[Note: This is my first posting since Sunday as this has not been a week for my feeling well. I hope that you will enjoy the following article from the Heritage Foundation as well as will check on this site on Sunday as I hope to have a Sunday Special posted by noon. Also, as always, please be sure to tune in to Sunday's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms" (Orlando - 5 pm, 55.1). Also, check out the editorial cartoons at www.worldmag.com/editorial cartoons)]
“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time,” Thomas Jefferson once wrote. “The hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.” Among the American Founders, there was a profound sense that faith and freedom were deeply intertwined.
Nowadays, we are often told that religion is divisive and ought to kept away from politics for the sake of liberty. Religion somehow is opposed to liberty, and so liberty requires a diminution of religion in the public square.
The view long consistent with our historical practice, though, is that of America’s Founders, who advanced religious liberty so as to strengthen religious faith and its influence on American self-government. All had a natural right to worship God as they chose, according to the dictates of their consciences. At the same time,the Founders upheld religion and morality–to paraphrase Washington’s Farewell Address [1]–as indispensable supports of good habits, the firmest props of the duties of citizens, and the great pillars of human happiness.
Religious liberty neither settles nor dismisses the claims of reason and revelation to teach the most important things for human beings to know. But it does create a practical solution–after thousands of years of failed attempts–at the level of politics and political morality. It established a form of government that is sanctioned by human nature and open to moral reasoning, the legitimacy of which does not depend on the truth of any particular religious denomination.
This solution is possible because the American Founders recognized general moral precepts that are understandable by human reason and no less agreeable to faith in the form of a general revelation of creation. This morality common to both natural reason and divine revelation, usually termed natural law, is the philosophical ground of the American Founding.
We can see this agreement of reason and revelation in the Declaration of Independence[2]. The liberties recognized in it are deduced from a higher law to which all human laws are answerable and by which they are limited. This higher law can be understood by man’s practical reason–the truths of the Declaration are held to be “self-evident”–but also by the revealed word of God. There are four references to God in the document: to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”; to all men being “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”; to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”; and to “the protection of divine Providence.” The first term suggests a deity that is knowable by human reason, but the others–God as creator, as judge, and as providence–are more biblical, and add (and were assuredly intended to add) a theological context to the document.
From the perspective of religious faith, the basic principles of the Founding, at the level of political principles, were understood to be in essential agreement with the core precepts of the Bible. That this is the case can be seen throughout the many church sermons published from the founding era. While we have never been and should not try to become a nation defined by a particular or official religious denomination, we must never forget that, as the Supreme Court said in 1952 (and reiterated in 1963, and again in 1984),“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”
The health and strength of liberty depend on the principles, standards, and morals shared by nearly all religions. What the “separation of church and state” does is liberate America’s religions–in respect to their moral forms and teachings–to exercise unprecedented influence over private and public opinion by shaping citizens’ mores, cultivating their virtues, and in general, providing a pure and independent source of moral reasoning and authority. This is what Alexis de Tocqueville meant when he observed that even though religion “never mixes directly in the government of society,” it nevertheless determines the “habits of the heart” and is “the first of their political institutions.”
As we gather with our families to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah, let us remember that our greatest blessing as Americans is the freedom to pursue our eternal duties to God and of religion to pursue freely its divine mission among men on earth. As George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport [3] in 1790, so all of us at The Heritage Foundation proclaim to our friends and fellow citizens: “May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.”
Matthew Spalding, h.D. [4], is Vice President of American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/26/morning-bell-faith-in-america/
URLs in this post:
[1] Washington’s Farewell Address: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/washingtons-farewell-address
[2] Declaration of Independence: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-declaration-of-independence
[3] Hebrew Congregation at Newport: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/washington-s-letter-to-the-hebrew-congregation-of-newport-rhode-island
[4] Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.: http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/s/matthew-spalding
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
[For posting #167 (12/23), please scroll down this post] #166 - Christians Under Attack - in the U.S!!!
From Stan: Many do not approve of my blog postings because they believe that Christians should not be so concerned about things deemed “political.” To be honest with you, I believe that that kind of thinking is short-sighted and dangerous. For Christians, we can’t just hide in our churches and think that society will not bother us if we just keep our beliefs to ourselves. We can’t just “go along to get along” because our Lord Jesus never did. He stood up against what was clearly wrong in his society, even in regards to the Roman government (ie, the political power of the day). And in the end, that societal power sentenced Him to the cross.
This site is dedicated to speaking about the truth of what is going on in our country. Many do not believe that the faith of Christians is under attack. Of course, during this Christmas season, you just have to note the ways even saying "Merry Christmas" is being banned in the public square to see evidence of Christianity's growing disfavor in our country.(Of course, you can say "Happy Hanukah" or "Happy Kwanza" or whatever and be on safe ground.) But as further evidence of the TRUTH of Christianity's declining place in America today, I'd like to refer you to the email I received just the other day from a long time friend (reprinted below). I hope that you will read it, pray for the fellow believers under attack and for how religious liberty in this country is being threatened, and really think about whether we as Christians can afford to “just go along to get along’ or are we just inviting our own persecution for our beliefs. Don’t kid yourself; if it happens to other believers today, we are also threatened! – Stan (P.S. – I encourage you to pass tell your friends about this posting and encourage their prayers.)
[email received 12/19]“Stan, This is in reference to a friend of mine, Phyllis Young. She and her husband own a Bed and Breakfast in Hawaii Kai. Several years ago they refused to rent to a lesbian couple because of their Christian beliefs (They're Catholic like me). The lesbians appealed to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, and are now suing Phyllis. Phyllis below is asking for prayers. This story is going around the nation--so I'm trying to get people around the nation to support her and pray for her. Please forward to anyone you think will pray. – Glenn Nakamura”
[forwarded email from the family targeted}
Aloha Dear BCC Family,
"...Shortly after, the doorbell rang. Don answered it to find a sheriff delivering certified papers for the discrimination law suit filed against Aloha Bed & Breakfast—not my name as was done with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Not long after that, the doorbell rang three other times with news reporters and their cameras letting us know that Lambda Legal Defense, who represents the lesbians filing the complaint against us, sent out news releases and they wanted to hear comments from me. Phone continued to ring with more reporters wanting comments from me.Then the “hate calls” began. They continue throughout the day leaving vulgar messages. When we don’t answer the phone, some call back every 15 seconds repeatedly."
"E-mails come in with hateful messages. Thank God, there have been a few e-mails from people telling me that they are praying for me. I am receiving e-mails from Chicago, Texas and who knows where others are from because most don’t say where they live. Don and I knew that this was a spiritual battle in defending our right to discriminate against same-sex couples in our home—our home, not a commercial business! But, I had no idea of the ugly calls and e-mails that would be coming to me non-stop."
"I am writing to ask for your continual prayer support for us. I am asking that you pray for the Precious Blood of Jesus to be upon us to protect us from all evil. I am asking that we would know the Lord’s Presence and His Peace as we engage in this battle for something in which we strongly believe to be His Holy Will. We believe that when one opens up a rental in one’s own personal residence, whether it be for over 30 days or less than 30 days, that the owners have religious rights to choose to whom they will or will not rent out rooms! I am asking that you hold the banner of prayer over Don and me, as well as our lawyers Jim Hochberg and Brian Raum (ADF [Alliance Defense Fund – nationally known Christian ministry] attorney) that with the grace and help of God, we will win this battle!"
"We know that we have many who love and support us in our BCC Ohana [family]. Please refrain from calling us until after Christmas as I am on overload trying to get things in order to celebrate Christmas with our children and grandchildren—and, of course, with one another. God bless, Phyllis" “Everything in the heavens and earth is yours, O Lord … we adore you as being in control of everything.” 1 Chronicles 29:11 (LB)
This site is dedicated to speaking about the truth of what is going on in our country. Many do not believe that the faith of Christians is under attack. Of course, during this Christmas season, you just have to note the ways even saying "Merry Christmas" is being banned in the public square to see evidence of Christianity's growing disfavor in our country.(Of course, you can say "Happy Hanukah" or "Happy Kwanza" or whatever and be on safe ground.) But as further evidence of the TRUTH of Christianity's declining place in America today, I'd like to refer you to the email I received just the other day from a long time friend (reprinted below). I hope that you will read it, pray for the fellow believers under attack and for how religious liberty in this country is being threatened, and really think about whether we as Christians can afford to “just go along to get along’ or are we just inviting our own persecution for our beliefs. Don’t kid yourself; if it happens to other believers today, we are also threatened! – Stan (P.S. – I encourage you to pass tell your friends about this posting and encourage their prayers.)
[email received 12/19]“Stan, This is in reference to a friend of mine, Phyllis Young. She and her husband own a Bed and Breakfast in Hawaii Kai. Several years ago they refused to rent to a lesbian couple because of their Christian beliefs (They're Catholic like me). The lesbians appealed to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, and are now suing Phyllis. Phyllis below is asking for prayers. This story is going around the nation--so I'm trying to get people around the nation to support her and pray for her. Please forward to anyone you think will pray. – Glenn Nakamura”
[forwarded email from the family targeted}
Aloha Dear BCC Family,
"...Shortly after, the doorbell rang. Don answered it to find a sheriff delivering certified papers for the discrimination law suit filed against Aloha Bed & Breakfast—not my name as was done with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Not long after that, the doorbell rang three other times with news reporters and their cameras letting us know that Lambda Legal Defense, who represents the lesbians filing the complaint against us, sent out news releases and they wanted to hear comments from me. Phone continued to ring with more reporters wanting comments from me.Then the “hate calls” began. They continue throughout the day leaving vulgar messages. When we don’t answer the phone, some call back every 15 seconds repeatedly."
"E-mails come in with hateful messages. Thank God, there have been a few e-mails from people telling me that they are praying for me. I am receiving e-mails from Chicago, Texas and who knows where others are from because most don’t say where they live. Don and I knew that this was a spiritual battle in defending our right to discriminate against same-sex couples in our home—our home, not a commercial business! But, I had no idea of the ugly calls and e-mails that would be coming to me non-stop."
"I am writing to ask for your continual prayer support for us. I am asking that you pray for the Precious Blood of Jesus to be upon us to protect us from all evil. I am asking that we would know the Lord’s Presence and His Peace as we engage in this battle for something in which we strongly believe to be His Holy Will. We believe that when one opens up a rental in one’s own personal residence, whether it be for over 30 days or less than 30 days, that the owners have religious rights to choose to whom they will or will not rent out rooms! I am asking that you hold the banner of prayer over Don and me, as well as our lawyers Jim Hochberg and Brian Raum (ADF [Alliance Defense Fund – nationally known Christian ministry] attorney) that with the grace and help of God, we will win this battle!"
"We know that we have many who love and support us in our BCC Ohana [family]. Please refrain from calling us until after Christmas as I am on overload trying to get things in order to celebrate Christmas with our children and grandchildren—and, of course, with one another. God bless, Phyllis" “Everything in the heavens and earth is yours, O Lord … we adore you as being in control of everything.” 1 Chronicles 29:11 (LB)
Sunday, December 18, 2011
#167 (12/23) - The TRUTH Behind the Fight Over the Payroll Tax ... And the TRUTH Behind 3 Popular Myths
Dear friends, I trust that you will have a very special Christmas weekend. I hope that on Sunday, you will take time to: 1)visit this blog for a Christmas Sunday Special;and 2)tune in to the special Christmas broadcast of "Truth That Transforms." (Also, as always, please visit www.worldmag.com, in particular the editorial cartoon section.)
[NOTE: For the past week,the President (anxious to start his Christmas vacation - estimated to cost $1 1/2 million to taxpayers!)and the Senate a big deal about the House wanting an extension of the payroll tax cut for a year, unlike the Senate's PROPOSAL of just 2 months. The TRUTH behind this stalemate over what is basically a savings of a mere $20/week for the person making at least $50,000 a year can be found at the story presented below (with an excerpt provided). Following that are excerpts from articles on the TRUTH about: 1)the "rich-getting-richer" myth, 2) the push to "Buy American."; and 3) Things 'Made in China."
Senators, Do Your Job and Get to Work - Posted By Mike Brownfield On December 21, 2011; http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/21/morning-bell-senators-do-your-job-and-get-to-work/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An excerpt states: "In a rare appearance in the White House press room yesterday, President Barack Obama reiterated his message, blaming Washington’s inaction on “a faction of Republicans in the House” and their “refusal to cooperate” with the Senate — as if it’s the job of Members of Congress to go along and get along for the sake of advancing the President’s agenda, regardless of whether it’s the right move for America. As a reminder, this is the same President who has not met with House Republican leadership in five months and is now praising the grand accomplishment of a Senate that has failed to pass a budget for nearly 1,000 days under Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) direction."
"As you might not be surprised to learn, there is, of course, more to the story than the President lets on. Here’s what you need to know about the latest standstill in Washington that, unfortunately, follows much of the same order of business that America has witnessed for the past year...."
________________________________________________________
The 'Rich-Get-Richer' Myth - by Michael Medved; The Daily Beast; Oct. 31, 2011 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/31/new-budget-office-income-report-fuels-media-s-rich-get-richer-fiction.html
"A new income analysis has fueled news stories about the middle class getting screwed that are off the mark—but play well with a public that believes wealth should be distributed more evenly. When the nation’s most prestigious newspaper runs a misleading headline proclaiming “IT’S OFFICIAL: THE RICH GET RICHER,” why should ordinary Americans respond as if this amounted to bad news?..."
"...Figures from the IRS, however, demonstrate that since the recession began the rich hardly got richer: the number of Americans earning $1 million or more fell a staggering 40 percent between 2007 and 2009 (declining to 236,883), while their combined incomes fell by nearly 50 percent—a vastly greater loss than the 2 percent drop in total incomes of those making $50,000 or less. Could anyone make a plausible case for how a massive reduction in the number of top earners (with nearly 200,000 fewer million-dollar incomes) could conceivably benefit the economy, or count as good news for anyone."
_________________________________________________________
The Stupidity of "Buy American"; by John Stossel Dec.02,2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47264
An excerpt:"One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work. I'm glad I don't work there anymore."
"'Buy American' is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why: "This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products."
The Accountability Charadeby Michelle Malkin11/18/201177
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47601
-----------------------------------------------------------
[The TRUTH behind]'Made in China' August 16, 2011 Source: Galina Hale and Bart Hobijn, "The U.S. Content of 'Made in China,'" Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco(8/8/2011).
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-25.html
The United States is running a record trade deficit with China. This is no surprise, given the wide array of items in stores labeled "Made in China." Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco examine what fraction of U.S. consumer spending goes for Chinese goods and what part of that fraction reflects the actual cost of imports from China. They answer three questions:
[1] What fraction of U.S. consumer spending goes for goods labeled "Made in China" and [2] what fraction is spent on goods "Made in the USA"? ... [and finally][3]What part of U.S. consumer spending can be traced to the cost of goods imported from China? Not all goods and services imported into the United States are directly sold to households. Many are used in the production of goods and services in the United States....
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
[NOTE: For the past week,the President (anxious to start his Christmas vacation - estimated to cost $1 1/2 million to taxpayers!)and the Senate a big deal about the House wanting an extension of the payroll tax cut for a year, unlike the Senate's PROPOSAL of just 2 months. The TRUTH behind this stalemate over what is basically a savings of a mere $20/week for the person making at least $50,000 a year can be found at the story presented below (with an excerpt provided). Following that are excerpts from articles on the TRUTH about: 1)the "rich-getting-richer" myth, 2) the push to "Buy American."; and 3) Things 'Made in China."
Senators, Do Your Job and Get to Work - Posted By Mike Brownfield On December 21, 2011; http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/21/morning-bell-senators-do-your-job-and-get-to-work/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An excerpt states: "In a rare appearance in the White House press room yesterday, President Barack Obama reiterated his message, blaming Washington’s inaction on “a faction of Republicans in the House” and their “refusal to cooperate” with the Senate — as if it’s the job of Members of Congress to go along and get along for the sake of advancing the President’s agenda, regardless of whether it’s the right move for America. As a reminder, this is the same President who has not met with House Republican leadership in five months and is now praising the grand accomplishment of a Senate that has failed to pass a budget for nearly 1,000 days under Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) direction."
"As you might not be surprised to learn, there is, of course, more to the story than the President lets on. Here’s what you need to know about the latest standstill in Washington that, unfortunately, follows much of the same order of business that America has witnessed for the past year...."
________________________________________________________
The 'Rich-Get-Richer' Myth - by Michael Medved; The Daily Beast; Oct. 31, 2011 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/31/new-budget-office-income-report-fuels-media-s-rich-get-richer-fiction.html
"A new income analysis has fueled news stories about the middle class getting screwed that are off the mark—but play well with a public that believes wealth should be distributed more evenly. When the nation’s most prestigious newspaper runs a misleading headline proclaiming “IT’S OFFICIAL: THE RICH GET RICHER,” why should ordinary Americans respond as if this amounted to bad news?..."
"...Figures from the IRS, however, demonstrate that since the recession began the rich hardly got richer: the number of Americans earning $1 million or more fell a staggering 40 percent between 2007 and 2009 (declining to 236,883), while their combined incomes fell by nearly 50 percent—a vastly greater loss than the 2 percent drop in total incomes of those making $50,000 or less. Could anyone make a plausible case for how a massive reduction in the number of top earners (with nearly 200,000 fewer million-dollar incomes) could conceivably benefit the economy, or count as good news for anyone."
_________________________________________________________
The Stupidity of "Buy American"; by John Stossel Dec.02,2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47264
An excerpt:"One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work. I'm glad I don't work there anymore."
"'Buy American' is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why: "This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products."
The Accountability Charadeby Michelle Malkin11/18/201177
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47601
-----------------------------------------------------------
[The TRUTH behind]'Made in China' August 16, 2011 Source: Galina Hale and Bart Hobijn, "The U.S. Content of 'Made in China,'" Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco(8/8/2011).
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-25.html
The United States is running a record trade deficit with China. This is no surprise, given the wide array of items in stores labeled "Made in China." Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco examine what fraction of U.S. consumer spending goes for Chinese goods and what part of that fraction reflects the actual cost of imports from China. They answer three questions:
[1] What fraction of U.S. consumer spending goes for goods labeled "Made in China" and [2] what fraction is spent on goods "Made in the USA"? ... [and finally][3]What part of U.S. consumer spending can be traced to the cost of goods imported from China? Not all goods and services imported into the United States are directly sold to households. Many are used in the production of goods and services in the United States....
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
[for posting #165 (12/19) please scroll down to the posting AFTER #162)] #164 - Sunday Special - Arguing For A More BALANCED Christmas Sermon
[Note: The following is rather long but it's a unique presentation of things I am sure you've never heard in a Christmas message. It deserves your thoughtful reading. Also, I hope that you will tune in to today's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms"(Orlando - 5 pm, ch. 55.1)]
The Jesus We Preach at Christmas: The Truth about the Babe in the Manger By T. M. Moore|December 13, 2011 T.M. Moore is the editor of the Worldview Church. His daily devotion, called Pastor-to-Pastor, can be subscribed on this website:
http://www.worldviewchurch.org/columns/featured-column/1054-the-jesus-we-preach-at-christmas-the-truth-about-the-babe-in-the-manger
Each year, as the Christmas season unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that a large number of people in our society have got it all wrong. I am not here referring to the crass commercialism and materialistic self-indulgence, which are the most prominent aspects of the American Christmas scene. My concern is not about the hijacking of God’s great gift of His Son as an excuse for lavishing perishable goods upon ourselves with reckless abandon. These are but the symptoms of a deeper problem, one with roots in the preaching of the Word of God.
What bothers me more and more each year is the way Jesus is presented to the masses. It troubles me that our contemporaries are being cheated out of the true meaning of Christmas and the whole truth about Jesus, as they enjoy Christmas carols happily intoned by people who otherwise give no indication of faith; as they and their children watch sappy TV programs designed to divert us from Christ while seeking to preserve the message of peace on earth and good will toward men; and as they participate in Christmas programs and pageants that act as though Christ’s coming on that first Christmas were the end of the story, rather than its beginning.
But most of all I’m troubled by the complicity of today’s preachers in this vast deception, as they serve up Christmas sermons that reinforce false ideas about Jesus and Christmas and what His coming means for the world. Surely there is more to the message of Christmas than a seasonal dose of peace and good will, expressed in a veritable shark feed of gifts and giving?
We are rightly disgusted with the way Christmas has been taken hostage by the powers of getting and spending and the advocates of an Abelardian Christ. Each year their message is the same: “Behold the Christ-Child, sent by God to show us the way to peace and good will! Now let us show our good will by giving gifts to loved ones, as we rest in the peace of their thusly reciprocated love.” Then, on December 26, after we have returned such of those tokens of love and good will as did not bring us precisely the peace we sought, it’s back to the grind-‘em-up, eat-‘em-up world of staying alive in uncertain times. The thought that preachers today may be aiding and abetting this false notion about Christ and His coming should trouble us all.
But, lest you mistake my intentions, I’m not here auguring for more clarity in the message of peace and good will. What I’m seeking is more balance in our preaching, more accuracy in depicting the Christ-Child of Bethlehem, more of the truth about the Jesus we preach at Christmas.What I’d like to hear is a little more bad news in the sermons we deliver at Christmas.
The Good News is Bad News
The Good News of Jesus Christ is only good to those who find favor with God, as the angels announced on that first Christmas morn (Lk. 2:14). All those who see in the incarnate Son of God the hope of forgiveness, redemption, and a new life of obedience to God will find the peace and good will of Christmas all year ‘round. For many, many others Jesus comes like a sword, bringing conviction of sin, public exposure of unrighteousness, and condemnation (Lk. 2:34, 35). In particular, the Good News of the Christ-Child’s birth is really bad news for the devil and his troop, for those who cling to earthly relationships above all else, and for all who find in wealth and things the fulfillment of their highest hopes. For all these, Christmas should come around each year with dread, fraught with warnings of judgment and calls to repentance.
Bad news for the devil. The coming of Christ is horrible news, truly disastrous news, for the devil and those who follow in his destructive ways. As Paul explains, the coming of Christ in the manger foreshadowed the victory of Christ on the cross, where the devil and all who adhere to his deceiving ways were disarmed, openly shamed, and utterly destroyed (Col. 2:15). Anybody who prefers a lifestyle of lies and deception, taking advantage of others for personal gain, or holding grudges against others, should be troubled by the news that a Baby was born at Christmas who came to put an end to all such wickedness.... How about a little more of this Jesus at Christmas time? The One who wrecks the plans of every deceiver, oppressor, liar, and vengeful person? The One before whose coming all who incline to such practices should be called to repentance and faith?
Bad news for those who cling to human relationships. Jesus Himself said it: “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-law” (Lk. 12:49-53). It’s curious the way we look to Christmas to heal old wounds in the family. Just this once, for this brief space, we try to set aside our differences and cling to the ties of blood that we like to think make us one. Many Christians go along with this desperate ploy by downplaying their faith at Christmas time. They don’t want to offend unsaved family members or tear open old wounds inflicted through past attempts to win a lost relative to the faith. And preachers don’t want to offend any of those twice-a-year visitors who have come along with friends and family to hear the Good News of peace on earth and good will toward men. So they don’t dare present the Christ-Child as the one who came to divide humanity along the lines of faith, those who are uncompromisingly committed to following the Bethlehem Babe against those who are determined to be the masters of their own fates. We want people to believe that, somehow, we can all just learn to get along in this world. We can be tolerant of one another, even if our toleration means confirming people in their lostness. And we use Christmas,of all times of the year, to promote this deception.
Should we not rather say to people what Jesus did: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:26)? How about more Christmas preaching that emphasizes the exclusive claims and whole-life demands of the One who came for our salvation?
Bad news for those who hope in wealth. Finally, Christmas is bad news for all those who look to wealth for their greatest joy and purpose in life. The rich young ruler, you will recall, went away sad from Jesus at the thought that he would have to give up his wealth in order to be His disciple (Lk. 18:23).But Jesus didn’t back down. He told His disciples it would be very difficult, well-nigh impossible, in fact, for those who cling to wealth to enter the Kingdom of God. If we are determined to find our happiness, satisfaction, and purpose in life in the accumulation of things, then we must resolve to leave off following Christ, for we cannot serve two masters. We may try to deceive ourselves into thinking we can, into thinking that we can invest the greatest amount of our time, energy, creativity, and interest in making a good living, with just a pittance left over for the work of the Kingdom; but this is the devil’s lie, and we are his followers, not Christ’s, if we cling to it.
And we are the devil’s spokesmen, not the Lord’s, if we allow the people of our churches in any way to think this is true. How about a little more preaching at Christmas time that calls us to abandon the ways of the world, to take up a sacrificial and simple lifestyle, and to follow the Babe of Bethlehem wherever He leads, at whatever cost?
Telling the Truth about Jesus
We will only recover the true meaning of Christmas when preachers begin proclaiming the whole message of Christ from their pulpits. We can expect the world to continue in its vain deceptions about peace on earth and good will to all. But let the line stop at the pulpits of the land. The Good News of Christmas is for those who trust in Christ and follow Him as fishers of men. For all the rest – all the liars, deceivers, oppressors, clingers, smoothers-over-of-differences, greedy, covetous, and selfish – the message of Christmas is one of shame, wrath, and judgment. Try that out for your Christmas Eve sermon.
But don’t forget the message of hope goes out to all such people, for the coming of Christ is the coming of life and forgiveness, even for wretches such as we. Remember, I’m only calling for more balance in Christmas preaching. The whole truth about Jesus must include His condemnation of sin; but it must not fail to announce the hope of everlasting life. We will be faithful to His purpose in coming if we make both the hope of Christmas and the warning of Christmas central to our preaching of Jesus.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
__________________________________________________________
Published on the BreakPoint.org website October 11, 2006, and was once featured on the Worldview Church series in 2004
The Jesus We Preach at Christmas: The Truth about the Babe in the Manger By T. M. Moore|December 13, 2011 T.M. Moore is the editor of the Worldview Church. His daily devotion, called Pastor-to-Pastor, can be subscribed on this website:
http://www.worldviewchurch.org/columns/featured-column/1054-the-jesus-we-preach-at-christmas-the-truth-about-the-babe-in-the-manger
Each year, as the Christmas season unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that a large number of people in our society have got it all wrong. I am not here referring to the crass commercialism and materialistic self-indulgence, which are the most prominent aspects of the American Christmas scene. My concern is not about the hijacking of God’s great gift of His Son as an excuse for lavishing perishable goods upon ourselves with reckless abandon. These are but the symptoms of a deeper problem, one with roots in the preaching of the Word of God.
What bothers me more and more each year is the way Jesus is presented to the masses. It troubles me that our contemporaries are being cheated out of the true meaning of Christmas and the whole truth about Jesus, as they enjoy Christmas carols happily intoned by people who otherwise give no indication of faith; as they and their children watch sappy TV programs designed to divert us from Christ while seeking to preserve the message of peace on earth and good will toward men; and as they participate in Christmas programs and pageants that act as though Christ’s coming on that first Christmas were the end of the story, rather than its beginning.
But most of all I’m troubled by the complicity of today’s preachers in this vast deception, as they serve up Christmas sermons that reinforce false ideas about Jesus and Christmas and what His coming means for the world. Surely there is more to the message of Christmas than a seasonal dose of peace and good will, expressed in a veritable shark feed of gifts and giving?
We are rightly disgusted with the way Christmas has been taken hostage by the powers of getting and spending and the advocates of an Abelardian Christ. Each year their message is the same: “Behold the Christ-Child, sent by God to show us the way to peace and good will! Now let us show our good will by giving gifts to loved ones, as we rest in the peace of their thusly reciprocated love.” Then, on December 26, after we have returned such of those tokens of love and good will as did not bring us precisely the peace we sought, it’s back to the grind-‘em-up, eat-‘em-up world of staying alive in uncertain times. The thought that preachers today may be aiding and abetting this false notion about Christ and His coming should trouble us all.
But, lest you mistake my intentions, I’m not here auguring for more clarity in the message of peace and good will. What I’m seeking is more balance in our preaching, more accuracy in depicting the Christ-Child of Bethlehem, more of the truth about the Jesus we preach at Christmas.What I’d like to hear is a little more bad news in the sermons we deliver at Christmas.
The Good News is Bad News
The Good News of Jesus Christ is only good to those who find favor with God, as the angels announced on that first Christmas morn (Lk. 2:14). All those who see in the incarnate Son of God the hope of forgiveness, redemption, and a new life of obedience to God will find the peace and good will of Christmas all year ‘round. For many, many others Jesus comes like a sword, bringing conviction of sin, public exposure of unrighteousness, and condemnation (Lk. 2:34, 35). In particular, the Good News of the Christ-Child’s birth is really bad news for the devil and his troop, for those who cling to earthly relationships above all else, and for all who find in wealth and things the fulfillment of their highest hopes. For all these, Christmas should come around each year with dread, fraught with warnings of judgment and calls to repentance.
Bad news for the devil. The coming of Christ is horrible news, truly disastrous news, for the devil and those who follow in his destructive ways. As Paul explains, the coming of Christ in the manger foreshadowed the victory of Christ on the cross, where the devil and all who adhere to his deceiving ways were disarmed, openly shamed, and utterly destroyed (Col. 2:15). Anybody who prefers a lifestyle of lies and deception, taking advantage of others for personal gain, or holding grudges against others, should be troubled by the news that a Baby was born at Christmas who came to put an end to all such wickedness.... How about a little more of this Jesus at Christmas time? The One who wrecks the plans of every deceiver, oppressor, liar, and vengeful person? The One before whose coming all who incline to such practices should be called to repentance and faith?
Bad news for those who cling to human relationships. Jesus Himself said it: “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-law” (Lk. 12:49-53). It’s curious the way we look to Christmas to heal old wounds in the family. Just this once, for this brief space, we try to set aside our differences and cling to the ties of blood that we like to think make us one. Many Christians go along with this desperate ploy by downplaying their faith at Christmas time. They don’t want to offend unsaved family members or tear open old wounds inflicted through past attempts to win a lost relative to the faith. And preachers don’t want to offend any of those twice-a-year visitors who have come along with friends and family to hear the Good News of peace on earth and good will toward men. So they don’t dare present the Christ-Child as the one who came to divide humanity along the lines of faith, those who are uncompromisingly committed to following the Bethlehem Babe against those who are determined to be the masters of their own fates. We want people to believe that, somehow, we can all just learn to get along in this world. We can be tolerant of one another, even if our toleration means confirming people in their lostness. And we use Christmas,of all times of the year, to promote this deception.
Should we not rather say to people what Jesus did: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:26)? How about more Christmas preaching that emphasizes the exclusive claims and whole-life demands of the One who came for our salvation?
Bad news for those who hope in wealth. Finally, Christmas is bad news for all those who look to wealth for their greatest joy and purpose in life. The rich young ruler, you will recall, went away sad from Jesus at the thought that he would have to give up his wealth in order to be His disciple (Lk. 18:23).But Jesus didn’t back down. He told His disciples it would be very difficult, well-nigh impossible, in fact, for those who cling to wealth to enter the Kingdom of God. If we are determined to find our happiness, satisfaction, and purpose in life in the accumulation of things, then we must resolve to leave off following Christ, for we cannot serve two masters. We may try to deceive ourselves into thinking we can, into thinking that we can invest the greatest amount of our time, energy, creativity, and interest in making a good living, with just a pittance left over for the work of the Kingdom; but this is the devil’s lie, and we are his followers, not Christ’s, if we cling to it.
And we are the devil’s spokesmen, not the Lord’s, if we allow the people of our churches in any way to think this is true. How about a little more preaching at Christmas time that calls us to abandon the ways of the world, to take up a sacrificial and simple lifestyle, and to follow the Babe of Bethlehem wherever He leads, at whatever cost?
Telling the Truth about Jesus
We will only recover the true meaning of Christmas when preachers begin proclaiming the whole message of Christ from their pulpits. We can expect the world to continue in its vain deceptions about peace on earth and good will to all. But let the line stop at the pulpits of the land. The Good News of Christmas is for those who trust in Christ and follow Him as fishers of men. For all the rest – all the liars, deceivers, oppressors, clingers, smoothers-over-of-differences, greedy, covetous, and selfish – the message of Christmas is one of shame, wrath, and judgment. Try that out for your Christmas Eve sermon.
But don’t forget the message of hope goes out to all such people, for the coming of Christ is the coming of life and forgiveness, even for wretches such as we. Remember, I’m only calling for more balance in Christmas preaching. The whole truth about Jesus must include His condemnation of sin; but it must not fail to announce the hope of everlasting life. We will be faithful to His purpose in coming if we make both the hope of Christmas and the warning of Christmas central to our preaching of Jesus.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
__________________________________________________________
Published on the BreakPoint.org website October 11, 2006, and was once featured on the Worldview Church series in 2004
Friday, December 16, 2011
#163 – So What About A Tebow-Stewart Presidential Ticket? . . .
. . . And 3 Other Articles Worth Thoughtful Reading
Note: 1) If you need to reach me by phone, my TEMPORARY number is 407-439-4884; 2)Please be sure to check here on Sunday for the Sunday Special; 3) Also on Sunday, please tune into this week's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms." If you never have, you are missing a great 1/2 hour of Christian programming; and 4) Please check out the editorial cartoons at: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The following is by Tony Lee, Nov. 21, 2011 HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com
Much of the dissatisfaction with the GOP presidential field stems from the fact that none of the candidates strike the electorate as being authentic or genuine. If GOP candidates wanted to learn from people who can resonate with audiences, they just have to look at two athletes who have been in the news this week: NASCAR champion Tony Stewart and Denver Broncos football player Tim Tebow.
Last night[Nov.20],in one of the greatest performances in the history of racing and sports, Tony Stewart, who had to win the NASCAR race in Miami to win the championship for the season, battled adversity after adversity and ended up making 118 passes on the track to win the race and the championship as an owner-driver. Stewart has such a devoted following because he passes the "realness" test. He wears his emotions on his sleeve. He's not fake. He'll tell you what he thinks. If he's frustrated, it'll show. If he's excited, it'll show in spades. He's not politically correct. And he'll just say what's on his mind. His racing style mirrors his personality. On numerous restarts last night, Stewart raced, often going four-wide, like he had nothing to lose and left everything out on the track.
And consider the much maligned Tim Tebow. Yes, Tebow is polarizing. He's probably the most polarizing figure in sports right now (I still have a difficult time figuring out why people hate him so intensely, though). Undoubtedly, Tebow is hated primarily in part because he isn't afraid to wear his faith on his sleeve. On the field, though he may not be the prototypical pocket passer, he competes and just wins, even if the wins are ugly. He does this in part because his teammates, like Tony Stewart's crew, have always wanted to play for him and fight for him. Even those playing on defense have admitted as much.
In an age of artifice and followers, voters are looking to elect people who can inspire others to want to go to battle with them (like Tebow's and Stewart's teammates do for them) and be leaders who are not afraid to take stands and be comfortable in their own skin. People who lead do not try to say the least offensive thing that will displease the least number of sponsors or voters. Leaders, in addition to having guts and moxie, are unafraid to be themselves and take stands even if they may not be convenient or popular at the time.
Politicians are hated. People increasingly want to throw politicians out from both sides of the aisle. Part of this stems from the fact that our politicians seem more distant from voters with each election cycle even as technology allows them to be more interconnected. If politicians watched Stewart or Tebow, they could learn lessons about what authenticity is. And I'm sure when many look in the mirror, they probably won't see it.
This is why if Tony Stewart or Tim Tebow (if they were old enough to be eligible) were in the GOP presidential field this cycle, they'd surely be the clear anti-Romney candidates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Would Obama Veto Job Creation? - By Mike Brownfield; The Heritage Foundation, December 13, 2011 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/13/morning-bell-why-would-obama-veto-job-creation/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An excerpt: "Today, the U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a bill that would, among other things, open the door for the creation of thousands of new jobs, prevent a tax hike on American workers, and help reduce the crippling deficit. However, President Barack Obama has promised that he would bring the legislation to a halt with a veto—all because of his opposition to the single measure in the bill that would create jobs..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop Obama’s Big Union Onslaught By Mike Brownfield/The Heritage Foundation; November 30, 2011 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/30/morning-bell-stop-obamas-big-union-onslaught/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An excerpt: "The President’s appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) want businesses to be unionized at all costs, even if it means harming both workers and the economy. They’re trying to make it happen by ramming through measures that would help expand unionization in America..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
"How the EPA May Cost You Thousands" - By Mike Brownfield; The Heritage Foundation; November 29, 2011 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/29/morning-bell-how-the-epa-may-cost-you-thousands/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An excerpt: "Brace yourself. The cost of a new car in America is set to explode, skyrocketing by thousands of dollars, all thanks to a new regulation proposed by President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety administration. .…The EPA should not be in the business of picking and choosing what kind of cars and trucks Americans can drive, and neither should President Obama. But if Congress does not take action, that could certainly be the result…. The President’s direction on energy policy is aimed at appeasing a very specific base, but it’s coming at a tremendously high cost. While Americans struggle to make ends meet, pay their bills, and find work, President Obama is turning his back on new jobs and safe, affordable energy sources."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Note: 1) If you need to reach me by phone, my TEMPORARY number is 407-439-4884; 2)Please be sure to check here on Sunday for the Sunday Special; 3) Also on Sunday, please tune into this week's broadcast of "Truth That Transforms." If you never have, you are missing a great 1/2 hour of Christian programming; and 4) Please check out the editorial cartoons at: http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The following is by Tony Lee, Nov. 21, 2011 HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com
Much of the dissatisfaction with the GOP presidential field stems from the fact that none of the candidates strike the electorate as being authentic or genuine. If GOP candidates wanted to learn from people who can resonate with audiences, they just have to look at two athletes who have been in the news this week: NASCAR champion Tony Stewart and Denver Broncos football player Tim Tebow.
Last night[Nov.20],in one of the greatest performances in the history of racing and sports, Tony Stewart, who had to win the NASCAR race in Miami to win the championship for the season, battled adversity after adversity and ended up making 118 passes on the track to win the race and the championship as an owner-driver. Stewart has such a devoted following because he passes the "realness" test. He wears his emotions on his sleeve. He's not fake. He'll tell you what he thinks. If he's frustrated, it'll show. If he's excited, it'll show in spades. He's not politically correct. And he'll just say what's on his mind. His racing style mirrors his personality. On numerous restarts last night, Stewart raced, often going four-wide, like he had nothing to lose and left everything out on the track.
And consider the much maligned Tim Tebow. Yes, Tebow is polarizing. He's probably the most polarizing figure in sports right now (I still have a difficult time figuring out why people hate him so intensely, though). Undoubtedly, Tebow is hated primarily in part because he isn't afraid to wear his faith on his sleeve. On the field, though he may not be the prototypical pocket passer, he competes and just wins, even if the wins are ugly. He does this in part because his teammates, like Tony Stewart's crew, have always wanted to play for him and fight for him. Even those playing on defense have admitted as much.
In an age of artifice and followers, voters are looking to elect people who can inspire others to want to go to battle with them (like Tebow's and Stewart's teammates do for them) and be leaders who are not afraid to take stands and be comfortable in their own skin. People who lead do not try to say the least offensive thing that will displease the least number of sponsors or voters. Leaders, in addition to having guts and moxie, are unafraid to be themselves and take stands even if they may not be convenient or popular at the time.
Politicians are hated. People increasingly want to throw politicians out from both sides of the aisle. Part of this stems from the fact that our politicians seem more distant from voters with each election cycle even as technology allows them to be more interconnected. If politicians watched Stewart or Tebow, they could learn lessons about what authenticity is. And I'm sure when many look in the mirror, they probably won't see it.
This is why if Tony Stewart or Tim Tebow (if they were old enough to be eligible) were in the GOP presidential field this cycle, they'd surely be the clear anti-Romney candidates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Would Obama Veto Job Creation? - By Mike Brownfield; The Heritage Foundation, December 13, 2011 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/13/morning-bell-why-would-obama-veto-job-creation/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An excerpt: "Today, the U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on a bill that would, among other things, open the door for the creation of thousands of new jobs, prevent a tax hike on American workers, and help reduce the crippling deficit. However, President Barack Obama has promised that he would bring the legislation to a halt with a veto—all because of his opposition to the single measure in the bill that would create jobs..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop Obama’s Big Union Onslaught By Mike Brownfield/The Heritage Foundation; November 30, 2011 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/30/morning-bell-stop-obamas-big-union-onslaught/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An excerpt: "The President’s appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) want businesses to be unionized at all costs, even if it means harming both workers and the economy. They’re trying to make it happen by ramming through measures that would help expand unionization in America..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
"How the EPA May Cost You Thousands" - By Mike Brownfield; The Heritage Foundation; November 29, 2011 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/29/morning-bell-how-the-epa-may-cost-you-thousands/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An excerpt: "Brace yourself. The cost of a new car in America is set to explode, skyrocketing by thousands of dollars, all thanks to a new regulation proposed by President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety administration. .…The EPA should not be in the business of picking and choosing what kind of cars and trucks Americans can drive, and neither should President Obama. But if Congress does not take action, that could certainly be the result…. The President’s direction on energy policy is aimed at appeasing a very specific base, but it’s coming at a tremendously high cost. While Americans struggle to make ends meet, pay their bills, and find work, President Obama is turning his back on new jobs and safe, affordable energy sources."
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
#162 (12/14) - " 'Pretty Please' Geopolitics ..."
[Note: Because of computer problems in the interim, postings #157-161 were not posted till yesterday. Please scroll down and note that the full articles are now posted. I thank my friend Dan Lum for his hard work (again) in fixing my computer.]
"...Everything looks like a debate when words are all you have"by John Hayward 12/13/2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48113
Every politician is naturally inclined to think speeches can have a profound impact on the course of events. The American political and media class has a profound tendency to think talking about a problem equates to doing something about it. If such talk is followed by a government spending proposal, the matter is pretty much settled.
For President Barack Obama, this tendency is even more pronounced. He’s frequently hailed by admirers as one of the greatest orators to hold the Oval Office, and is said to have emitted quite a few “historic” speeches during his short years on the national stage: his post-Jeremiah Wright “racial healing” speech, the speech he gave in Cairo before the beginning of the “Arab Spring,” the joint session of Congress in which he launched his non-existent “American Jobs Act,” and even the bizarre celebration of hard socialism he delivered in Osawatomie, Kansas last week, just to name a few examples. If you watch Obama when he’s in full “voice of history” mode, you can see him pause frequently with his head raised, as if posing for the sculptors who will soon add him to Mount Rushmore.
Thus, the Great Orator found himself today commemorating the official end of the Iraq War, and issuing all sorts of completely meaningless rhetorical “warnings” to a sinister party who shall remain nameless, but whose name is also the title of the chart-topping single from 80s one-hit wonder A Flock Of Seagulls.
As reported by MSNBC: "President Barack Obama heralded the end of the divisive Iraq war Monday, and warned Iraq's neighbors that the United States would remain a major player in the region even as it brings its troops home. "Our strong presence in the Middle East endures," Obama said. "And the United States will never waiver in the defense of our allies, our partners and our interests." Speaking after a morning of meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Obama said other nations must not interfere with Iraq's sovereignty. While he stopped short of mentioning any countries by name, U.S. officials are closely watching how neighboring Iran may seek to influence Baghdad after U.S. troops withdraw."
Obama foreign policy, in all areas, is heavily predicated on refraining from actions that would upset Iran, although he serves up a bit of tough rhetoric every now and then. Notice the very different treatment given to Libya and Syria, where Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar Assad were engaged in roughly comparable crackdowns against regime opponents, on somewhat different timetables. Assad is just about ready to cut loose with the large-scale atrocities, after months of steady dissident mulching. The Syrian opposition is bracing itself for a“massacre” in the city of Homs, as reported by CNN:
Opposition figures said the Syrian government had warned people in Homs to stop anti-government protests, hand in weapons and surrender defecting military members by Monday night -- or face attack by the government forces. Syrian forces gave a 72-hour warning, said Lt. Col. Mohamed Hamdo of the Free Syrian Army, an opposition group of defected Syrian military personnel. Activists on the ground said the ultimatum was issued Friday for Homs, a center of the popular uprising. Hamdo said Syrians are worried about a repeat of what happened in 1982 when Syria's military -- acting under orders from then-President Hafez al-Assad, father of current Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad -- launched an assault on Hama, killing thousands. "We fear that a similar massacre or worse could take place in Homs," he said."People are very afraid," said Wissam Tarif, a human rights activist in Beirut, Lebanon, with the organization Avaaz, who is in touch with people in Syria. There are enough troops around Homs "to take over the city," he said, and casualties have been increasing "in very big numbers" over the past couple of days. "People are afraid that the army might now invade the city."
Syria is an Iranian client state, so Assad faces a very different future than Qaddafi. Furthermore, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki is firmly in Iran’s corner on the Syrian crisis, refusing to call for Assad to step down, and refusing to vote on booting Syria out of the Arab League. President Obama dismissed this as “tactical differences on how to deal with Syria.”
Al-Maliki’s promises to keep foreign powers from “meddling” in Iraq ring hollow when Iran has been doing so all along, at no small cost in the lives of American troops. Iran has every reason in the world to “meddle” even more, considering the sectarian divisions in Iraq - where al-Maliki and his ruling coalition are Shiite, like the Iranian government. The rewards of bringing their huge neighbor into their orbit would be great for Tehran. Iran and Iraq fought a long and bitter war in the 80s over territorial issues, as well as Saddam’s frequently expressed anger over Iranian “meddling.” Iran probably still wants all the things it wanted then.
Obama also asked Iran to return the captured U.S. stealth drone it’s been parading on local television, a request even his own Secretary of State admitted was likely to fall on deaf ears, as related by the BBC:
Mr Obama said he would not comment on classified intelligence matters, but confirmed: "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond." Iranian TV broadcast pictures of the intact RQ-170 Sentinel last week. Tehran said the aircraft was brought down using electronic warfare; Washington insisted it malfunctioned. Earlier on Monday, Iranian state TV reported that military experts were in the final stages of recovering data from the drone. A member of the Iranian parliament's national security committee, Parviz Sorouri, said the information they extracted would be used to "file a lawsuit against the United States over the invasion" by the aircraft.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that she did not think it likely that the drone would be returned."We are very clearly making known our concerns. We submitted a formal request for the return of our lost equipment, as we would in any situation. Given Iran's behaviour to date, we do not expect them to reply," she said. She said that despite numerous "provocations" from Iran, the US would continue to pursue a "diplomatic approach".
Words don’t change geo-political reality, and Obama has never given a convincing impression he understands those realities. Asked how he reconciles taking a bow today for what he portrays as the successful conclusion of an operation he used to oppose, Obama made a fairly bold attempt to claim credit for just the good stuff. From a Fox News report:
From the beginning of the Iraq war, and while a U.S. senator, Obama has opposed the U.S. military operation, going so far as to call it a "dumb war." Asked Monday whether he still felt that way, Obama responded, "I think history will judge the original decision to go into Iraq. "But what's absolutely clear is, as a consequence of the enormous sacrifices that have been made by American soldiers and civilians -- American troops and civilians, as well as the courage of the Iraqi people, that what we have now achieved is an Iraq that is self-governing, that is inclusive and that has enormous potential," he said.
So which is it? Was it a “dumb war” we never should have fought, or was it an “achievement” with “enormous potential?” Does George W. Bush deserve any of the credit for that achievement? Wouldn’t it help America come to terms with its feelings about that “divisive” war if Obama reached out to his predecessor, and encouraged the rabid anti-war and anti-Bush wings of the Democrat Party to appreciate that some of our “achievements” in Iraq were precisely Bush’s objectives all along?
Fat chance. This is all about partisan politics and speeches, not global achievements and actions. It’s really not that much different from Obama’s handling of the economy, which has consisted almost entirely of arranging photo ops at politically favored “success story” companies, at fantastic taxpayer expense. The Iraq War is ending, and while Obama has virtually no idea why it was fought – or what our long-term adversary Iran is willing to do, in order to achieve its objectives – he knows that he needs to go wherever history is happening, and get some pictures of himself making it.
Likewise, if he can make a couple of high-profile speeches warning Iran not to meddle in Iraq, and we manage to squeak past November 2012 without any high-profile meddling splashed across the front pages, the President can boast of how his incredible oratory skills and global presence have once again secured a victory for “smart power.” If Iran ever does return our stealth drone, no matter how many of its electronic guts have been torn out and shipped to Beijing, he’ll take credit for “persuading” them to give it back.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.
"...Everything looks like a debate when words are all you have"by John Hayward 12/13/2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48113
Every politician is naturally inclined to think speeches can have a profound impact on the course of events. The American political and media class has a profound tendency to think talking about a problem equates to doing something about it. If such talk is followed by a government spending proposal, the matter is pretty much settled.
For President Barack Obama, this tendency is even more pronounced. He’s frequently hailed by admirers as one of the greatest orators to hold the Oval Office, and is said to have emitted quite a few “historic” speeches during his short years on the national stage: his post-Jeremiah Wright “racial healing” speech, the speech he gave in Cairo before the beginning of the “Arab Spring,” the joint session of Congress in which he launched his non-existent “American Jobs Act,” and even the bizarre celebration of hard socialism he delivered in Osawatomie, Kansas last week, just to name a few examples. If you watch Obama when he’s in full “voice of history” mode, you can see him pause frequently with his head raised, as if posing for the sculptors who will soon add him to Mount Rushmore.
Thus, the Great Orator found himself today commemorating the official end of the Iraq War, and issuing all sorts of completely meaningless rhetorical “warnings” to a sinister party who shall remain nameless, but whose name is also the title of the chart-topping single from 80s one-hit wonder A Flock Of Seagulls.
As reported by MSNBC: "President Barack Obama heralded the end of the divisive Iraq war Monday, and warned Iraq's neighbors that the United States would remain a major player in the region even as it brings its troops home. "Our strong presence in the Middle East endures," Obama said. "And the United States will never waiver in the defense of our allies, our partners and our interests." Speaking after a morning of meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Obama said other nations must not interfere with Iraq's sovereignty. While he stopped short of mentioning any countries by name, U.S. officials are closely watching how neighboring Iran may seek to influence Baghdad after U.S. troops withdraw."
Obama foreign policy, in all areas, is heavily predicated on refraining from actions that would upset Iran, although he serves up a bit of tough rhetoric every now and then. Notice the very different treatment given to Libya and Syria, where Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar Assad were engaged in roughly comparable crackdowns against regime opponents, on somewhat different timetables. Assad is just about ready to cut loose with the large-scale atrocities, after months of steady dissident mulching. The Syrian opposition is bracing itself for a“massacre” in the city of Homs, as reported by CNN:
Opposition figures said the Syrian government had warned people in Homs to stop anti-government protests, hand in weapons and surrender defecting military members by Monday night -- or face attack by the government forces. Syrian forces gave a 72-hour warning, said Lt. Col. Mohamed Hamdo of the Free Syrian Army, an opposition group of defected Syrian military personnel. Activists on the ground said the ultimatum was issued Friday for Homs, a center of the popular uprising. Hamdo said Syrians are worried about a repeat of what happened in 1982 when Syria's military -- acting under orders from then-President Hafez al-Assad, father of current Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad -- launched an assault on Hama, killing thousands. "We fear that a similar massacre or worse could take place in Homs," he said."People are very afraid," said Wissam Tarif, a human rights activist in Beirut, Lebanon, with the organization Avaaz, who is in touch with people in Syria. There are enough troops around Homs "to take over the city," he said, and casualties have been increasing "in very big numbers" over the past couple of days. "People are afraid that the army might now invade the city."
Syria is an Iranian client state, so Assad faces a very different future than Qaddafi. Furthermore, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki is firmly in Iran’s corner on the Syrian crisis, refusing to call for Assad to step down, and refusing to vote on booting Syria out of the Arab League. President Obama dismissed this as “tactical differences on how to deal with Syria.”
Al-Maliki’s promises to keep foreign powers from “meddling” in Iraq ring hollow when Iran has been doing so all along, at no small cost in the lives of American troops. Iran has every reason in the world to “meddle” even more, considering the sectarian divisions in Iraq - where al-Maliki and his ruling coalition are Shiite, like the Iranian government. The rewards of bringing their huge neighbor into their orbit would be great for Tehran. Iran and Iraq fought a long and bitter war in the 80s over territorial issues, as well as Saddam’s frequently expressed anger over Iranian “meddling.” Iran probably still wants all the things it wanted then.
Obama also asked Iran to return the captured U.S. stealth drone it’s been parading on local television, a request even his own Secretary of State admitted was likely to fall on deaf ears, as related by the BBC:
Mr Obama said he would not comment on classified intelligence matters, but confirmed: "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond." Iranian TV broadcast pictures of the intact RQ-170 Sentinel last week. Tehran said the aircraft was brought down using electronic warfare; Washington insisted it malfunctioned. Earlier on Monday, Iranian state TV reported that military experts were in the final stages of recovering data from the drone. A member of the Iranian parliament's national security committee, Parviz Sorouri, said the information they extracted would be used to "file a lawsuit against the United States over the invasion" by the aircraft.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that she did not think it likely that the drone would be returned."We are very clearly making known our concerns. We submitted a formal request for the return of our lost equipment, as we would in any situation. Given Iran's behaviour to date, we do not expect them to reply," she said. She said that despite numerous "provocations" from Iran, the US would continue to pursue a "diplomatic approach".
Words don’t change geo-political reality, and Obama has never given a convincing impression he understands those realities. Asked how he reconciles taking a bow today for what he portrays as the successful conclusion of an operation he used to oppose, Obama made a fairly bold attempt to claim credit for just the good stuff. From a Fox News report:
From the beginning of the Iraq war, and while a U.S. senator, Obama has opposed the U.S. military operation, going so far as to call it a "dumb war." Asked Monday whether he still felt that way, Obama responded, "I think history will judge the original decision to go into Iraq. "But what's absolutely clear is, as a consequence of the enormous sacrifices that have been made by American soldiers and civilians -- American troops and civilians, as well as the courage of the Iraqi people, that what we have now achieved is an Iraq that is self-governing, that is inclusive and that has enormous potential," he said.
So which is it? Was it a “dumb war” we never should have fought, or was it an “achievement” with “enormous potential?” Does George W. Bush deserve any of the credit for that achievement? Wouldn’t it help America come to terms with its feelings about that “divisive” war if Obama reached out to his predecessor, and encouraged the rabid anti-war and anti-Bush wings of the Democrat Party to appreciate that some of our “achievements” in Iraq were precisely Bush’s objectives all along?
Fat chance. This is all about partisan politics and speeches, not global achievements and actions. It’s really not that much different from Obama’s handling of the economy, which has consisted almost entirely of arranging photo ops at politically favored “success story” companies, at fantastic taxpayer expense. The Iraq War is ending, and while Obama has virtually no idea why it was fought – or what our long-term adversary Iran is willing to do, in order to achieve its objectives – he knows that he needs to go wherever history is happening, and get some pictures of himself making it.
Likewise, if he can make a couple of high-profile speeches warning Iran not to meddle in Iraq, and we manage to squeak past November 2012 without any high-profile meddling splashed across the front pages, the President can boast of how his incredible oratory skills and global presence have once again secured a victory for “smart power.” If Iran ever does return our stealth drone, no matter how many of its electronic guts have been torn out and shipped to Beijing, he’ll take credit for “persuading” them to give it back.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.
#165 (12/19) - "Iran Conducting Anti-U.S. Operations in Latin America"!!
Posted By Mike Brownfield On December 12, 2011
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/12/morning-bell-iran-conducting-anti-u-s-operations-in-latin-america/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An attack [1] on the British embassy in Tehran. A desperate pursuit of nuclear weapons [2]. A plot to assassinate [3] the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Alone, any one of these actions by Iran’s regime would be cause for alarm, but taken together they make it undeniably clear that the Iranian threat cannot be ignored. Now, there is news of another effort by Iran to take aim at the United States, this time coming from Latin America.
Heritage’s Israel Ortega and James Phillips explain [4]:
"Iran is conducting anti-U.S. operations from Latin America, including military training camps in Venezuela, and expanding its reach across the border from the U.S. in Mexico, according to footage unveiled late Thursday by the largest Spanish-language network in the United States, Univision. The documentary showed a former Iran senior official accepting a plan to launch from Mexico a cyber war on the United States, one that would cripple U.S. computer systems, including the White House, the FBI, the CIA and several nuclear plants. The official, former Iranian Ambassador to Mexico Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri, was shown accepting the offer from undercover Mexican university students. A trailer to the documentary can be seen on Foundry.org [4]."
Other revelations in the documentary include undercover Mexican students presenting plans for the cyber attack to Venezuelan officials in Mexico. Ortega and Phillips write that the Venezuelan official appeared very receptive to the plot, saying that she was close to Venezuela’s hard-leftist President Hugo Chavez and that she would love to share the information with him as soon as possible. The same happened with Cuban officials in Mexico, who were equally interested in a plot against the United States.
The documentary, called “The Iranian Threat,” claims that undercover journalists were also able to infiltrate Iranian military training camps working from mosques in Venezuela, though it showed no actual footage of the camps. Univision alleged there were links between the alleged camps and a radical Muslim implicated in the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing of a synagogue that killed 85 and wounded hundreds. The Iranian lives in Argentina, a country that also has strong ties to Chavez.
Ortega and Phillips write that the “ties between the hard line Islamist government in Tehran and the anti-American government of President Hugo Chavez have been growing for years, including a weekly secretive Cairo-Tehran flight that is of grave concerns to U.S. officials.” They also point out other disturbing findings in the report:
"Undercover journalists also confirmed Iranian-backed money-laundry and drug-trafficking cartels that are used to back Islamist networks and training camps in Venezuela and elsewhere, which exist to attack U.S. interests and undermine the U.S. in Latin America. Univision said in press release that it had “dozens of hours of secret recordings, conducted extensive interviews with people who participated in the meetings, including a former Iranian ambassador, and examined documents ranging from hand-written notes to internal federal reports and obtained unpublished video of a failed bomb attack against New York’s JFK airport. In Mexico, Univision, uncovered covert recordings of the alleged Iranian plan to cripple the computer systems of the White House, the FBI, the CIA and several nuclear power plants."
Unfortunately,the Obama Administration has failed to confront threats like those that Iran poses to the United States. In August, The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force wrote [5],“The President’s strategy pays insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism, which will increasingly be a major force to be reckoned with. Iran is one of the most prominent and aggressive state sponsors of terror and its proteges–both Hamas and Hezbollah–represent potentially grave threats. In addition, transnational criminal cartels in Mexico are increasingly taking on the character of terrorist networks.”
With this latest report from Univision, we are reminded that those threats need to be identified and investigated, even in our own hemisphere. And the Obama Administration can no longer stand on the sidelines as civil liberties and democratic institutions deteriorate in Latin America, allowing for Iran and other rabid anti-American to enter, grow, and threaten the United States.
[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/2011/12/12/morning-bell-iran-conducting-anti-u-s-operations-in-latin-america/ URLs in this post:
[1] attack: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/29/iran-orchestrates-attacks-on-british-embassy-compounds-in-tehran/
[2] pursuit of nuclear weapons: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/06/iran%E2%80%99s-nuclear-efforts-are-accelerating/
[3] plot to assassinate: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/13/irans-foiled-assassination-plot-raises-important-questions/
[4] explain: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/univision-confirms-iranian-threat-in-latin-america/
[5] wrote: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/a-counterterrorism-strategy-for-the-next-wave
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/12/morning-bell-iran-conducting-anti-u-s-operations-in-latin-america/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
An attack [1] on the British embassy in Tehran. A desperate pursuit of nuclear weapons [2]. A plot to assassinate [3] the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Alone, any one of these actions by Iran’s regime would be cause for alarm, but taken together they make it undeniably clear that the Iranian threat cannot be ignored. Now, there is news of another effort by Iran to take aim at the United States, this time coming from Latin America.
Heritage’s Israel Ortega and James Phillips explain [4]:
"Iran is conducting anti-U.S. operations from Latin America, including military training camps in Venezuela, and expanding its reach across the border from the U.S. in Mexico, according to footage unveiled late Thursday by the largest Spanish-language network in the United States, Univision. The documentary showed a former Iran senior official accepting a plan to launch from Mexico a cyber war on the United States, one that would cripple U.S. computer systems, including the White House, the FBI, the CIA and several nuclear plants. The official, former Iranian Ambassador to Mexico Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri, was shown accepting the offer from undercover Mexican university students. A trailer to the documentary can be seen on Foundry.org [4]."
Other revelations in the documentary include undercover Mexican students presenting plans for the cyber attack to Venezuelan officials in Mexico. Ortega and Phillips write that the Venezuelan official appeared very receptive to the plot, saying that she was close to Venezuela’s hard-leftist President Hugo Chavez and that she would love to share the information with him as soon as possible. The same happened with Cuban officials in Mexico, who were equally interested in a plot against the United States.
The documentary, called “The Iranian Threat,” claims that undercover journalists were also able to infiltrate Iranian military training camps working from mosques in Venezuela, though it showed no actual footage of the camps. Univision alleged there were links between the alleged camps and a radical Muslim implicated in the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing of a synagogue that killed 85 and wounded hundreds. The Iranian lives in Argentina, a country that also has strong ties to Chavez.
Ortega and Phillips write that the “ties between the hard line Islamist government in Tehran and the anti-American government of President Hugo Chavez have been growing for years, including a weekly secretive Cairo-Tehran flight that is of grave concerns to U.S. officials.” They also point out other disturbing findings in the report:
"Undercover journalists also confirmed Iranian-backed money-laundry and drug-trafficking cartels that are used to back Islamist networks and training camps in Venezuela and elsewhere, which exist to attack U.S. interests and undermine the U.S. in Latin America. Univision said in press release that it had “dozens of hours of secret recordings, conducted extensive interviews with people who participated in the meetings, including a former Iranian ambassador, and examined documents ranging from hand-written notes to internal federal reports and obtained unpublished video of a failed bomb attack against New York’s JFK airport. In Mexico, Univision, uncovered covert recordings of the alleged Iranian plan to cripple the computer systems of the White House, the FBI, the CIA and several nuclear power plants."
Unfortunately,the Obama Administration has failed to confront threats like those that Iran poses to the United States. In August, The Heritage Foundation Counterterrorism Task Force wrote [5],“The President’s strategy pays insufficient attention to state-sponsored terrorism, which will increasingly be a major force to be reckoned with. Iran is one of the most prominent and aggressive state sponsors of terror and its proteges–both Hamas and Hezbollah–represent potentially grave threats. In addition, transnational criminal cartels in Mexico are increasingly taking on the character of terrorist networks.”
With this latest report from Univision, we are reminded that those threats need to be identified and investigated, even in our own hemisphere. And the Obama Administration can no longer stand on the sidelines as civil liberties and democratic institutions deteriorate in Latin America, allowing for Iran and other rabid anti-American to enter, grow, and threaten the United States.
[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/2011/12/12/morning-bell-iran-conducting-anti-u-s-operations-in-latin-america/ URLs in this post:
[1] attack: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/29/iran-orchestrates-attacks-on-british-embassy-compounds-in-tehran/
[2] pursuit of nuclear weapons: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/06/iran%E2%80%99s-nuclear-efforts-are-accelerating/
[3] plot to assassinate: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/13/irans-foiled-assassination-plot-raises-important-questions/
[4] explain: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/univision-confirms-iranian-threat-in-latin-america/
[5] wrote: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/a-counterterrorism-strategy-for-the-next-wave
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
#161 (12/12) - "The Last Incarnation of Barack Obama"
Posted By Mike Brownfield, The Heritage Foundation; On December 7, 2011 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/07/morning-bell-the-last-incarnation-of-barack-obama/print/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
[1] If there was any doubt where President Barack Obama’s ideological heart lies, yesterday he let it be known loud and clear in a wide-ranging speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. President Obama is at his core a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who sees the federal government as the answer to all of America’s problems. And he is charging full steam ahead on this far-left course toward Election Day 2012, despite the total failure of his big-government policies and an American people who have flatly rejected the message he is trying to sell.
True to form, President Obama yesterday did what he does best: He delivered a flowery speech and flexed his rhetorical muscles. It’s a talent that won him the presidency, but unfortunately it hasn’t won the future for the American people. And that’s because the President’s underlying philosophy is terribly flawed. After three years of a massive expansion of government, the enactment of Obamacare, hundreds of billions of dollars in failed stimulus spending, government ownership of General Motors, a Big Labor/pro-unionization onslaught, threats of even higher taxation, the promulgation of more unnecessary regulations, and a total failure to confront the entitlement challenge, the verdict is in on President Obama’s record and the soundness of his statist, progressive philosophy. Deficits are soaring, the economy is stagnant, 13.3 million Americans are out of work, and job growth is flat. Not surprisingly, the President’s speech did not touch on those facts.
Instead of confronting the reality of America under his watch, President Obama hearkened back to the days of Bull Moose progressive Theodore Roosevelt, citing him as his model of good governance, quoting his 1910 “New Nationalism” speech [2] and calling for “fairness” in America–along with more infrastructure spending, more federal education programs, more regulations, and higher taxation on job creators to redistribute wealth and pay for his big government programs. And in order to raise the temperature of his rhetoric–and inflame the passions of his audience–the President fell back to his class warfare ways, demonizing the haves in order to win over the have-nots while painting a picture of an America where “unfairness” reigns and opportunity cannot be found.
Matthew Spalding, vice president of The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, explains why President Obama’s reliance on class warfare and his perverted view of “fairness” is so contrary to what America is really about:
There are no class distinctions in America. That’s why Steve Jobs could start an adopted child in a broken home, start Apple in a garage and become a billionaire eight times over. The real distinction here is caused by the rise of a new governing class of experts, bureaucrats and political elites who insist on ruling us to enforce “fairness” rather than letting us govern ourselves under the rule of law. Indeed,the new fairness inevitably leads to bureaucratic favoritism, inequalities based on special interests and undue political influence. The real class warfare, as Paul Ryan argued in his recent speech [3] at The Heritage Foundation, is caused by “a class of governing elites, exploiting the politics of division to pick winners and losers in our economy and determine our destinies for us.”
Ironically, the President’s conception of America–that it is a land of no opportunity–stands in stark contrast to his own personal story, which he even trumpeted in his speech. Barack Obama came from meager beginnings and now sits in the Oval Office. There are countless stories of other Americans who have risen and found success on their own merit in this fertile land. But speaking to America’s rugged individualism and the notion of achieving success without the helping hand of the government would not serve President Obama’s progressive agenda. In his world, the government is the giver of all things, the defender of the middle class, and the architect of prosperity. Likewise, success is not something to be championed but to be demagogued in the name of the expansion of the state.
Over the past three years, we have seen the President articulate many ideas and cloak himself in many different philosophies. Of late, he has even called himself a tax-cutter and posed as a deficit hawk, all while calling for massive amounts of new spending. But with yesterday’s speech, he has emerged in his truest incarnation–a hard-line progressive to the core. The speech fits perfectly with reports that the Obama 2012 campaign has come to the realization that it will lose white blue-collar voters by large margins and is concentrating instead on cobbling together a coalition of culture elites and racial minorities. The abandonment of the middle class–or, rather, the fact that the middle class has abandoned him–puts in context this latest incarnation of the President as he prepares to run next year.
This is not the way to lead America to prosperity, to stand the economy on its feet, or to put the millions of unemployed Americans back to work. Rather than make government bigger and more intrusive, now is the time to make it smaller and more responsible so that entrepreneurs can achieve what Washington cannot manufacture: new jobs, new ideas, and a better America for future generations. But that America is quite different from the one President Obama envisions.
[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/2011/12/07/morning-bell-the-last-incarnation-of-barack-obama/ URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-12-6-11-Osawatomie-speech.jpg
[2] 1910 “New Nationalism” speech: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/teddy-roosevelts-new-nationalism
[3] Paul Ryan argued in his recent speech: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/11/saving-the-american-idea-rejecting-fear-envy-and-the-politics-of-division
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved
[1] If there was any doubt where President Barack Obama’s ideological heart lies, yesterday he let it be known loud and clear in a wide-ranging speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. President Obama is at his core a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who sees the federal government as the answer to all of America’s problems. And he is charging full steam ahead on this far-left course toward Election Day 2012, despite the total failure of his big-government policies and an American people who have flatly rejected the message he is trying to sell.
True to form, President Obama yesterday did what he does best: He delivered a flowery speech and flexed his rhetorical muscles. It’s a talent that won him the presidency, but unfortunately it hasn’t won the future for the American people. And that’s because the President’s underlying philosophy is terribly flawed. After three years of a massive expansion of government, the enactment of Obamacare, hundreds of billions of dollars in failed stimulus spending, government ownership of General Motors, a Big Labor/pro-unionization onslaught, threats of even higher taxation, the promulgation of more unnecessary regulations, and a total failure to confront the entitlement challenge, the verdict is in on President Obama’s record and the soundness of his statist, progressive philosophy. Deficits are soaring, the economy is stagnant, 13.3 million Americans are out of work, and job growth is flat. Not surprisingly, the President’s speech did not touch on those facts.
Instead of confronting the reality of America under his watch, President Obama hearkened back to the days of Bull Moose progressive Theodore Roosevelt, citing him as his model of good governance, quoting his 1910 “New Nationalism” speech [2] and calling for “fairness” in America–along with more infrastructure spending, more federal education programs, more regulations, and higher taxation on job creators to redistribute wealth and pay for his big government programs. And in order to raise the temperature of his rhetoric–and inflame the passions of his audience–the President fell back to his class warfare ways, demonizing the haves in order to win over the have-nots while painting a picture of an America where “unfairness” reigns and opportunity cannot be found.
Matthew Spalding, vice president of The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, explains why President Obama’s reliance on class warfare and his perverted view of “fairness” is so contrary to what America is really about:
There are no class distinctions in America. That’s why Steve Jobs could start an adopted child in a broken home, start Apple in a garage and become a billionaire eight times over. The real distinction here is caused by the rise of a new governing class of experts, bureaucrats and political elites who insist on ruling us to enforce “fairness” rather than letting us govern ourselves under the rule of law. Indeed,the new fairness inevitably leads to bureaucratic favoritism, inequalities based on special interests and undue political influence. The real class warfare, as Paul Ryan argued in his recent speech [3] at The Heritage Foundation, is caused by “a class of governing elites, exploiting the politics of division to pick winners and losers in our economy and determine our destinies for us.”
Ironically, the President’s conception of America–that it is a land of no opportunity–stands in stark contrast to his own personal story, which he even trumpeted in his speech. Barack Obama came from meager beginnings and now sits in the Oval Office. There are countless stories of other Americans who have risen and found success on their own merit in this fertile land. But speaking to America’s rugged individualism and the notion of achieving success without the helping hand of the government would not serve President Obama’s progressive agenda. In his world, the government is the giver of all things, the defender of the middle class, and the architect of prosperity. Likewise, success is not something to be championed but to be demagogued in the name of the expansion of the state.
Over the past three years, we have seen the President articulate many ideas and cloak himself in many different philosophies. Of late, he has even called himself a tax-cutter and posed as a deficit hawk, all while calling for massive amounts of new spending. But with yesterday’s speech, he has emerged in his truest incarnation–a hard-line progressive to the core. The speech fits perfectly with reports that the Obama 2012 campaign has come to the realization that it will lose white blue-collar voters by large margins and is concentrating instead on cobbling together a coalition of culture elites and racial minorities. The abandonment of the middle class–or, rather, the fact that the middle class has abandoned him–puts in context this latest incarnation of the President as he prepares to run next year.
This is not the way to lead America to prosperity, to stand the economy on its feet, or to put the millions of unemployed Americans back to work. Rather than make government bigger and more intrusive, now is the time to make it smaller and more responsible so that entrepreneurs can achieve what Washington cannot manufacture: new jobs, new ideas, and a better America for future generations. But that America is quite different from the one President Obama envisions.
[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/2011/12/07/morning-bell-the-last-incarnation-of-barack-obama/ URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-12-6-11-Osawatomie-speech.jpg
[2] 1910 “New Nationalism” speech: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/teddy-roosevelts-new-nationalism
[3] Paul Ryan argued in his recent speech: http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/11/saving-the-american-idea-rejecting-fear-envy-and-the-politics-of-division
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved
#160 (12/11) - Sunday Special "Must We Believe the Virgin Birth? "
Must We Believe the Virgin Birth?
- by Dr. Mohler serves as the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Kentucky)//found at http://www.worldviewchurch.org/columns/featured-column/1022-must-we-believe-the-virgin-birth
In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?
Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?
“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith,” Kristof argues, “because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth … as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith.” Here’s a little hint: Anytime you hear a claim about what “most Biblical scholars” believe, check on just who these illustrious scholars really are. In Kristof’s case, he is only concerned about liberal scholars like Hans Kung, whose credentials as a Catholic theologian were revoked by the Vatican.
The list of what Hans Kung does not believe would fill a book [just look at his books!], and citing him as an authority in this area betrays Kristof’s determination to stack the evidence, or his utter ignorance that many theologians and biblical scholars vehemently disagree with Kung. Kung is the anti-Catholic’s favorite Catholic, and that is the real reason he is so loved by the liberal media.
Kristof also cites “the great Yale historian and theologian” Jaroslav Pelikan as an authority against the Virgin Birth, but this is both unfair and untenable. In Mary Through the Centuries, Pelikan does not reject the Virgin Birth, but does trace the development of the doctrine.
What are we to do with the Virgin Birth? The doctrine was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be elective. The Apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the liberal critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue that the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.
Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the Virgin Birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not really important.
Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.
Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”
Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 1:18] This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’.” [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14]
Luke provides even greater detail, revealing that Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God.” [Luke 1:35]
Even if the Virgin Birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the relative truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.
Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”
Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.
Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the Virgin Birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.
Nicholas Kristof and his secularist friends may find belief in the Virgin Birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the Church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true Church throughout the ages. Kristof’s grandfather, we are told, believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” The fact that he could hold such beliefs and serve as an elder in his church is evidence of that church’s doctrinal and spiritual laxity — or worse. Those who deny the Virgin Birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.
This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.
Reprint according to policy. Published on the AlbertMohler.com blog on December 22, 2010. Originally posted December 8, 2006 with the citation “Reprinted by request.”
- by Dr. Mohler serves as the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Kentucky)//found at http://www.worldviewchurch.org/columns/featured-column/1022-must-we-believe-the-virgin-birth
In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?
Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?
“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith,” Kristof argues, “because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth … as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith.” Here’s a little hint: Anytime you hear a claim about what “most Biblical scholars” believe, check on just who these illustrious scholars really are. In Kristof’s case, he is only concerned about liberal scholars like Hans Kung, whose credentials as a Catholic theologian were revoked by the Vatican.
The list of what Hans Kung does not believe would fill a book [just look at his books!], and citing him as an authority in this area betrays Kristof’s determination to stack the evidence, or his utter ignorance that many theologians and biblical scholars vehemently disagree with Kung. Kung is the anti-Catholic’s favorite Catholic, and that is the real reason he is so loved by the liberal media.
Kristof also cites “the great Yale historian and theologian” Jaroslav Pelikan as an authority against the Virgin Birth, but this is both unfair and untenable. In Mary Through the Centuries, Pelikan does not reject the Virgin Birth, but does trace the development of the doctrine.
What are we to do with the Virgin Birth? The doctrine was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be elective. The Apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the liberal critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue that the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.
Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the Virgin Birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not really important.
Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.
Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”
Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 1:18] This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’.” [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14]
Luke provides even greater detail, revealing that Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God.” [Luke 1:35]
Even if the Virgin Birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the relative truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.
Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”
Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.
Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the Virgin Birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.
Nicholas Kristof and his secularist friends may find belief in the Virgin Birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the Church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true Church throughout the ages. Kristof’s grandfather, we are told, believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” The fact that he could hold such beliefs and serve as an elder in his church is evidence of that church’s doctrinal and spiritual laxity — or worse. Those who deny the Virgin Birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.
This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.
Reprint according to policy. Published on the AlbertMohler.com blog on December 22, 2010. Originally posted December 8, 2006 with the citation “Reprinted by request.”
#159 (12/9) - '' Whitewashing History, Obama Style''
Posted By Mike Brownfield On December 9, 2011
[1] If U.S. history is a painting on a giant canvas, President Barack Obama’s speech this week in Osawatomie, Kansas, is a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. The President’s pretense is that, no, it’s not Obamanomics that has caused persistent unemployment, stunted growth and record deficits–it’s supply side economics!
Talk about audacity.
The President’s speech was a naked portrayal of his vision of America–one where inequality runs rampant, where the American dream is nearly dead, where the rich oppress the poor, where education is undervalued. As Charles Krauthammer observes this morning in The Washington Post [2], “That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years.”
Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President’s portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work and his absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that has failed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior.
But in President Obama’s mind, it is others who offer ideas that don’t work, not him. He points to “a certain crowd in Washington” that argues for tax cuts and reduced regulations, calling it “a simple theory” that “fits well on a bumper sticker” but “has never worked.”
Correction, Mr. President. It has worked–time and time again throughout history. The trouble is, Mr.Obama has never tried it, and the Keynesian economic policies he enacted fell flat on their face, just as they have throughout history [3]. It started with a massive $787 billion stimulus bill that White House economists predicted would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. It was Keynesian economics at its finest, based on the premise that government spending would spark demand and put Americans back to work.
It didn’t. Some 13.3 million Americans remain out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 10 percent throughout Obama’s presidency, and economic growth has been stuck on slow. In fact, today America is witnessing the longest stretch of such high unemployment in the postwar era. Meanwhile, job creation has hit a record low,as Heritage’s James Sherk explains [4]:
"Fewer existing businesses are expanding, while fewer entrepreneurs are starting new businesses. In the first quarter of 2011, the number of workers hired in new business establishments fell to just 660,000, 27 percent fewer than when the recession began. This is the lowest number of workers hired at new businesses that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded–lower even than the worst points of the recession."
Yet despite these numbers — and the fact that President Obama had near-free rein to enact the Keynesian economic policies he saw fit — the President is now demagoguing the one economic policy he hasn’t tried — supply-side economics — while calling for more government spending all as America’s debt is deepening. He would do better to study history and get a grasp of how cutting taxes and freeing the market has worked when employed by both Democrats and Republicans.
Lowering tax rates, thereby allowing people to keep and invest more of the money that is rightfully theirs, has proven good for the economy time and time again. In the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s, tax rate reductions resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. And despite the President’s claim that cutting taxes only helps the rich, when tax rates were lowered in those decades, higher-income Americans paid an even greater share of the tax burden because they had fewer reasons to hide, shelter, and under-report income. But if taxes are increased — as President Obama continues to threaten — the price of working, saving, investing, and taking risks goes up, too.
History bears this out. Daniel Mitchell writes [5] that in the 1920s, under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the top tax rate was reduced from 73 percent to 25 percent. The result? The economy expanded, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, with annual economic growth averaging more than 6 percent. Under President Kennedy, the top rate dropped from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965. The result? Between 1961 and 1968, the economy expanded by more than 42 percent, with average annual growth of more than 5 percent. Under President Reagan, the top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988, leading to incredible economic expansion and average growth of nearly 4 percent. Finally, in the six quarters following the 2003 tax cuts, the GDP’s growth rate shot up to 4.1 percent [6] from 1.7 percent before.
But the President doesn’t have to take The Heritage Foundation’s word for it. He can heed the words of President Kennedy in his 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York:
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits".
Unfortunately, President Obama does not appear open to advice, nor does he seem cognizant of history–be it that of 10, 20, 40, or 90 years ago, or even his experience of the last three years. Instead, he is damning the torpedoes and continuing to pursue a liberal, progressive agenda that has proven to be a failure. As they have for the past three years, Americans will pay the price.
[bold and italics empnasis]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/morning-bell-whitewashing-history-obama-style/ URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-Osawatomie-12-6-11.jpg
[2] The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-campaign-for-class-resentment/2011/12/08/gIQApYDagO_story.html
[3] they have throughout history: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/why-government-spending-does-not-stimulate-economic-growth-answering-the-critics
[4] explains: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/high-unemployment-reduced-job-creation-not-layoffs
[5] Daniel Mitchell writes: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/02/time-for-lower-income-tax-rate
[6] GDP’s growth rate shot up to 4.1 percent: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
[1] If U.S. history is a painting on a giant canvas, President Barack Obama’s speech this week in Osawatomie, Kansas, is a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. The President’s pretense is that, no, it’s not Obamanomics that has caused persistent unemployment, stunted growth and record deficits–it’s supply side economics!
Talk about audacity.
The President’s speech was a naked portrayal of his vision of America–one where inequality runs rampant, where the American dream is nearly dead, where the rich oppress the poor, where education is undervalued. As Charles Krauthammer observes this morning in The Washington Post [2], “That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years.”
Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President’s portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work and his absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that has failed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior.
But in President Obama’s mind, it is others who offer ideas that don’t work, not him. He points to “a certain crowd in Washington” that argues for tax cuts and reduced regulations, calling it “a simple theory” that “fits well on a bumper sticker” but “has never worked.”
Correction, Mr. President. It has worked–time and time again throughout history. The trouble is, Mr.Obama has never tried it, and the Keynesian economic policies he enacted fell flat on their face, just as they have throughout history [3]. It started with a massive $787 billion stimulus bill that White House economists predicted would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. It was Keynesian economics at its finest, based on the premise that government spending would spark demand and put Americans back to work.
It didn’t. Some 13.3 million Americans remain out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 10 percent throughout Obama’s presidency, and economic growth has been stuck on slow. In fact, today America is witnessing the longest stretch of such high unemployment in the postwar era. Meanwhile, job creation has hit a record low,as Heritage’s James Sherk explains [4]:
"Fewer existing businesses are expanding, while fewer entrepreneurs are starting new businesses. In the first quarter of 2011, the number of workers hired in new business establishments fell to just 660,000, 27 percent fewer than when the recession began. This is the lowest number of workers hired at new businesses that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has ever recorded–lower even than the worst points of the recession."
Yet despite these numbers — and the fact that President Obama had near-free rein to enact the Keynesian economic policies he saw fit — the President is now demagoguing the one economic policy he hasn’t tried — supply-side economics — while calling for more government spending all as America’s debt is deepening. He would do better to study history and get a grasp of how cutting taxes and freeing the market has worked when employed by both Democrats and Republicans.
Lowering tax rates, thereby allowing people to keep and invest more of the money that is rightfully theirs, has proven good for the economy time and time again. In the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s, tax rate reductions resulted in faster growth, rising incomes, and more job creation. And despite the President’s claim that cutting taxes only helps the rich, when tax rates were lowered in those decades, higher-income Americans paid an even greater share of the tax burden because they had fewer reasons to hide, shelter, and under-report income. But if taxes are increased — as President Obama continues to threaten — the price of working, saving, investing, and taking risks goes up, too.
History bears this out. Daniel Mitchell writes [5] that in the 1920s, under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the top tax rate was reduced from 73 percent to 25 percent. The result? The economy expanded, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, with annual economic growth averaging more than 6 percent. Under President Kennedy, the top rate dropped from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965. The result? Between 1961 and 1968, the economy expanded by more than 42 percent, with average annual growth of more than 5 percent. Under President Reagan, the top tax rate fell from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988, leading to incredible economic expansion and average growth of nearly 4 percent. Finally, in the six quarters following the 2003 tax cuts, the GDP’s growth rate shot up to 4.1 percent [6] from 1.7 percent before.
But the President doesn’t have to take The Heritage Foundation’s word for it. He can heed the words of President Kennedy in his 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York:
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits".
Unfortunately, President Obama does not appear open to advice, nor does he seem cognizant of history–be it that of 10, 20, 40, or 90 years ago, or even his experience of the last three years. Instead, he is damning the torpedoes and continuing to pursue a liberal, progressive agenda that has proven to be a failure. As they have for the past three years, Americans will pay the price.
[bold and italics empnasis]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/morning-bell-whitewashing-history-obama-style/ URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-Osawatomie-12-6-11.jpg
[2] The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-campaign-for-class-resentment/2011/12/08/gIQApYDagO_story.html
[3] they have throughout history: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/why-government-spending-does-not-stimulate-economic-growth-answering-the-critics
[4] explains: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/high-unemployment-reduced-job-creation-not-layoffs
[5] Daniel Mitchell writes: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/02/time-for-lower-income-tax-rate
[6] GDP’s growth rate shot up to 4.1 percent: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts
Copyright © 2011 The Heritage Foundation. All rights reserved.
#158 (12/7) - "Has Obama Set the Stage for Pearl Harbor All Over Again?"
by Burton Folsom, Jr. and Anita Folsom 12/07/201197 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47983
Here is the scenario: The U.S economy has hit the skids. Millions of Americans are unemployed. Federal stimulus programs have piled up debt but haven’t brought back jobs for most Americans. Critics charge that the stimulus funds have mostly gone to friends of the President. At the same time, the defense budget has been cut to the bone, and America’s troops have neither the weapons nor the personnel to carry out their assignments.
Sound familiar? Actually, we are describing the U.S. on Dec. 7, 1941—the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and dragged the U.S. into World War II. What can we learn from the Pearl Harbor disaster?
A lot. In FDR Goes to War, we tell how President Franklin Roosevelt spent his first seven years showering money on social welfare programs that bolstered his party’s majority. FDR showed the world how federal spending, when carefully targeted, could win elections from coast to coast. Roosevelt and his social engineers designed programs for farmers, for city dwellers, for needy youth, and especially for voters living in key battleground states.
At the same time that FDR was pouring out cash for welfare programs, he was starving the military of supplies needed to defend America. In 1935, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur said that his “hopeful” goal for the coming year was a 30-day supply of bullets for the U.S. Army. Even as America’s enemies gained strength in the late 1930s, FDR refused to arm the military for an adequate defense. By 1940, the U.S. still had fewer than 50 heavy bombers in its continental defense,few antiaircraft guns, only primitive tanks, and little ammunition for either bombers or guns.
Such weakness is noticed by other nations, then and now. High unemployment and a weak defense attract aggressors: Germany and Japan in the 1930s. Iran and North Korea today. And maybe Russia. The more decrepit our defense, the more aggressive the tyrants will be.
In 1940, neither the Germans nor the Japanese respected the American economy or our military. Our Army listed only nine divisions on paper, at a time when Germany had mobilized more than 90, and Japan controlled parts of China with 50 divisions. When FDR decided to enforce an oil embargo on Japan, Tokyo knew that both the United States and Great Britain had only minimal forces scattered throughout the Pacific. Japan decided to attack both powers in December 1941, in a misplaced belief that it could set up “A New Order” in the Pacific: “Asia for Asians” was their slogan, which really meant “Japan Will Rule All Others.”
Japan also taught its people that their home islands were invincible, protected by divine forces from harm. And because Japanese troops in Manchuria and China rolled over the weak Chinese forces that opposed them, the Japanese people continued to believe this myth. The U.S. in a Great Depression posed no challenge.
Thus the stage was set for the tragedy at Pearl Harbor. On the morning of Dec. 7, more than 350 Japanese planes bombed and strafed military installations in Hawaii for more than two hours. The attack crippled the U.S. fleet stationed there, destroyed 188 aircraft, and killed 2403 Americans. Within hours, the Japanese also bombed the Philippines in an offensive that would eventually reach the borders of Australia. Tens of thousands of American and British troops in Singapore, Guam, Wake Island, Hong Kong and the Philippines went into a terrible captivity.
A strong U.S. presence in the Pacific in the 1930s would have made the Japanese hesitate before launching such sweeping attacks. Today, we would also do well to remember that strength discourages attack. Because of Congress’ failure to cut social spending, we may be faced with automatic cuts to our defense totaling more than $600 billion during the next 10 years, and that is in addition to currently scheduled cuts of $489 billion.
Seventy years ago, at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. learned that a weak economy and a weaker defense are no deterrent to war. Let’s not forget that lesson today.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burton Folsom Jr., a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is author of New Deal or Raw Deal? and co-author (with his wife, Anita) of FDR Goes to War (Simon & Schuster, 2011). Anita Folsom is co-author with her husband, Burton Folsom, of FDR Goes to War (Simon & Schuster). Anita also directs the Free Market Forum for Hillsdale College.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Bell: Pearl Harbor, WWII, and a Lesson for Today
Posted By Mike Brownfield December 8, 2011
On this day 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress and requested a declaration of war [1] against Japan following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. Roosevelt’s words carried forth across the nation via radio, and the consequences of the actions America would take would be felt around the world–and across history. The lessons America learned in those fateful days should be remembered even today.
Roosevelt noted [2] that the day of Japan’s attack would be “a date which will live in infamy,” and he also pledged the following:
I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces — with the unbounding determination of our people — we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.[3]
At 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, Roosevelt signed the declaration of war, and the rest is history. Through America’s incredible sacrifice and determination, the United States and its allies won victory, though it came at an incredible cost.
Just as Roosevelt proclaimed that “hostilities exist” 70 years ago, those words are true today. The United States faces threats at home and abroad–as we were reminded on September 11 and with every man and woman in military who makes the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedoms. The hostilities we face today are different from those we may face tomorrow, and there is no telling what challenges may lie around the corner. For that reason, our military must stand ready, prepared, and adequately equipped and funded to meet all threats, foreign and domestic.
Unfortunately, the U.S. military’s ability to effectively carry out its mission is in jeopardy. Today, there are those who would like America to return to an era of disengagement while also slashing military spending to dangerous levels. Under the Budget Control Act (BCA), the military budget will be cut by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Those cuts come on top of successive rounds of deep cuts in defense dollars and capabilities that Congress and the Obama Administration have already implemented. In a new paper [4], Heritage’s Mackenzie Eaglen [5] writes that those cuts will undermine U.S. power and influence around the world and reduce the ability of the military to meet future threats:
The military is a vital tool of U.S. foreign policy. Slashing defense spending without any reduction in U.S. foreign policy commitments around the world is not only dangerous, but also more costly in the long run than maintaining stable defense budgets. A review of roles and missions will not change U.S. foreign policy; only the President can do that. Starving the military as part of a deficit reduction plan may cost taxpayers more in the future if it makes the country less safe and increases the risk of another terrorist attack or the likelihood of U.S. forces being drawn into yet another overseas mission. The only responsible way to fund defense is to identify the nation’s vital national interests, ask what is required to defend the nation and those interests, determine what military capabilities are required to do so, and then build a defense budget to match the foreign and defense policies of the United States.
Eaglen recommends [4] that Congress tackle debt reduction responsibly with American security interests in mind. That means stopping the current rounds of defense cuts, budgeting responsibly for America’s foreign policy needs and objectives, and repealing the debt ceiling deal “trigger.” Other actions she recommends include stabilizing the military’s modernization accounts, aggressively promoting foreign military sales and increasing cutting-edge defense exports to friends and allies, and forcing the Department of Defense to innovate even as budgets fall.
Some would have Americans believe that defense budget cuts required under the BCA would reduce only the rate of increase in the overall defense budget. While precise defense budget projections under the BCA are not possible, it is a certainty that the overall defense budget will decline under its terms [6]. And those are reductions the military can ill afford. Since President Obama took office, more than 50 major weapons programs at a value of more than $300 billion were cut or delayed. On top of this, the Administration told the military to cut almost $600 billion more over the next 15 years. That was even before the BCA took effect.
This is no way to fund a military or to fulfill the Constitution’s prescription [7] that the primary role of the federal government is “to provide for the common defence.” [7] That duty is just as important now as it was 70 years ago when America faced one of its greatest challenges. Just as they did then, Congress and the President should ensure that the federal government carries out its responsibilities today and fully funds our military.
[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/2011/12/08/morning-bell-pearl-harbor-wwii-and-a-lesson-for-today/ URLs in this post:
[1] declaration of war: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/06/the-sword-and-the-purse-part-1-the-role-of-congress-in-war
[2] noted: http://library.umkc.edu/spec-col/ww2/pearlharbor/fdr-speech.htm
[3] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/FDR-war-declaration-large.jpg
[4] In a new paper: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/debt-ceiling-deal-puts-at-risk-ever-more-military-plans-and-programs
[5] Mackenzie Eaglen: http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/e/mackenzie-eaglen
[6] overall defense budget will decline under its terms: http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/12/defense-budget-is-being-cut-by-any-way-you-look-at-it
[7] Constitution’s prescription: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-constitution-of-the-us
Here is the scenario: The U.S economy has hit the skids. Millions of Americans are unemployed. Federal stimulus programs have piled up debt but haven’t brought back jobs for most Americans. Critics charge that the stimulus funds have mostly gone to friends of the President. At the same time, the defense budget has been cut to the bone, and America’s troops have neither the weapons nor the personnel to carry out their assignments.
Sound familiar? Actually, we are describing the U.S. on Dec. 7, 1941—the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and dragged the U.S. into World War II. What can we learn from the Pearl Harbor disaster?
A lot. In FDR Goes to War, we tell how President Franklin Roosevelt spent his first seven years showering money on social welfare programs that bolstered his party’s majority. FDR showed the world how federal spending, when carefully targeted, could win elections from coast to coast. Roosevelt and his social engineers designed programs for farmers, for city dwellers, for needy youth, and especially for voters living in key battleground states.
At the same time that FDR was pouring out cash for welfare programs, he was starving the military of supplies needed to defend America. In 1935, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur said that his “hopeful” goal for the coming year was a 30-day supply of bullets for the U.S. Army. Even as America’s enemies gained strength in the late 1930s, FDR refused to arm the military for an adequate defense. By 1940, the U.S. still had fewer than 50 heavy bombers in its continental defense,few antiaircraft guns, only primitive tanks, and little ammunition for either bombers or guns.
Such weakness is noticed by other nations, then and now. High unemployment and a weak defense attract aggressors: Germany and Japan in the 1930s. Iran and North Korea today. And maybe Russia. The more decrepit our defense, the more aggressive the tyrants will be.
In 1940, neither the Germans nor the Japanese respected the American economy or our military. Our Army listed only nine divisions on paper, at a time when Germany had mobilized more than 90, and Japan controlled parts of China with 50 divisions. When FDR decided to enforce an oil embargo on Japan, Tokyo knew that both the United States and Great Britain had only minimal forces scattered throughout the Pacific. Japan decided to attack both powers in December 1941, in a misplaced belief that it could set up “A New Order” in the Pacific: “Asia for Asians” was their slogan, which really meant “Japan Will Rule All Others.”
Japan also taught its people that their home islands were invincible, protected by divine forces from harm. And because Japanese troops in Manchuria and China rolled over the weak Chinese forces that opposed them, the Japanese people continued to believe this myth. The U.S. in a Great Depression posed no challenge.
Thus the stage was set for the tragedy at Pearl Harbor. On the morning of Dec. 7, more than 350 Japanese planes bombed and strafed military installations in Hawaii for more than two hours. The attack crippled the U.S. fleet stationed there, destroyed 188 aircraft, and killed 2403 Americans. Within hours, the Japanese also bombed the Philippines in an offensive that would eventually reach the borders of Australia. Tens of thousands of American and British troops in Singapore, Guam, Wake Island, Hong Kong and the Philippines went into a terrible captivity.
A strong U.S. presence in the Pacific in the 1930s would have made the Japanese hesitate before launching such sweeping attacks. Today, we would also do well to remember that strength discourages attack. Because of Congress’ failure to cut social spending, we may be faced with automatic cuts to our defense totaling more than $600 billion during the next 10 years, and that is in addition to currently scheduled cuts of $489 billion.
Seventy years ago, at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. learned that a weak economy and a weaker defense are no deterrent to war. Let’s not forget that lesson today.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burton Folsom Jr., a professor of history at Hillsdale College, is author of New Deal or Raw Deal? and co-author (with his wife, Anita) of FDR Goes to War (Simon & Schuster, 2011). Anita Folsom is co-author with her husband, Burton Folsom, of FDR Goes to War (Simon & Schuster). Anita also directs the Free Market Forum for Hillsdale College.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Bell: Pearl Harbor, WWII, and a Lesson for Today
Posted By Mike Brownfield December 8, 2011
On this day 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress and requested a declaration of war [1] against Japan following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. Roosevelt’s words carried forth across the nation via radio, and the consequences of the actions America would take would be felt around the world–and across history. The lessons America learned in those fateful days should be remembered even today.
Roosevelt noted [2] that the day of Japan’s attack would be “a date which will live in infamy,” and he also pledged the following:
I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces — with the unbounding determination of our people — we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.[3]
At 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, Roosevelt signed the declaration of war, and the rest is history. Through America’s incredible sacrifice and determination, the United States and its allies won victory, though it came at an incredible cost.
Just as Roosevelt proclaimed that “hostilities exist” 70 years ago, those words are true today. The United States faces threats at home and abroad–as we were reminded on September 11 and with every man and woman in military who makes the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedoms. The hostilities we face today are different from those we may face tomorrow, and there is no telling what challenges may lie around the corner. For that reason, our military must stand ready, prepared, and adequately equipped and funded to meet all threats, foreign and domestic.
Unfortunately, the U.S. military’s ability to effectively carry out its mission is in jeopardy. Today, there are those who would like America to return to an era of disengagement while also slashing military spending to dangerous levels. Under the Budget Control Act (BCA), the military budget will be cut by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Those cuts come on top of successive rounds of deep cuts in defense dollars and capabilities that Congress and the Obama Administration have already implemented. In a new paper [4], Heritage’s Mackenzie Eaglen [5] writes that those cuts will undermine U.S. power and influence around the world and reduce the ability of the military to meet future threats:
The military is a vital tool of U.S. foreign policy. Slashing defense spending without any reduction in U.S. foreign policy commitments around the world is not only dangerous, but also more costly in the long run than maintaining stable defense budgets. A review of roles and missions will not change U.S. foreign policy; only the President can do that. Starving the military as part of a deficit reduction plan may cost taxpayers more in the future if it makes the country less safe and increases the risk of another terrorist attack or the likelihood of U.S. forces being drawn into yet another overseas mission. The only responsible way to fund defense is to identify the nation’s vital national interests, ask what is required to defend the nation and those interests, determine what military capabilities are required to do so, and then build a defense budget to match the foreign and defense policies of the United States.
Eaglen recommends [4] that Congress tackle debt reduction responsibly with American security interests in mind. That means stopping the current rounds of defense cuts, budgeting responsibly for America’s foreign policy needs and objectives, and repealing the debt ceiling deal “trigger.” Other actions she recommends include stabilizing the military’s modernization accounts, aggressively promoting foreign military sales and increasing cutting-edge defense exports to friends and allies, and forcing the Department of Defense to innovate even as budgets fall.
Some would have Americans believe that defense budget cuts required under the BCA would reduce only the rate of increase in the overall defense budget. While precise defense budget projections under the BCA are not possible, it is a certainty that the overall defense budget will decline under its terms [6]. And those are reductions the military can ill afford. Since President Obama took office, more than 50 major weapons programs at a value of more than $300 billion were cut or delayed. On top of this, the Administration told the military to cut almost $600 billion more over the next 15 years. That was even before the BCA took effect.
This is no way to fund a military or to fulfill the Constitution’s prescription [7] that the primary role of the federal government is “to provide for the common defence.” [7] That duty is just as important now as it was 70 years ago when America faced one of its greatest challenges. Just as they did then, Congress and the President should ensure that the federal government carries out its responsibilities today and fully funds our military.
[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/2011/12/08/morning-bell-pearl-harbor-wwii-and-a-lesson-for-today/ URLs in this post:
[1] declaration of war: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/06/the-sword-and-the-purse-part-1-the-role-of-congress-in-war
[2] noted: http://library.umkc.edu/spec-col/ww2/pearlharbor/fdr-speech.htm
[3] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/FDR-war-declaration-large.jpg
[4] In a new paper: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/debt-ceiling-deal-puts-at-risk-ever-more-military-plans-and-programs
[5] Mackenzie Eaglen: http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/e/mackenzie-eaglen
[6] overall defense budget will decline under its terms: http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/12/defense-budget-is-being-cut-by-any-way-you-look-at-it
[7] Constitution’s prescription: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-constitution-of-the-us
Saturday, December 3, 2011
#157 (12/4) - Sunday Special > Christmas and Hope - and a NEW Phone Number
FYI: 1) I have a NEW phone number: 407-437-4884. While I am always grateful for any comment you leave on this blog or any email you send me (yonashiro@bellsouth.net), I am always most appreciative if you would call me some time. I know its kind of old-fashion, but I continue to like that as my favorite way to interact with people; 2) As always on Sundays, please make a point to check out the days broadcast of 'Truth That Transforms' (in Orlando, 5 pm., ch. 55.1). I promise you will always be blessed; and 3) Thank you for your continued prayers as my health was particularly bad the past 2 weeks.)
A Testimony Amidst Tragedy by Chuck Colson Breakpoint.com December 24, 2008
Dong Yun Yoon of University City, California, will never forget [the 2008] Christmas. Two weeks ago, his family was killed when a Marine F-18 Hornet fighter jet lost power and crashed into his home. In an instant, this season of joy become a time of unimaginable sorrow for Yoon. However, his response to the tragedy can only be described as a great gift to all of us. The plane’s engines failed during a training flight off the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. The pilot, Lt. Dan Neubauer, tried to reach Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in San Diego but wound up safely ejecting from the plane about two miles from the station.
The plane crashed into the Yoon’s just-moved-into home. Young Mi Yoon, their daughters Rachel and Grace, and her mother were killed. While the tragedy was front-page news, what happened next captured the imagination of the country. The next day, an understandably devastated Yoon told reporters that he didn’t have any “hard feelings” toward the pilot and that he knew that the pilot “did everything he could.”
Not only that, Yoon said, “I pray for him not to suffer for this action,” and called him “one of our treasures for the country.”
Having embodied grace and forgiveness, Yoon then told reporters what made it possible: “I believe my wife and two babies and mother-in-law are in heaven with God,” and he prayed with other family members and friends.
Yoon’s words and actions reminded Adrian Hong, a human rights advocate, of the circumstances surrounding the writing of the hymn “It Is Well with My Soul”—in both instances, tragedy and sorrow were turned into a great witness to the power of Christian hope.
There’s another hymn this episode brings to mind—“Hark the Herald Angels Sing” by Charles Wesley. In the last stanza we sing that Jesus was “born that man no more may die” and “born to raise the sons of earth.” While we may not associate Christmas and the Incarnation with our Lord’s victory over death, the Church fathers did. In “On the Incarnation of the Word,” Athanasius wrote that it was because all of us were “under penalty of the corruption of death” that the Word took “to Himself a body capable of death.” Since the Word “by His one body has come to dwell among” us, “the corruption of death which before was prevailing against [Man] is done away.” As a result of what Athanasius called “His gracious coming among us,” “the way up into the heavens” is “made ready” for those, like the Yoons, who put their faith in him.
This “new beginning of life for us” and the graciousness that makes it possible is at the heart of the Christian hope. It consoles us and enables us to be gracious even when our world is falling apart.It is this hope, born on the first Christmas, that Peter tells us we must always be ready to explain. Dong Yun Yoon certainly was. For that he has my gratitude and prayers.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
A Testimony Amidst Tragedy by Chuck Colson Breakpoint.com December 24, 2008
Dong Yun Yoon of University City, California, will never forget [the 2008] Christmas. Two weeks ago, his family was killed when a Marine F-18 Hornet fighter jet lost power and crashed into his home. In an instant, this season of joy become a time of unimaginable sorrow for Yoon. However, his response to the tragedy can only be described as a great gift to all of us. The plane’s engines failed during a training flight off the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. The pilot, Lt. Dan Neubauer, tried to reach Miramar Marine Corps Air Station in San Diego but wound up safely ejecting from the plane about two miles from the station.
The plane crashed into the Yoon’s just-moved-into home. Young Mi Yoon, their daughters Rachel and Grace, and her mother were killed. While the tragedy was front-page news, what happened next captured the imagination of the country. The next day, an understandably devastated Yoon told reporters that he didn’t have any “hard feelings” toward the pilot and that he knew that the pilot “did everything he could.”
Not only that, Yoon said, “I pray for him not to suffer for this action,” and called him “one of our treasures for the country.”
Having embodied grace and forgiveness, Yoon then told reporters what made it possible: “I believe my wife and two babies and mother-in-law are in heaven with God,” and he prayed with other family members and friends.
Yoon’s words and actions reminded Adrian Hong, a human rights advocate, of the circumstances surrounding the writing of the hymn “It Is Well with My Soul”—in both instances, tragedy and sorrow were turned into a great witness to the power of Christian hope.
There’s another hymn this episode brings to mind—“Hark the Herald Angels Sing” by Charles Wesley. In the last stanza we sing that Jesus was “born that man no more may die” and “born to raise the sons of earth.” While we may not associate Christmas and the Incarnation with our Lord’s victory over death, the Church fathers did. In “On the Incarnation of the Word,” Athanasius wrote that it was because all of us were “under penalty of the corruption of death” that the Word took “to Himself a body capable of death.” Since the Word “by His one body has come to dwell among” us, “the corruption of death which before was prevailing against [Man] is done away.” As a result of what Athanasius called “His gracious coming among us,” “the way up into the heavens” is “made ready” for those, like the Yoons, who put their faith in him.
This “new beginning of life for us” and the graciousness that makes it possible is at the heart of the Christian hope. It consoles us and enables us to be gracious even when our world is falling apart.It is this hope, born on the first Christmas, that Peter tells us we must always be ready to explain. Dong Yun Yoon certainly was. For that he has my gratitude and prayers.
[bold and italics emphasis mine]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
