being able to detain an individual that can't prove legal status, 62% support police questioning an individual they suspect to be in the country illegally, and 59% support the Arizona law. One of the biggest myths offered by opponents of Arizona's SB1070, including criticism made by Pres. Obama, is that Arizona residents will now have to carry their "immigration papers" wherever they go. Federal law already requires all legal immigrants over the age of 18 to carry proof of legal residence at all times. The Pew poll reveals that this requirement is supported by a large majority of Americans.
Arizona's Gov. Brewer signed SB1070 into law in April of 2010. Combined with HB2162 (which amends SB1070), the new law will:
· Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an "illegal alien" (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
· Allow police to detain people where there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they're illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what "reasonable suspicion" might entail)
· Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction.
70 percent of Arizona voters support the new law. Much of the outcry in the press has stemmed from misinformation about the law that may have originated with the local paper, The Arizona Republic.
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements.
The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official "may not consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien's immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in "solely" considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: "Reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: "Reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures"). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of "reasonable suspicion:"A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver's license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions. The SB1070 provision in question reads: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people. Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do. Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
[By the way, as of 5/21, 17 states are planning to enact laws similar to Arizona’s!]
[from Stan – (1)Outrage is the only way to describe the visit the past few days by the President of Mexico. First, on Wed, he stands in the Rose Garden of the White House and denounces the recently signed Arizona immigration law, followed by our President who concurs with him. The following day, he stands before a special joint session of Congress and repeats the same unfounded charges, adding an accusation that our lack of an assault gun is what arms criminals in his country. On both counts he receives a standing ovation from the Democrats who are there. Can you imagine a U.S. President going in Iran or North Korea to speak out against their nuclear program and their human rights abuses? Can you imagine any foreign leader going to another country and criticizing THEIR policies about anything? And yet, not only is the Mexican President allowed to do so, but he is supported by our President, applauded by members of our Congress, and is even feted to a state dinner! As someone has correctly said, he should have been immediately deported!
(2) By the way, if you want to know how Mexico’s own immigration policy is even more restrictive and does “racial profiling” unlike even Arizona’s or even our Federal immigration law (which the Arizona law only seeks to enforce as the Federal government itself is not effectively doing so), then please check out the article by Michelle Malkin on April 28 entitled, “How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens,” at > http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/0428/how_mexico_treats_illegal_aliens?page=full&comments=true
Fact Sheet: Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Enforcement Law (from NumbersUSA.com, May 13)
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/fact-sheet-arizonas-sb1070-immigration-enforcement-law.html
A new Pew Research poll reveals that the majority of Americans support most of the provisions offered in Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. Seventy-three percent of Americans believe that individuals should carry proof of legal status, 67% support police being able to detain an individual that can't prove legal status, 62% support police questioning an individual they suspect to be in the country illegally, and 59% support the Arizona law. One of the biggest myths offered by opponents of Arizona's SB1070, including criticism made by Pres. Obama, is that Arizona residents will now have to carry their "immigration papers" wherever they go. Federal law already requires all legal immigrants over the age of 18 to carry proof of legal residence at all times. The Pew poll reveals that this requirement is supported by a large majority of Americans.
Arizona's Gov. Brewer signed SB1070 into law in April of 2010. Combined with HB2162 (which amends SB1070), the new law will:
· Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an "illegal alien" (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
· Allow police to detain people where there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they're illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what "reasonable suspicion" might entail)
· Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction.
70 percent of Arizona voters support the new law. Much of the outcry in the press has stemmed from misinformation about the law that may have originated with the local paper, The Arizona Republic.
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements.
The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official "may not consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien's immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in "solely" considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: "Reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: "Reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures"). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of "reasonable suspicion:"A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver's license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions. The SB1070 provision in question reads: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people. Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do. Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
[By the way, as of 5/21, 17 states are planning to enact laws similar to Arizona’s!]
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
#55 – Did You Hear That…?
[I hope that you got to watch the broadcast on Sunday, “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger.” I’m looking forward to the second part of that presentation this Sunday (5/23). While I’m sure the book of the same title that’s offered for purchase is well-done (I haven’t decided yet whether to get a copy), I would recommend that you first consider getting a copy of the book I have mentioned often already: “Saving Freedom” by Jim DeMint. I got a “used” copy through Amazon.com for $9 with postage and the copy I received was actually in mint condition. Trust me, it’s the one book on current affairs you want to own and have everyone in your family read at some time.]
1. Late last week, President Obama stood in the Rose Garden of the White House and berated British Petroleum. a) He scolded them for not working faster to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf. I remember listening to the President and thinking of how it reminded me of a parent scolding their child who had just spilled milk on the kitchen floor and was busy cleaning it up. Sure, the child should have been more careful but in the end all of the parent’s yelling was not going to help the child clean up the spill any faster. It’s a parent blustering their authority and their indignation just to feel good about themselves – or in the case of the President and others who behave in such a way, a deplorable way to grand stand to your political advantage. It’s called political theater and its insulting whenever its performed. b) The President went on to also chide the executives of the companies involved in the oil spill for blaming each other at a Congressional hearing earlier in the week. But then what does he do but go on to blame the leaders in Washington of the past 10 years (when President Bush was mainly in office) for not doing more to prevent the disaster from happening. First he puts down others for not taking the blame and then right after wards he himself blames others. Can you say “hypocrisy?” [By the way, at the end of one news story on television, when asked why the President chose to say the things he did when he did, the reporter replied that the President was probably trying to lay the foundation of how the administration would defend itself in upcoming hearings. Sure enough, this week we are learning of how officials in the Obama administration itself has approved hundreds of oil contracts without much scrutiny even in the short time they have been in office. And, to take the heat off the administration, the official who oversaw those contracts suddenly retired (forced out) this week.]
2.The Attorney General, Eric Holder, testified in Congress last week regarding the immigration law that past last month in Arizona. For weeks, the AG had been criticizing the law and said that it needed to be challenged in court. At one point while he was being questioned by a congressman (a Republican, for no Democrat would have thought of asking such a question of one of theirs), the AG was asked if he had read the law. The surprising reply was a sheepish, “No, I haven’t had a chance to.” When the questioner said that the law was only about 10 pages long, much shorter than the 2000 page healthcare reform bill, you could almost hear the AG squirming in his seat and imagine his face flushing with embarrassment. [This had to be visualized because a recording of this interaction was played on conservative radio and was nowhere to be found on television where newscasters tend to be very favorable to the Obama administration. You can only imagine that if this was a Republican official that was so embarrassed it would have been the lead story throughout the media for DAYS!.] Of course, that the chief law enforcement officer had criticized a law he had not even read only demonstrates how the outrage towards the law has been based not on substance but on more on politics. Let’s just hope our Supreme Court justices (and all justices) are at least reading the laws they are supposed to interpret before they make any decisions. That justices at any level of the judiciary can be motivated more by their political views than their careful strict adherence to what the law (and the US Constitution) says is VERY scary and reason why their personal views on issues is always important to consider whenever they are appointed. All of this just emphasizes why the President’s SC nominee now being considered needs to be asked about the many political views she has expressed.
3. Also last week, former First Lady Laura Bush was interviewed many times regarding the publication of her memoirs. Most of the questions dealt with her experiences in growing up and in the White House. But what really caught my attention was her statements on abortion and homosexual marriage. She said the Roe v Wade should remain the law of the land as it is and that she saw nothing wrong with homosexual marriage! Talk about being struck by something out of “left field.” I was very surprised by her statements and then again not surprised. Former First Lady Barbara Bush also expressed a “pro-choice” view and Nancy Regan has come out in favor of embryonic stem cell research (mainly because she believes it could have cured her late husband, the late President Reagan, of his Alzheimer’s). Despite the pro-life views of their husbands, I can’t understand why the wives of conservative former Presidents share such opposite views. Could it be that they’ve bought into the liberal harangue that the killing of children is just a “woman’s issue,” ie that only women can understand why abortion is needed. This is such a joke when more and more women are coming forward sharing how they were themselves harmed emotionally and many times even physically by so-called “safe” abortions and the fact that about half of the lives destroyed in the womb by abortion are female is so conveniently disregarded. To say the least, this revelation has been very disappointing. [I hope to get a copy of her book from the library just to see if I can learn what lies behind Mrs. Bush’s views.]
4. Bush Kept His Entertaining Private – (from Newsmax.com, 5/16) “What’s well known to Washington insiders is that President George W. Bush and his wife Laura hosted few state dinners at the White House — just eight, the fewest of any postwar president. What’s not well known is that the Bushes in fact entertained frequently outside the White House — in part because their state dinner invitations were often declined. “The Bushes did a great deal of entertaining, but they never publicized it,” Lea Berman, their second social secretary, told Vanity Fair writer Bob Colacello. “In 2002 and 2003, they had over 100 private visits with heads of state. What was happening at that time, according to people at the National Security Council, was that foreign leaders were not asking for state visits.” Instead, they were asking to go to Camp David, or to the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas, because it was considered “more of an intimate thing, and it was building more of a personal friendship,” according to Colacello. ‘I’ve told many reporters this, and no one has ever reported it — it doesn’t fit the story of them not entertaining.’ ”
1. Late last week, President Obama stood in the Rose Garden of the White House and berated British Petroleum. a) He scolded them for not working faster to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf. I remember listening to the President and thinking of how it reminded me of a parent scolding their child who had just spilled milk on the kitchen floor and was busy cleaning it up. Sure, the child should have been more careful but in the end all of the parent’s yelling was not going to help the child clean up the spill any faster. It’s a parent blustering their authority and their indignation just to feel good about themselves – or in the case of the President and others who behave in such a way, a deplorable way to grand stand to your political advantage. It’s called political theater and its insulting whenever its performed. b) The President went on to also chide the executives of the companies involved in the oil spill for blaming each other at a Congressional hearing earlier in the week. But then what does he do but go on to blame the leaders in Washington of the past 10 years (when President Bush was mainly in office) for not doing more to prevent the disaster from happening. First he puts down others for not taking the blame and then right after wards he himself blames others. Can you say “hypocrisy?” [By the way, at the end of one news story on television, when asked why the President chose to say the things he did when he did, the reporter replied that the President was probably trying to lay the foundation of how the administration would defend itself in upcoming hearings. Sure enough, this week we are learning of how officials in the Obama administration itself has approved hundreds of oil contracts without much scrutiny even in the short time they have been in office. And, to take the heat off the administration, the official who oversaw those contracts suddenly retired (forced out) this week.]
2.The Attorney General, Eric Holder, testified in Congress last week regarding the immigration law that past last month in Arizona. For weeks, the AG had been criticizing the law and said that it needed to be challenged in court. At one point while he was being questioned by a congressman (a Republican, for no Democrat would have thought of asking such a question of one of theirs), the AG was asked if he had read the law. The surprising reply was a sheepish, “No, I haven’t had a chance to.” When the questioner said that the law was only about 10 pages long, much shorter than the 2000 page healthcare reform bill, you could almost hear the AG squirming in his seat and imagine his face flushing with embarrassment. [This had to be visualized because a recording of this interaction was played on conservative radio and was nowhere to be found on television where newscasters tend to be very favorable to the Obama administration. You can only imagine that if this was a Republican official that was so embarrassed it would have been the lead story throughout the media for DAYS!.] Of course, that the chief law enforcement officer had criticized a law he had not even read only demonstrates how the outrage towards the law has been based not on substance but on more on politics. Let’s just hope our Supreme Court justices (and all justices) are at least reading the laws they are supposed to interpret before they make any decisions. That justices at any level of the judiciary can be motivated more by their political views than their careful strict adherence to what the law (and the US Constitution) says is VERY scary and reason why their personal views on issues is always important to consider whenever they are appointed. All of this just emphasizes why the President’s SC nominee now being considered needs to be asked about the many political views she has expressed.
3. Also last week, former First Lady Laura Bush was interviewed many times regarding the publication of her memoirs. Most of the questions dealt with her experiences in growing up and in the White House. But what really caught my attention was her statements on abortion and homosexual marriage. She said the Roe v Wade should remain the law of the land as it is and that she saw nothing wrong with homosexual marriage! Talk about being struck by something out of “left field.” I was very surprised by her statements and then again not surprised. Former First Lady Barbara Bush also expressed a “pro-choice” view and Nancy Regan has come out in favor of embryonic stem cell research (mainly because she believes it could have cured her late husband, the late President Reagan, of his Alzheimer’s). Despite the pro-life views of their husbands, I can’t understand why the wives of conservative former Presidents share such opposite views. Could it be that they’ve bought into the liberal harangue that the killing of children is just a “woman’s issue,” ie that only women can understand why abortion is needed. This is such a joke when more and more women are coming forward sharing how they were themselves harmed emotionally and many times even physically by so-called “safe” abortions and the fact that about half of the lives destroyed in the womb by abortion are female is so conveniently disregarded. To say the least, this revelation has been very disappointing. [I hope to get a copy of her book from the library just to see if I can learn what lies behind Mrs. Bush’s views.]
4. Bush Kept His Entertaining Private – (from Newsmax.com, 5/16) “What’s well known to Washington insiders is that President George W. Bush and his wife Laura hosted few state dinners at the White House — just eight, the fewest of any postwar president. What’s not well known is that the Bushes in fact entertained frequently outside the White House — in part because their state dinner invitations were often declined. “The Bushes did a great deal of entertaining, but they never publicized it,” Lea Berman, their second social secretary, told Vanity Fair writer Bob Colacello. “In 2002 and 2003, they had over 100 private visits with heads of state. What was happening at that time, according to people at the National Security Council, was that foreign leaders were not asking for state visits.” Instead, they were asking to go to Camp David, or to the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas, because it was considered “more of an intimate thing, and it was building more of a personal friendship,” according to Colacello. ‘I’ve told many reporters this, and no one has ever reported it — it doesn’t fit the story of them not entertaining.’ ”
Friday, May 14, 2010
# 54 – Abortions Painful? Duh! What Do YOU Think?
[Please check out the latest editorial cartoons from around the country at http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/]
[P.S. – I want to challenge you to PLEASE, PLEASE, either watch or program to tape “The Coral Ridge Hour” (which is really only a half-hour long) THIS SUNDAY and NEXT SUNDAY, May 16th and May 23rd. (In Orlando, it’s televised 5-5:30 pm on non-cable channel 40.1) These upcoming broadcasts will present a documentary entitled “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger.” If you want to get a handle of what is wrong in our country (and much of the world) from a Christian perspective, you will want to take the time to get informed. I guarantee that it will be well worth an investment of a total of just one hour of your life.]
[“Are You Serious?!!!!” - I've learned that just the other day, a law went into effect in the state of Florida that make it a “hate crime” if you “attack” a homeless person. It was enacted because we are told that around 30 homeless people are attacked in the state every year. I’m not sure exactly how the law defines a homeless person being attacked – whether it is any assault or just those that result in death. Of course I have sympathy for those who are homeless who are attacked. But come on!!!
Every year in Florida, we (based on the Supreme Court ruling in 1973) legally sanction the murder (by paid hit-men called abortionists) of around 10,000 (!) of our most innocent and defenseless citizens – the pre-born. We in this country are willing to consider the homeless some kind of “endangered species” (as though they were some precious sea turtle, right?) but a baby is somehow “a non-person not deserving of the protection of the law” (the conclusion of the Supreme Court in its abortion ruling of 1973) . Can someone please explain this to me?!!!! (P.S. – You also have to wonder what’s next: Will it now be a “hate crime” if you attack a school teacher; a convenience store worker; the repairman who overcharges you? Are you serious?!!!]
The Humanity of the Fetus By: Mark Earley, April 27, 2010, Breakpoint.com
A groundbreaking new law restricting abortion in Nebraska is getting a lot of attention from pro-abortion forces. And well it should. I’ll explain.
On April 19, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed a new state law banning abortions at and after 20 weeks. This isn’t just another abortion restriction—it has the potential to be a major breakthrough in the fight for the sanctity of human life. The Nebraska law is called the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As Marc Thiessen writes in the Washington Post, it’s based on reputable scientific studies that tell us “that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, and possibly as early as 17 weeks when a portion of the brain called the ‘subplate zone’ is formed.” And, according to the widely respected Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, who has been studying infant pain for 25 years, unborn infants may feel pain more keenly than those already born.
Of course, the Nebraska law faces court challenges. Why? Because it restricts abortion according to when a fetus can feel pain—at 20 weeks—instead of when a fetus can survive outside the womb—usually 22 to 24 weeks. Already the Center for Reproductive Rights has called it “unconstitutional” and hinted that they’re planning litigation. No doubt other pro-abortion groups will be lining up to help. But, as Thiessen says, “regardless of the legal outcome, a national discussion on the topic of ‘fetal pain’ can only help the pro-life movement.” It’s easy to see why. As science and technology develop ever more sophisticated ways for us to study the child in the womb, it’s getting harder and harder for the pro-choice movement to argue in favor of snuffing out that child’s life. And who would want to argue in favor of deliberately causing the child pain on top of that?
What we’re talking about here is no less than the humanity of the fetus, and science is making that subject harder and harder to avoid. The scientific studies are backing up what our faith had already told us: that the life in the womb is indeed a human life, with the same qualities that make us consider our own lives sacred—a beating heart, brain function, and sensitivity to pain being just a few of them. And so we believe that a child’s life is a gift from God and worthy of protection and care. Abortionists can lie all they want to about the development of the fetus. Undercover videos recently taken at a Kentucky abortion clinics show that they’re still lying to women and girls about the development process. But those lies are getting easier and easier to disprove. And the facts are on our side.
The more we talk about those facts, the more the law will come to be on our side as well. Nebraska took the lead in this case because the state government wanted to prevent infamous late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart from following through on his stated intentions to carry on the work of the late George Tiller. If the Nebraska law holds up in court, other states are likely to follow. Even the pro-abortion forces can’t plausibly deny what our own eyes and ears are telling us about the life in the womb. In this case, seeing is believing—and what we’re seeing, by the grace of God, could finally put a stop to the wanton destruction of unborn human lives.
Further Reading and Information
Bringing Humanity Back to the Abortion Debate, Marc A. Thiessen | Washington Post | April 19, 2010
Neb. Governor Signs Landmark Abortion Bills, Washington Post | April 13, 2010
Legal Fights Await Abortion Law, Boston Globe | April 19, 2010
The Abortion Evangelist, Newsweek | August 15, 2009
Undercover Video Shows Kentucky Abortion Center Failing to Report Child Sex Abuse
David Schmidt | Live Action Blog | April 21, 2010
States Seek New Ways to Restrict Abortions, USA Today | April 26, 2010
[P.S. – I want to challenge you to PLEASE, PLEASE, either watch or program to tape “The Coral Ridge Hour” (which is really only a half-hour long) THIS SUNDAY and NEXT SUNDAY, May 16th and May 23rd. (In Orlando, it’s televised 5-5:30 pm on non-cable channel 40.1) These upcoming broadcasts will present a documentary entitled “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger.” If you want to get a handle of what is wrong in our country (and much of the world) from a Christian perspective, you will want to take the time to get informed. I guarantee that it will be well worth an investment of a total of just one hour of your life.]
[“Are You Serious?!!!!” - I've learned that just the other day, a law went into effect in the state of Florida that make it a “hate crime” if you “attack” a homeless person. It was enacted because we are told that around 30 homeless people are attacked in the state every year. I’m not sure exactly how the law defines a homeless person being attacked – whether it is any assault or just those that result in death. Of course I have sympathy for those who are homeless who are attacked. But come on!!!
Every year in Florida, we (based on the Supreme Court ruling in 1973) legally sanction the murder (by paid hit-men called abortionists) of around 10,000 (!) of our most innocent and defenseless citizens – the pre-born. We in this country are willing to consider the homeless some kind of “endangered species” (as though they were some precious sea turtle, right?) but a baby is somehow “a non-person not deserving of the protection of the law” (the conclusion of the Supreme Court in its abortion ruling of 1973) . Can someone please explain this to me?!!!! (P.S. – You also have to wonder what’s next: Will it now be a “hate crime” if you attack a school teacher; a convenience store worker; the repairman who overcharges you? Are you serious?!!!]
The Humanity of the Fetus By: Mark Earley, April 27, 2010, Breakpoint.com
A groundbreaking new law restricting abortion in Nebraska is getting a lot of attention from pro-abortion forces. And well it should. I’ll explain.
On April 19, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed a new state law banning abortions at and after 20 weeks. This isn’t just another abortion restriction—it has the potential to be a major breakthrough in the fight for the sanctity of human life. The Nebraska law is called the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As Marc Thiessen writes in the Washington Post, it’s based on reputable scientific studies that tell us “that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks, and possibly as early as 17 weeks when a portion of the brain called the ‘subplate zone’ is formed.” And, according to the widely respected Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, who has been studying infant pain for 25 years, unborn infants may feel pain more keenly than those already born.
Of course, the Nebraska law faces court challenges. Why? Because it restricts abortion according to when a fetus can feel pain—at 20 weeks—instead of when a fetus can survive outside the womb—usually 22 to 24 weeks. Already the Center for Reproductive Rights has called it “unconstitutional” and hinted that they’re planning litigation. No doubt other pro-abortion groups will be lining up to help. But, as Thiessen says, “regardless of the legal outcome, a national discussion on the topic of ‘fetal pain’ can only help the pro-life movement.” It’s easy to see why. As science and technology develop ever more sophisticated ways for us to study the child in the womb, it’s getting harder and harder for the pro-choice movement to argue in favor of snuffing out that child’s life. And who would want to argue in favor of deliberately causing the child pain on top of that?
What we’re talking about here is no less than the humanity of the fetus, and science is making that subject harder and harder to avoid. The scientific studies are backing up what our faith had already told us: that the life in the womb is indeed a human life, with the same qualities that make us consider our own lives sacred—a beating heart, brain function, and sensitivity to pain being just a few of them. And so we believe that a child’s life is a gift from God and worthy of protection and care. Abortionists can lie all they want to about the development of the fetus. Undercover videos recently taken at a Kentucky abortion clinics show that they’re still lying to women and girls about the development process. But those lies are getting easier and easier to disprove. And the facts are on our side.
The more we talk about those facts, the more the law will come to be on our side as well. Nebraska took the lead in this case because the state government wanted to prevent infamous late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart from following through on his stated intentions to carry on the work of the late George Tiller. If the Nebraska law holds up in court, other states are likely to follow. Even the pro-abortion forces can’t plausibly deny what our own eyes and ears are telling us about the life in the womb. In this case, seeing is believing—and what we’re seeing, by the grace of God, could finally put a stop to the wanton destruction of unborn human lives.
Further Reading and Information
Bringing Humanity Back to the Abortion Debate, Marc A. Thiessen | Washington Post | April 19, 2010
Neb. Governor Signs Landmark Abortion Bills, Washington Post | April 13, 2010
Legal Fights Await Abortion Law, Boston Globe | April 19, 2010
The Abortion Evangelist, Newsweek | August 15, 2009
Undercover Video Shows Kentucky Abortion Center Failing to Report Child Sex Abuse
David Schmidt | Live Action Blog | April 21, 2010
States Seek New Ways to Restrict Abortions, USA Today | April 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
#53 - Government Financial Reforn? - Be Scared, Be VERY Scared!
[This past week a (usually politically liberal-leaning comedian said: [“The other day, the police caught someone who withdrew cash from over 30 banks using the name “Barack Obama.” They had no problem tracking the guy down because whoever heard of Barack Obama taking money from banks rather than giving money to them.” Note: You know the President is in big trouble when he starts to make even liberals question his actions – showing really bipartisanship, you might say.]
Special Interests or the Common Good? The Finance Reform Bill
- Chuck Colsonm, Breakpoint.com, May 3, 2010
Will the finance reform bill signal change for the better, or more of the same?
On Friday’s BreakPoint, I said passing a “sensible, effective finance reform bill” is a “moral and economic imperative.” The lack of moral restraints, which has turned financial markets into a kind of casino, has made regulation necessary and politically inevitable. But the question is: What kind of regulation?
The Senate hearing involving Goldman Sachs didn’t inspire much confidence. There were the pontificating senators, who were among those who, stuffing campaign contributions in their pockets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in turn pumped all the money into those agencies which created the crisis Wall Street exploited. Watching the hearing, I wanted to scream, “A plague on both your houses!” And when the various sweetheart deals in the finance reform bill came to light, I became disgusted. Between Democratic Senator Nelson’s attempt to aid billionaire Warren Buffet and Republican Senator Corker’s* bid to protect payday lenders, I concluded that it was “business as usual” on Capitol Hill.
But then something started to change. There has been some tentative progress toward a decent bill. Whether out of embarrassment or wisdom, the Senate scrapped the Warren Buffet deal. The permanent $50 billion bailout for banks and underwater businesses—an absolutely awful idea that will simply provide a tax-funded safety net for irresponsible behavior—may be on the ropes as well. It looks like, just maybe, what’s good for the country is starting to drive the debate. If so, the disgust that most Americans feel at the actions of our elites may have finally had an effect. So, what’s next?
As I record this, nobody knows what the final bill will look like—it’s over a thousand pages to read.[!] But as Phillip Swagel wrote in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, there will be a lot of amendments to the bill over the next few days. Getting rid of that bailout fund is the place to start. One thing we know for sure: Just like the health care bill, the finance reform bill will be monstrously long and filled with all kinds of pitfalls that nobody can anticipate. That’s good news for the lobbyists, not for the public. Americans are angry over the malfeasance of our political and financial elites. In the short run, this anger can motivate our leaders to do the right thing. But if they don’t, the present dissatisfaction will continue to boil and turn into cynicism, which would only strengthen the hand of special interests and elites.
I talked on BreakPoint recently about Augustine’s City of God. It got me reflecting on the Christian roots of our political order—from representative democracy to the balance of powers, to the respect for human dignity and the rule of law. We Christians must hold our leaders to these high standards. As Augustine wrote, we must seek the welfare of the city—or, in this case, country—where God has placed us. We need to pray that both houses of Congress will do the right thing by the country. And when the debate is over, I’d like to say we saw Congress embrace reform that reflects the best of our democratic and biblical heritage—creating a financial environment where the poor are not exploited but may “glean” from the fields, as the Scripture says; where merchants use honest scales; and where justice prevails, yes, “rolls down like living waters.” All for the sake of the common good and what the Hebrews called shalom—the necessary condition for human flourishing. We Christians know one thing. Our job is clear. As good citizens, we are supposed to insist upon righteousness in the halls of power. [As always, bold emphases are mine.]
[P.S. – At one time I heard that the Congress (and the President, of course) wants to have ONE individual to regulate the financial institutions (a key component of our national economy!). It’s been proposed that that person be appointed by the President and accountable to him. If you don’t think that’s scary, then, as Dr. Phil would say, “There’s a village somewhere missing someone (meaning, the village idiot!).”]
Further Reading and Information
Ironing Out the Kinks in the Dodd Bill, Phillip Swagel | Wall Street Journal | April 30, 2010
Regrettable but Necessary: Here Come the Feds, Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | April 30, 2010
City of God: Obedience vs. Rebellion, Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | April 29, 2010
Special Interests or the Common Good? The Finance Reform Bill
- Chuck Colsonm, Breakpoint.com, May 3, 2010
Will the finance reform bill signal change for the better, or more of the same?
On Friday’s BreakPoint, I said passing a “sensible, effective finance reform bill” is a “moral and economic imperative.” The lack of moral restraints, which has turned financial markets into a kind of casino, has made regulation necessary and politically inevitable. But the question is: What kind of regulation?
The Senate hearing involving Goldman Sachs didn’t inspire much confidence. There were the pontificating senators, who were among those who, stuffing campaign contributions in their pockets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in turn pumped all the money into those agencies which created the crisis Wall Street exploited. Watching the hearing, I wanted to scream, “A plague on both your houses!” And when the various sweetheart deals in the finance reform bill came to light, I became disgusted. Between Democratic Senator Nelson’s attempt to aid billionaire Warren Buffet and Republican Senator Corker’s* bid to protect payday lenders, I concluded that it was “business as usual” on Capitol Hill.
But then something started to change. There has been some tentative progress toward a decent bill. Whether out of embarrassment or wisdom, the Senate scrapped the Warren Buffet deal. The permanent $50 billion bailout for banks and underwater businesses—an absolutely awful idea that will simply provide a tax-funded safety net for irresponsible behavior—may be on the ropes as well. It looks like, just maybe, what’s good for the country is starting to drive the debate. If so, the disgust that most Americans feel at the actions of our elites may have finally had an effect. So, what’s next?
As I record this, nobody knows what the final bill will look like—it’s over a thousand pages to read.[!] But as Phillip Swagel wrote in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, there will be a lot of amendments to the bill over the next few days. Getting rid of that bailout fund is the place to start. One thing we know for sure: Just like the health care bill, the finance reform bill will be monstrously long and filled with all kinds of pitfalls that nobody can anticipate. That’s good news for the lobbyists, not for the public. Americans are angry over the malfeasance of our political and financial elites. In the short run, this anger can motivate our leaders to do the right thing. But if they don’t, the present dissatisfaction will continue to boil and turn into cynicism, which would only strengthen the hand of special interests and elites.
I talked on BreakPoint recently about Augustine’s City of God. It got me reflecting on the Christian roots of our political order—from representative democracy to the balance of powers, to the respect for human dignity and the rule of law. We Christians must hold our leaders to these high standards. As Augustine wrote, we must seek the welfare of the city—or, in this case, country—where God has placed us. We need to pray that both houses of Congress will do the right thing by the country. And when the debate is over, I’d like to say we saw Congress embrace reform that reflects the best of our democratic and biblical heritage—creating a financial environment where the poor are not exploited but may “glean” from the fields, as the Scripture says; where merchants use honest scales; and where justice prevails, yes, “rolls down like living waters.” All for the sake of the common good and what the Hebrews called shalom—the necessary condition for human flourishing. We Christians know one thing. Our job is clear. As good citizens, we are supposed to insist upon righteousness in the halls of power. [As always, bold emphases are mine.]
[P.S. – At one time I heard that the Congress (and the President, of course) wants to have ONE individual to regulate the financial institutions (a key component of our national economy!). It’s been proposed that that person be appointed by the President and accountable to him. If you don’t think that’s scary, then, as Dr. Phil would say, “There’s a village somewhere missing someone (meaning, the village idiot!).”]
Further Reading and Information
Ironing Out the Kinks in the Dodd Bill, Phillip Swagel | Wall Street Journal | April 30, 2010
Regrettable but Necessary: Here Come the Feds, Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | April 30, 2010
City of God: Obedience vs. Rebellion, Chuck Colson | BreakPoint Commentary | April 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
