by Chuck Colson : July 08, 2009, Breakpoint.com
[I trust that this is the last thing I will be posting on Michael Jackson. I cannot believe the media still seems to have a story each day regarding the late entertainer. During the 2 weeks between his death and his worldwide memorial, 12 American soldiers died in the Middle East and a very destructive “climate control” bill was passed in the U.S. House and yet you heard almost nothing about them. At least this week they are focusing on the murder of a couple in Florida who had adopted 13 special needs children besides caring for 4 children of their own. I can only pray that our country would begin celebrating more the life of unselfish heroes such as this couple rather than that of those we canonize as celebrities and “Kings.”
Speaking of which, I found it interesting to watch a program (on a Christian network) about the gospel music of Elvis Presley. (By the way, did you know that Elvis generates something like $58 million dollars a year while the Beatles generate just over $6 million a year.) It told me a lot about the man that at his first appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” that helped launch his career, he insisted that his second song be a gospel song, despite the objection of the show’s producers and he got his way. The program also showed clip after clip of Elvis having hours and hours of informal time with his music group just singing gospel songs, besides noting the many gospel albums that he produced. Finally, I was moved to hear of the story of how at one concert, a group of girls sat in a long row and when he paused between songs at one point, they all stood up with a sign that said in large letters, “Elvis is King.” They said that Elvis, on seeing the sign, pointed to it and said, “No, Jesus is the King,” forcing those girls to sheepishly sit down with their sign. It made me realize just how unlike Elvis was from Michael Jackson who called himself the “King of Pop.” – Stan]
Millions of Michael Jackson fans are mourning his death. As well they might. I’ll explain why.
“I am an aging, white conservative Baptist. My taste in music runs from Bach to Mozart to Lawrence Welk. Indeed, my staff might say I am the un-hippest man alive. So you might think that I am surprised by the frenzied and non-stop media coverage of the death of Michael Jackson—perhaps the greatest pop star of all time. But I’m not. You may think that I don’t “get” why his fans by the millions are grieving, buying up Jackson CDs like they are going out of style, holding vigils at his mansion, desperately trying to get tickets to his memorial service in Los Angeles. But I do.”
“Here is why they have reason to mourn: Michael Jackson was, by any standard, a musical genius. His albums and his videos thrilled successive generations of pop fans. In fact, I was enthralled myself when I first watched his video presentation at an Epcot exhibit some 20 years ago. There was, indeed, no one quite like Michael Jackson. And now there will be no new albums, no comeback concert tour, no new dance moves. That’s why they’re mourning. But here’s why they—and all of us—should mourn the real tragedy that Michael Jackson’s story is. Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic Monthly blog said it well: Michael Jackson ‘was everything our culture worships; and yet he was obviously desperately unhappy, tortured, afraid and alone.’” He was, as Sullivan noted, nothing but a creature of our culture, which puts “fame and celebrity” at its core, with money as its driving force, without regard for the person caught up in it or the character he exhibits. By numerous published accounts, Jackson was emotionally abused by his father, a man consumed by the idea that his child could be a superstar. Jackson was a drug addict accused of pedophilia, given to all manner of bizarre behavior. He was, in the end, as Bob Herbert opined in the New York Times, ‘psychologically disabled, to the point where he was a danger to himself and others.’”
“It makes the scenes of adoring crowds pushing and shoving to get near yesterday’s memorial service, and the non-stop live television coverage, all the more bizarre and tragic. We worship the celebrity for his fame, degenerate lifestyle not withstanding. Jackson achieved the summit of what this culture values most—fame—and paid for it with his life. And that is a tragedy. Life is filled with teaching moments. And for parents, this tragedy is an opportunity to talk with our children about what they really want out of life—what matters most. And it’s also a time for parents to look in the mirror and ask what we really want for our kids. If the answer is success in life, then we had better know what that definition of success is. That’s because even Christian parents are not immune to the siren song of fame and fortune for their kids. It’s great that your child can sing and dance. It’s wonderful that he can hit a baseball a country mile. She just might win that academic scholarship to Harvard. But winning that scholarship, or playing in the major leagues, is not the Christian definition of success. Doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with your God is.
Character matters. Not fame. No matter how un-hip that sounds.
Further Reading and Information
Andrew Sullivan, “Thinking about Michael,” Atlantic Monthly, 25 June 2009.
Bob Herbert, “Behind the Façade,” New York Times, 3 July 2009.
Michael Jackson, “My Childhood, My Sabbath, My Freedom,” Beliefnet, December
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
#28 – What You HAVEN’T Heard from Environmentalists (2) -" Hot Air: We Need to Reduce Emissions in Congress"
By Chuck Colson,: July 06, 2009
[Dear friend, if what I post here or any of my other posting has been helpful, I would DEEPLY APPRECIATE you indicating some kind of comment. This is my 28th posting and I have received only 3 comments. It would encourage me deeply to know you have found what I have been posting informative, encouraging, challenging, OR NOT. Your specific comments would encourage me greatly. Anything comment you can make is MOST welcome. THANK YOU!]
[While at the summit for great eight industrialized countries of the world this past week, the President signed a document that supposedly will reduce carbon emissions in those countries in the decades ahead. Meanwhile, not surprisingly, the 3 biggest polluters in the world who were also there – China, India, and Brazil- again refused to commit to those same standards. The following is what happened in the Congress on this issue while the media was busy saturating us with all the details of Michael Jackson ad nausea
Speaking of which, I do want to say one last thing about MICHAEL JACKSON that I am quite sure you might not have heard (though it's hard to imagine you haven't read or heard something yet about him in the past 2 weeks since he died). Michael was a life long Jehovah Witness when he died, as have been the members of his family, as best as I can tell. He asked that his children be taught the teachings of Jehovah Witness shortly before he died. I won't go into it here, but the Jehovah Witnesses are a dangerous cult and have been said to be responsible for more deaths and harm than any other cult in our nation's history. (Many members of my family were messed up by them.) The bottom line is, no matter how good a person he was, Michael Jackson was not a Christian if he died a Jehovah Witness. Though he may have done much for charities and was even said by someone to have done "God's work," he will not be in heaven. We can do nothing for Michael now but WE MUST BE FAITHFUL IN PRAYING FOR HIS FAMILY AND ESPECIALLY HIS CHILDREN, THAT THEY WILL EACH MEET SOMEONE IN THEIR CIRCLE OF INFLUENCE WHO WILL SHARE WITH THEM THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS CHRIST AND HELP THEM TO TURN FROM THE LIES THEY HAVE COME TO BELIEVE AND TO PLACE THEIR TRUST IN HIM. And while we are at it, may we be sure to also pray the same for EVERY celebrity EVERY time we hear their name. For only God knows the difference our prayer will play in that person coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Thank you. - Stan]
Question: “Who do you call when you need an expensive solution for a problem that may not exist? Congress, of course.”
“In the last week of June, the House of Representatives passed a bill intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.The bill is a long way from becoming law. Senate Democratic leaders haven’t even introduced their own version of the legislation, and when they do a filibuster is all but certain. But the politics of what used to be called “global warming,” and now is tellingly labeled “climate change,” isn’t limited to Capitol Hill.”
“As a recent article in the Wall Street Journal tells us, at the same time that the House was debating its bill, other countries were having second thoughts about their already enacted measures. The Polish Academy of Sciences, for one, has publicly challenged the science behind man-made global warming. And only 11 percent of Czech citizens believe that human activity contributes to the measured rise in temperatures. Even New Zeland, rightly regarded as an ecological wonderland, suspended its emissions-reduction program. Then there’s Australia. Earlier this year, the government submitted its proposal to limit CO2 emissions. Given the potential costs and the prospect of, as some Australian commentators put it, “carbon cops” knocking on people’s doors, Australian senator Steve Fielding asked the obvious question: Is this necessary? Fielding, an engineer, was concerned that the government had accepted ‘one scientific explanation for climate change at face value.’ So he examined the science himself, including asking the Obama administration to address his concerns about the science.While the administration didn’t respond to his request, what Fielding learned persuaded him NOT to support the proposal. He wasn't willing to risk job losses for 'unconvincing green science.' And he’s not alone. As the Journal put it, ‘The number of [global warming] sceptics, far from shrinking, is swelling.’
“Even if the ‘green science’ were more convincing, there are good reasons to be skeptical about the approach being debated in Congress. Columnist David Brooks spoke for many when he called the bill “a morass of corporate giveaways.” No one knows what effect it will have on CO2 emissions. A similar European effort was followed by a rise in emissions. Then there’s the elephant in the room: China. China is building two coal-fired power plants every week. It’s estimated that, within 20 years, China’s CO2 emissions will be equal to the entire world’s today. Other developing countries are following China’s lead. Even the European Union is increasing its use of coal. As any one of these alone would overwhelm American reductions, together they make the House vote seem almost perverse. A massive transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans to favored industries in furtherance of a policy that won’t work in response to a “crisis” whose scientific basis is far from proven. What am I missing here?Would-be technocrats whose goal is to manage and shape our society are working hand in hand with those who would profit from their efforts. They insist that the global warming debate is “over” and compare those who disagree, or even ask questions, to Holocaust deniers.”“Outrageous? Sure. Surprising? Not really. It’s what you do when your argument is unconvincing.”
For Further Reading and Information
Steve Fielding, “I Kept an Open Mind on the Road to Washington,” The Australian, 8 June 2009.Kimberley Strassel, “The Climate Change Climate Change,” Wall Street Journal, 26 June 2009.David Brooks, “Vince Lombardi Politics,” New York Times, 30 June 2009.
[Dear friend, if what I post here or any of my other posting has been helpful, I would DEEPLY APPRECIATE you indicating some kind of comment. This is my 28th posting and I have received only 3 comments. It would encourage me deeply to know you have found what I have been posting informative, encouraging, challenging, OR NOT. Your specific comments would encourage me greatly. Anything comment you can make is MOST welcome. THANK YOU!]
[While at the summit for great eight industrialized countries of the world this past week, the President signed a document that supposedly will reduce carbon emissions in those countries in the decades ahead. Meanwhile, not surprisingly, the 3 biggest polluters in the world who were also there – China, India, and Brazil- again refused to commit to those same standards. The following is what happened in the Congress on this issue while the media was busy saturating us with all the details of Michael Jackson ad nausea
Speaking of which, I do want to say one last thing about MICHAEL JACKSON that I am quite sure you might not have heard (though it's hard to imagine you haven't read or heard something yet about him in the past 2 weeks since he died). Michael was a life long Jehovah Witness when he died, as have been the members of his family, as best as I can tell. He asked that his children be taught the teachings of Jehovah Witness shortly before he died. I won't go into it here, but the Jehovah Witnesses are a dangerous cult and have been said to be responsible for more deaths and harm than any other cult in our nation's history. (Many members of my family were messed up by them.) The bottom line is, no matter how good a person he was, Michael Jackson was not a Christian if he died a Jehovah Witness. Though he may have done much for charities and was even said by someone to have done "God's work," he will not be in heaven. We can do nothing for Michael now but WE MUST BE FAITHFUL IN PRAYING FOR HIS FAMILY AND ESPECIALLY HIS CHILDREN, THAT THEY WILL EACH MEET SOMEONE IN THEIR CIRCLE OF INFLUENCE WHO WILL SHARE WITH THEM THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS CHRIST AND HELP THEM TO TURN FROM THE LIES THEY HAVE COME TO BELIEVE AND TO PLACE THEIR TRUST IN HIM. And while we are at it, may we be sure to also pray the same for EVERY celebrity EVERY time we hear their name. For only God knows the difference our prayer will play in that person coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Thank you. - Stan]
Question: “Who do you call when you need an expensive solution for a problem that may not exist? Congress, of course.”
“In the last week of June, the House of Representatives passed a bill intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.The bill is a long way from becoming law. Senate Democratic leaders haven’t even introduced their own version of the legislation, and when they do a filibuster is all but certain. But the politics of what used to be called “global warming,” and now is tellingly labeled “climate change,” isn’t limited to Capitol Hill.”
“As a recent article in the Wall Street Journal tells us, at the same time that the House was debating its bill, other countries were having second thoughts about their already enacted measures. The Polish Academy of Sciences, for one, has publicly challenged the science behind man-made global warming. And only 11 percent of Czech citizens believe that human activity contributes to the measured rise in temperatures. Even New Zeland, rightly regarded as an ecological wonderland, suspended its emissions-reduction program. Then there’s Australia. Earlier this year, the government submitted its proposal to limit CO2 emissions. Given the potential costs and the prospect of, as some Australian commentators put it, “carbon cops” knocking on people’s doors, Australian senator Steve Fielding asked the obvious question: Is this necessary? Fielding, an engineer, was concerned that the government had accepted ‘one scientific explanation for climate change at face value.’ So he examined the science himself, including asking the Obama administration to address his concerns about the science.While the administration didn’t respond to his request, what Fielding learned persuaded him NOT to support the proposal. He wasn't willing to risk job losses for 'unconvincing green science.' And he’s not alone. As the Journal put it, ‘The number of [global warming] sceptics, far from shrinking, is swelling.’
“Even if the ‘green science’ were more convincing, there are good reasons to be skeptical about the approach being debated in Congress. Columnist David Brooks spoke for many when he called the bill “a morass of corporate giveaways.” No one knows what effect it will have on CO2 emissions. A similar European effort was followed by a rise in emissions. Then there’s the elephant in the room: China. China is building two coal-fired power plants every week. It’s estimated that, within 20 years, China’s CO2 emissions will be equal to the entire world’s today. Other developing countries are following China’s lead. Even the European Union is increasing its use of coal. As any one of these alone would overwhelm American reductions, together they make the House vote seem almost perverse. A massive transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans to favored industries in furtherance of a policy that won’t work in response to a “crisis” whose scientific basis is far from proven. What am I missing here?Would-be technocrats whose goal is to manage and shape our society are working hand in hand with those who would profit from their efforts. They insist that the global warming debate is “over” and compare those who disagree, or even ask questions, to Holocaust deniers.”“Outrageous? Sure. Surprising? Not really. It’s what you do when your argument is unconvincing.”
For Further Reading and Information
Steve Fielding, “I Kept an Open Mind on the Road to Washington,” The Australian, 8 June 2009.Kimberley Strassel, “The Climate Change Climate Change,” Wall Street Journal, 26 June 2009.David Brooks, “Vince Lombardi Politics,” New York Times, 30 June 2009.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
#27 - What You Haven’t Heard from Environmentalists (1): “A Worldview that Leaves Me Cold”
Global Warming - By Chuck Colson - 3/31/2009 - BreakPoint Commentaries
QUESTION: Have you wondered if all that the “environmentalists” have been telling you is the WHOLE story? If you’ve ever suspected that what you’ve been hearing is NOT the final word on the subject, this is the FIRST of a series of articles on “the rest of the story.” - Stan
“[This was written on March 31st.]The brutal winter of 2009 is finally coming to an end in the Great Plains. Or is it? Temperatures across North Dakota have been five to 10 degrees below normal all winter long. Massive snowfalls have blanketed the Peace Garden State for months. As now, North Dakota is enduring an end-of-March blizzard. The people of Fargo are paying the price. The ice-jammed Red River is cresting more than 40 feet over normal, flooding everything that isn’t protected by the heroic efforts of North Dakota citizens building up and maintaining the levies. So, I ask you, what is the cause of all the cold, the snow, and the ice? Global warming, of course!”
“According to Kate White, a civil engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “climate change caused by global warming likely is changing ice conditions and adding to the unpredictability” of ice jams along the Red River, so she said. Let me see if I get this. A “near-record snowpack,” along with below-normal temperatures, have led to more ice, which is acting unpredictably because of global warming? What am I not getting here? I’ll tell you what I am getting—more proof that apocalyptic visions of global warming are driven by a particular worldview. Forget the facts. Even President Obama, at least to some degree, has bought into it. Here’s what he had to say: “I actually think the science around climate change is real. . . . If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota . . . that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.” Record snow is the result of global warming?”
“Folks, what we have to take seriously here is the fact that our worldview determines how we see the world and how we live in the world. And we’d better have it correct, which is why I spend so much time talking about this on this broadcast every day. Despite the fact that the globe has been cooling since at least 2002, or that near-record cold and snow have plagued much of North America all year long, all the proponents of global warming can see is—well, global warming. This is why its adherents in Congress and in the White House want curbs on greenhouse gases, potentially ruinous cap-and-trade policies, and curbs on oil exploration (at a time when we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil). And if in the near future you start paying upwards of $5 a pound for ground beef, thank those in Congress who want to tax cow flatulence as a way to combat global warming.”
“As the New York Times relates, renowned physicist Freeman Dyson has called “climate change an ‘obsession’—the primary article of faith for ‘a worldwide secular religion’ known as environmentalism.” Dyson accuses the adherents of this religion of “relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee . . . imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth.” But the models aren’t holding true. Which is why the global warming scientists need to examine their worldview. And then they need to step out of the computer lab and take a walk. But they’d better bundle up first.”
For Further Reading and Information
“Freeman Dyson: Speaking Out on Global Warming,” Watts Up with That, 25 March 2009.
“River Ice Jams Hard To Predict, Scientists Say,” Associated Press, 27 March 2009.
Steven Goddard, “North Dakota Floods Aggravated By ‘Global Warming’,” Watts Up with That, 29 March 2009.
Nicholas Dawidoff, “The Civil Heretic,” New York Times, 25 March 2009.
“The Planet vs. the Poor?: A False Choice,” BreakPoint Commentary, 4 February 2009.
“Global Warming and the Media: Give Us All the Facts,” BreakPoint Commentary, 3 February 2009.
QUESTION: Have you wondered if all that the “environmentalists” have been telling you is the WHOLE story? If you’ve ever suspected that what you’ve been hearing is NOT the final word on the subject, this is the FIRST of a series of articles on “the rest of the story.” - Stan
“[This was written on March 31st.]The brutal winter of 2009 is finally coming to an end in the Great Plains. Or is it? Temperatures across North Dakota have been five to 10 degrees below normal all winter long. Massive snowfalls have blanketed the Peace Garden State for months. As now, North Dakota is enduring an end-of-March blizzard. The people of Fargo are paying the price. The ice-jammed Red River is cresting more than 40 feet over normal, flooding everything that isn’t protected by the heroic efforts of North Dakota citizens building up and maintaining the levies. So, I ask you, what is the cause of all the cold, the snow, and the ice? Global warming, of course!”
“According to Kate White, a civil engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “climate change caused by global warming likely is changing ice conditions and adding to the unpredictability” of ice jams along the Red River, so she said. Let me see if I get this. A “near-record snowpack,” along with below-normal temperatures, have led to more ice, which is acting unpredictably because of global warming? What am I not getting here? I’ll tell you what I am getting—more proof that apocalyptic visions of global warming are driven by a particular worldview. Forget the facts. Even President Obama, at least to some degree, has bought into it. Here’s what he had to say: “I actually think the science around climate change is real. . . . If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota . . . that indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.” Record snow is the result of global warming?”
“Folks, what we have to take seriously here is the fact that our worldview determines how we see the world and how we live in the world. And we’d better have it correct, which is why I spend so much time talking about this on this broadcast every day. Despite the fact that the globe has been cooling since at least 2002, or that near-record cold and snow have plagued much of North America all year long, all the proponents of global warming can see is—well, global warming. This is why its adherents in Congress and in the White House want curbs on greenhouse gases, potentially ruinous cap-and-trade policies, and curbs on oil exploration (at a time when we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil). And if in the near future you start paying upwards of $5 a pound for ground beef, thank those in Congress who want to tax cow flatulence as a way to combat global warming.”
“As the New York Times relates, renowned physicist Freeman Dyson has called “climate change an ‘obsession’—the primary article of faith for ‘a worldwide secular religion’ known as environmentalism.” Dyson accuses the adherents of this religion of “relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee . . . imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth.” But the models aren’t holding true. Which is why the global warming scientists need to examine their worldview. And then they need to step out of the computer lab and take a walk. But they’d better bundle up first.”
For Further Reading and Information
“Freeman Dyson: Speaking Out on Global Warming,” Watts Up with That, 25 March 2009.
“River Ice Jams Hard To Predict, Scientists Say,” Associated Press, 27 March 2009.
Steven Goddard, “North Dakota Floods Aggravated By ‘Global Warming’,” Watts Up with That, 29 March 2009.
Nicholas Dawidoff, “The Civil Heretic,” New York Times, 25 March 2009.
“The Planet vs. the Poor?: A False Choice,” BreakPoint Commentary, 4 February 2009.
“Global Warming and the Media: Give Us All the Facts,” BreakPoint Commentary, 3 February 2009.
Friday, July 3, 2009
#26 – The 4th of July and The Source of Liberty
Dependence upon God - By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, July 3, 2008
[When it comes to the 4th of July, it is easiest to think only of a holiday or, in our most reflective moments, of the ones who fought in the American Revolution to secure our country’s freedoms hundreds of years ago. But we must also reflect on the fact that TODAY we are in the midst of a great American De-volution, a time when the moral foundation of our country as well as the very freedoms won by our forefathers are threatened and we are devolving more and more into a nation that is not functioning “under God.” Whether it’s abortion, gay marriag, hate crimes, or government dictating our health insurance or the kind of car we drive, it’s a time for today’s Americans to be alert to the dangers we face not just from enemies foreign but also from those among us. From our pulpits to our classrooms, we must be willing to speak out and work to ensure we have leaders who will never do us harm. – Stan]
[NOTE: Please also check out the bi-weekly editorial cartoons from Worldmag.com at: www.worldmag.com/articles/15572]
“This week, America celebrates another birthday. Americans are hoisting their flags, marching in parades, and setting off fireworks. I get a thrill every time I hear the band strike up "The Stars and Stripes Forever." And I get a lump in my throat whenever I join in singing "America, America, God shed His grace on thee." Indeed, God has blessed America. This nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, has endured for 230 years. America is the oldest constitutional republic on earth.”
“But all is not well in our land. When Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence, he deliberately appealed to the Creator. He acknowledged an overriding obligation to "Nature and Nature's God." And he understood that ordered liberty is not just a subjective preference, but a divinely ordained condition for which human beings are designed. But over the last few decades, legions of skeptics have mounted a massive assault on these "self-evident truths." In prestigious law schools, in the halls of government, and especially in the Supreme Court, God is often banished from public conversation. If a public school teacher were to introduce Jefferson's ideas and language into the classroom today, she would likely be called on the carpet.”
“This assault on God in public culture severely damages our republic. If God is thrown out of our history, we lose our basis for believing that individuals have rights and dignity. In an empty universe, we have no meaning, no value. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, and no certain proof that liberty is better than tyranny, or that life is better than death. Everything is a matter of opinion and power. The references to God in the Declaration of Independence provide a foundation for an ongoing moral conversation within civil society. And moral truths pervade our founding documents from beginning to end. Without God as the source of all those moral principles, the public square would quickly revert to the law of the jungle. Brutish power would prevail. The weak, the unborn, the elderly, and the gravely ill could be quietly terminated.”
“As much as I enjoy the anthems and the fireworks, more than that is called for on this July 4th. We need to confess our moral failures and our national sins—repent of the lies that have justified killing innocent babies and the elderly. Renewal begins on our knees. It is there that we hear soul searching questions from God Himself, asking, "How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? . . . Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked" (Psalm 82). Our nation's founding document declared independence from Great Britain; but, with equal fervor, dependence upon God. Expressing "firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence," the signers committed the American experiment to their Maker. The spirit of 1776 was one of reverence and trust.”
“I have been studying Jeremiah in my devotions lately, and I am struck by the chilling parallels with today. Time is running short, I fear, for this great, noble experiment in freedom. Turn to God, and tell your neighbors to do so while there is yet time.”[emphasis mine]
[When it comes to the 4th of July, it is easiest to think only of a holiday or, in our most reflective moments, of the ones who fought in the American Revolution to secure our country’s freedoms hundreds of years ago. But we must also reflect on the fact that TODAY we are in the midst of a great American De-volution, a time when the moral foundation of our country as well as the very freedoms won by our forefathers are threatened and we are devolving more and more into a nation that is not functioning “under God.” Whether it’s abortion, gay marriag, hate crimes, or government dictating our health insurance or the kind of car we drive, it’s a time for today’s Americans to be alert to the dangers we face not just from enemies foreign but also from those among us. From our pulpits to our classrooms, we must be willing to speak out and work to ensure we have leaders who will never do us harm. – Stan]
[NOTE: Please also check out the bi-weekly editorial cartoons from Worldmag.com at: www.worldmag.com/articles/15572]
“This week, America celebrates another birthday. Americans are hoisting their flags, marching in parades, and setting off fireworks. I get a thrill every time I hear the band strike up "The Stars and Stripes Forever." And I get a lump in my throat whenever I join in singing "America, America, God shed His grace on thee." Indeed, God has blessed America. This nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, has endured for 230 years. America is the oldest constitutional republic on earth.”
“But all is not well in our land. When Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence, he deliberately appealed to the Creator. He acknowledged an overriding obligation to "Nature and Nature's God." And he understood that ordered liberty is not just a subjective preference, but a divinely ordained condition for which human beings are designed. But over the last few decades, legions of skeptics have mounted a massive assault on these "self-evident truths." In prestigious law schools, in the halls of government, and especially in the Supreme Court, God is often banished from public conversation. If a public school teacher were to introduce Jefferson's ideas and language into the classroom today, she would likely be called on the carpet.”
“This assault on God in public culture severely damages our republic. If God is thrown out of our history, we lose our basis for believing that individuals have rights and dignity. In an empty universe, we have no meaning, no value. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, and no certain proof that liberty is better than tyranny, or that life is better than death. Everything is a matter of opinion and power. The references to God in the Declaration of Independence provide a foundation for an ongoing moral conversation within civil society. And moral truths pervade our founding documents from beginning to end. Without God as the source of all those moral principles, the public square would quickly revert to the law of the jungle. Brutish power would prevail. The weak, the unborn, the elderly, and the gravely ill could be quietly terminated.”
“As much as I enjoy the anthems and the fireworks, more than that is called for on this July 4th. We need to confess our moral failures and our national sins—repent of the lies that have justified killing innocent babies and the elderly. Renewal begins on our knees. It is there that we hear soul searching questions from God Himself, asking, "How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? . . . Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked" (Psalm 82). Our nation's founding document declared independence from Great Britain; but, with equal fervor, dependence upon God. Expressing "firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence," the signers committed the American experiment to their Maker. The spirit of 1776 was one of reverence and trust.”
“I have been studying Jeremiah in my devotions lately, and I am struck by the chilling parallels with today. Time is running short, I fear, for this great, noble experiment in freedom. Turn to God, and tell your neighbors to do so while there is yet time.”[emphasis mine]
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
#25 - The Case of the Fallen Governor
The Bewilderment of Sin - By Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, June 26, 2009
[As Christians, we are familiar with the teaching of the need for abstinence and sexual purity. But there are times when we can allow our passions to master us, not to do what is good [what we know is the right thing] but instead to do that which is pleasurable for us. It happens to great Christian men, as you will read, but it also happens to all of us, usually starting with one small sin. (James 1:13-15)]
"In the past 24 hours since Governor Mark Sanford admitted his affair, I’ve run the gamut of emotions: sadness, depression, anger, and most of all, bewilderment. The particular tragedy of Sanford is that he had been an outstanding governor. He’s attractive, engaging, and smart. He is an articulate and tenacious defender of family values. And he espoused the cause of Christ. Now, his career lies on the ash heap of history. He’ll have to gracefully withdraw from political life and try to put his shattered marriage back together."
"I mentioned sadness and depression. Sanford’s admission is simply the latest among pro-family conservative Christian politicians. Remember Senator David Vitter, involved with a prostitution service? Then just a week ago, Senator John Ensign of Nevada—a good friend I have known for years—he, too, admitted an affair. And now Mark Sanford, probably the last man in American public life I would have expected to so incredibly disappoint us. Sadness, depression—then there’s anger. These men dishonored their families and their offices and the Christian faith they profess. But most of all, I am bewildered. Sanford had it all—a beautiful wife and family, high public office, and he was a viable candidate, perhaps, for President. Why would he throw it all away?"
"The answer came to me as I stewed over Sanford’s demise—and as I have reflected on my own life and my own failures, particularly before I knew the Lord. We humans, you see, have an infinite capacity for self-rationalization. We reason that we can give in to those seemingly minor temptations—say an emotional attraction to a co-worker, or just one drink at the party—because we think we know the boundaries. We think our reason can keep us safe. The problem is, as C. S. Lewis wrote in his timeless essay, “Men Without Chests,” that our reason is no match for the passions of the flesh. Lewis put it this way: Our stomachs (that is our appetites) can’t be controlled by our minds (that is, reason). Something else has to come in to play—and that is the spirited element, or our chests, as he called it. It’s our will being trained to do what is right and just. Nearly every grave moral failure begins with a small sin. Because there comes a time, after we toy with sin, when one pull of the flesh causes us to cross the line, to disengage from reason, and to follow our appetites wherever they may lead. And, I’m afraid, this is especially easy today. We’re told we can have it all, that we can be free to pursue any pleasure. Our wills are not trained to do what is good, but to do what pleases us. Many of us have become, as Lewis said, men without chests."
So, fellow Christians, don’t be self-righteous. Let the Sanford tragedy be a cautionary tale. Are you toying with sin? If so, for your self, your family, and your Lord—stop. Don’t put yourself in a position of compromise. Instead, let us—you and I—prayerfully build up our chests and train our will that we might, by God’s grace and in fellowship with other believers who hold us accountable, not betray our Lord."[emphasis mine]
[It would be easy to condemn someone, such as this Governor, who falls into sin. Let us instead choose to pray for our brother in Christ (as we too, recognizing our own weaknesses, would want), that he will be sustained by God’s grace as he begins restoring his marriage.]
[As Christians, we are familiar with the teaching of the need for abstinence and sexual purity. But there are times when we can allow our passions to master us, not to do what is good [what we know is the right thing] but instead to do that which is pleasurable for us. It happens to great Christian men, as you will read, but it also happens to all of us, usually starting with one small sin. (James 1:13-15)]
"In the past 24 hours since Governor Mark Sanford admitted his affair, I’ve run the gamut of emotions: sadness, depression, anger, and most of all, bewilderment. The particular tragedy of Sanford is that he had been an outstanding governor. He’s attractive, engaging, and smart. He is an articulate and tenacious defender of family values. And he espoused the cause of Christ. Now, his career lies on the ash heap of history. He’ll have to gracefully withdraw from political life and try to put his shattered marriage back together."
"I mentioned sadness and depression. Sanford’s admission is simply the latest among pro-family conservative Christian politicians. Remember Senator David Vitter, involved with a prostitution service? Then just a week ago, Senator John Ensign of Nevada—a good friend I have known for years—he, too, admitted an affair. And now Mark Sanford, probably the last man in American public life I would have expected to so incredibly disappoint us. Sadness, depression—then there’s anger. These men dishonored their families and their offices and the Christian faith they profess. But most of all, I am bewildered. Sanford had it all—a beautiful wife and family, high public office, and he was a viable candidate, perhaps, for President. Why would he throw it all away?"
"The answer came to me as I stewed over Sanford’s demise—and as I have reflected on my own life and my own failures, particularly before I knew the Lord. We humans, you see, have an infinite capacity for self-rationalization. We reason that we can give in to those seemingly minor temptations—say an emotional attraction to a co-worker, or just one drink at the party—because we think we know the boundaries. We think our reason can keep us safe. The problem is, as C. S. Lewis wrote in his timeless essay, “Men Without Chests,” that our reason is no match for the passions of the flesh. Lewis put it this way: Our stomachs (that is our appetites) can’t be controlled by our minds (that is, reason). Something else has to come in to play—and that is the spirited element, or our chests, as he called it. It’s our will being trained to do what is right and just. Nearly every grave moral failure begins with a small sin. Because there comes a time, after we toy with sin, when one pull of the flesh causes us to cross the line, to disengage from reason, and to follow our appetites wherever they may lead. And, I’m afraid, this is especially easy today. We’re told we can have it all, that we can be free to pursue any pleasure. Our wills are not trained to do what is good, but to do what pleases us. Many of us have become, as Lewis said, men without chests."
So, fellow Christians, don’t be self-righteous. Let the Sanford tragedy be a cautionary tale. Are you toying with sin? If so, for your self, your family, and your Lord—stop. Don’t put yourself in a position of compromise. Instead, let us—you and I—prayerfully build up our chests and train our will that we might, by God’s grace and in fellowship with other believers who hold us accountable, not betray our Lord."[emphasis mine]
[It would be easy to condemn someone, such as this Governor, who falls into sin. Let us instead choose to pray for our brother in Christ (as we too, recognizing our own weaknesses, would want), that he will be sustained by God’s grace as he begins restoring his marriage.]
Friday, June 26, 2009
#24 - 'I Got the Sucker'
Obama, PETA, and the Value of Human Life -- By Chuck Colson, BreakPoint Commentaries, 6/24/2009
[The sudden death yesterday of Michael Jackson is getting worldwide attention. I refer you to an insightful commentary found in today's Worldmag.com posting by a liberal columnist from Atlantic: http://online.worldmag.com/2009/06/26/grieve-for-the-culture-that-created-jackson/]
[The incident last week referred to in this article addresses the absolute lack of common sense that describe the worldview of too many people, especially of the liberal (sometimes called “progressive”) persuasion. The extreme view of the value of non-human life held by not just PETA but all who place human “choice” above the sacredness of human life is at the same time silly but dangerously tragic.]
“There was a lot going in the news last week—riots over the election in Iran, North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling. But the biggest story of the week, it turns out, was—drum roll, please—the story of President Obama swatting a fly. “I got the sucker!” Obama told CNBC correspondent John Harwood after killing a fly that had been buzzing around his head. Harwood laughed and the camera crew applauded. But the sight of the fly’s corpse lying on the White House rug was too much for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—and insects, apparently. They sent a letter to the Fly Swatter in Chief, expressing their disapproval. In the future, PETA said, they hoped Obama would treat flies in a more “humane” manner. To underscore their point, PETA sent the President a Humane Bug Catcher, which allows flies to be trapped and then released outside. The story of the squashed fly afforded us a moment of comic relief. But there’s a serious point at stake here. We are seeing more and more examples of people treating animals—and even insects—as if they had as much value as humans.”
“The other day, I saw what I first thought was a school bus. It wasn’t. It was a doggie daycare bus, taking the neighborhood pooches to a dog-sitting facility. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up. Go online, and you’ll see many ads for expensive clothes for dogs and cats. And a few years ago, during the making of the film Men in Black, the American Humane Society was on hand to make sure none of the hundreds of cockroaches used in the film were injured. Cockroaches! Groups like PETA illustrate a philosophy of reductionism, which treats all life as morally equivalent. Of course, if reductionists really want to be consistent, they would not even boil water, because every time they do, they kill millions of innocent microbes. If all life has equal value, then the logical conclusion is to treat all life the same, no matter how lowly—or how deadly, like mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus.”
“Obviously, nobody can live in the real world on the basis of this philosophy.
A realistic and livable philosophy of life comes from Scripture, which teaches that God created us in His image and set us up as stewards over the rest of creation, from amoebas to apes to houseflies. That doesn’t give us license to treat animals cruelly. But it’s one thing to treat animals kindly, and quite another to accord them equal status with humans. Christians need to learn to press people to face the logical conclusion of their own beliefs. The idea that animals—even flies—ought to be treated with the same respect as humans may sound humane at first. But press the idea to its rational conclusion, and people will soon begin to see how irrational and illogical it really is. The good news is that this many Americans did begin to think about these ideas last week. The result: Many people told PETA to buzz off. So I think we ought to congratulate the President for squashing that sucker, as he put it. It ignited a great national discussion about the absurdity of putting flies on the same moral plane as humans made in God’s image. [emphasis mine]
[The sudden death yesterday of Michael Jackson is getting worldwide attention. I refer you to an insightful commentary found in today's Worldmag.com posting by a liberal columnist from Atlantic: http://online.worldmag.com/2009/06/26/grieve-for-the-culture-that-created-jackson/]
[The incident last week referred to in this article addresses the absolute lack of common sense that describe the worldview of too many people, especially of the liberal (sometimes called “progressive”) persuasion. The extreme view of the value of non-human life held by not just PETA but all who place human “choice” above the sacredness of human life is at the same time silly but dangerously tragic.]
“There was a lot going in the news last week—riots over the election in Iran, North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling. But the biggest story of the week, it turns out, was—drum roll, please—the story of President Obama swatting a fly. “I got the sucker!” Obama told CNBC correspondent John Harwood after killing a fly that had been buzzing around his head. Harwood laughed and the camera crew applauded. But the sight of the fly’s corpse lying on the White House rug was too much for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—and insects, apparently. They sent a letter to the Fly Swatter in Chief, expressing their disapproval. In the future, PETA said, they hoped Obama would treat flies in a more “humane” manner. To underscore their point, PETA sent the President a Humane Bug Catcher, which allows flies to be trapped and then released outside. The story of the squashed fly afforded us a moment of comic relief. But there’s a serious point at stake here. We are seeing more and more examples of people treating animals—and even insects—as if they had as much value as humans.”
“The other day, I saw what I first thought was a school bus. It wasn’t. It was a doggie daycare bus, taking the neighborhood pooches to a dog-sitting facility. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up. Go online, and you’ll see many ads for expensive clothes for dogs and cats. And a few years ago, during the making of the film Men in Black, the American Humane Society was on hand to make sure none of the hundreds of cockroaches used in the film were injured. Cockroaches! Groups like PETA illustrate a philosophy of reductionism, which treats all life as morally equivalent. Of course, if reductionists really want to be consistent, they would not even boil water, because every time they do, they kill millions of innocent microbes. If all life has equal value, then the logical conclusion is to treat all life the same, no matter how lowly—or how deadly, like mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus.”
“Obviously, nobody can live in the real world on the basis of this philosophy.
A realistic and livable philosophy of life comes from Scripture, which teaches that God created us in His image and set us up as stewards over the rest of creation, from amoebas to apes to houseflies. That doesn’t give us license to treat animals cruelly. But it’s one thing to treat animals kindly, and quite another to accord them equal status with humans. Christians need to learn to press people to face the logical conclusion of their own beliefs. The idea that animals—even flies—ought to be treated with the same respect as humans may sound humane at first. But press the idea to its rational conclusion, and people will soon begin to see how irrational and illogical it really is. The good news is that this many Americans did begin to think about these ideas last week. The result: Many people told PETA to buzz off. So I think we ought to congratulate the President for squashing that sucker, as he put it. It ignited a great national discussion about the absurdity of putting flies on the same moral plane as humans made in God’s image. [emphasis mine]
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
#23 - “A Slobbering Love Affair” by Bernard Goldberg [A Book Summary]
Please be sure to check out the bi-monthly editorial cartoons at www.worldmag.com/articles/15514
Note :In last fall’s election, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked registered voters: “Who do most reporters want to see win?,” Seventy percent answered Obama. (Just 9 percent thought it favored John McCain.) Of these, 62 percent of Democrats and independents said the media favored Mr. Obama. In other words, people were not expecting the media to be unbiased in the election!
In the recent book by television news reporter, media analyst, and author, Bernard Goldberg, we read the incredible story of the media’s bias for our now President Obama. In its exhaustive analysis of coverage of Barack Obama by ABC, CBS, and NBS evening news coverage, the Media Research Center, among many findings, reported that: (1) Out of the 81 total reports about him from his 2004 Democratic Party Convention speech until the start of his campaign in early 2007, there was not a single negative story about him. (p. 171) “The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a ‘liberal’ 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a “rock star,” rising star,” or “superstar” during the same period. ..The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination [and the election] for Barrack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier.” (p. 172-3)
Former Democratic Party pollster (for Senator George McGovern in 1972 in his Presidential campaign) and now political analyst, says: “There is one institution in America which has no checks and balances … And that is the press. And there was a reason for that. It wasn’t that the Founding Fathers loved the press. It was because the press was supposed to protect the country. That’s why Jefferson said, ‘I would much rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers.’ But [when the media] leaves the ramparts and become a partisan outsider for one party or the other or one candidate or the other; essentially [deciding] who should be president and who should not be president; what truth people should know and what truth they should not know; then what they become, what they constitute, is a threat to democracy.” “The fundamental job of journalists is to look out for us – the American people! If nobody cares what the press says [knowing that have an institutional bias], journalists will be watchdogs in name only. They may bark from time to time, but nobody will listen. And their weakness will make it easy for a corrupt [or wrong-headed and dangerous] government to get away with murder. That is the danger we face when the mainstream media go on a noble mission to make history.” [emphasis mine] Writes Mr. Goldberg: “..just as judicial activists exploit their position on the bench to make law, so media activists exploit their position to shame the news. Instead of chronicling the news, they decide to influence it; instead of reporting on a presidential election, in 2008 they tried to determine its outcome.” (p. 166-7)
In chapter 18 of his book, Mr. Goldberg lists ten questions he would have asked Mr. Obama had he been able to interview him during the campaign. I think that these questions should still be asked of our President by an unbiased media:
1) How do you define “post-partisan politics”—because it seems to me that what you really mean is “folks on the right, come over to the left?
2) Name two or three conservative ideas you find useful and would be central
to your “post-partisan” political philosophy.
3) Is it fair to say is [Rev.] Jeremiah Wright’s sermons had not been made
public you would still be worshipping at his church? [Rev. Wright has
declared that America brought 9/11 on itself and that the government
created AIDS to eradicate black people.]
4) What did your wife really mean when she said, referring to your candidacy,
that it was the first time she was proud to be an American?
5) Some people believe that the reason so many young black people are behind the eight-ball in this country is not because of old-fashioned racism, but because of dysfunctional behavior: fifteen-year-old girls having babies, teenagers dropping out of high school for example. You spoke forcefully and eloquently … about this kind of behavior. But then you dropped the subject. As someone who enjoys tremendous support in the black community, you might have had some positive impact on the lives of these kids if you had made it a recurring theme in your campaign. Why didn’t you?
6) Regardless of your age at the time of Bill Ayers’ bombings [ Mr. Ayers is a former member of the Weather Underground, a left-wing terrorist group that planted bombs in the Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970’s.], why did you have anything—anything—to do with a man like Ayers, …who [also] said his only regret was that he didn’t do more to stop the war in Vietnam?
7) According to news reports, you have a half brother living in a hut in Kenya? Is that true? Have you ever sent him money? If not, why not—since you’ve professed compassion for the poor?
8) You won’t release your college records. That makes me wonder why not. Was it something you wrote while in college that you don’t want voters to know about? Was it your grades? [Could he have been a poor student, than even the unjustly ridiculed President Bush?] I’m puzzled, help me out.
9) How willing are you to disappoint liberals?
10) As you know, some critics have suggested the media went easy on you. Agree or disagree? What do you say to those who believe that journalists wanted to help shape history by dong what they could to get the first African-American elected president of the United States? [p. 143-5]
Some final statistics from the book to consider:- Looking at how journalists voted the past 40 years:
- In 1968, 86% voted for the Democrat, Hubert Humphrey
- In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern
- In 1980, twice as many journalists voted for Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan.
- In 1984, 58% of journalists supported Walter Mondale who lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide.
- In 1988, White House correspondents from major newspapers, networks, magazines, and news services voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis by 12 to 1 over George H.W. Bush.
- In 1992, Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents supported Bill Clinton over President Bush 89% to 9 percent..
- In 2004, campaign journalist based outside of Washington, D.C., supported John Kerry over President Bush by a 3 to one ratio. Those inside the Washington, D.C. area voted for Kerry 12 to 1.
- In 2008, a study in Investor’s Business Daily put the campaign donation ratio of journalists at more than 11-to 1 in favor of Democrats.
- In 1981, 65 percent of journalists across the country identified themselves as liberals, 17 percent as conservatives.
- In a 1996 study of journalists based in Washington, 61% said they were liberals, 9 % said they were conservatives.
- In 2007 the Pew Research Center found self-identified liberal journalists outnumbered conservatives 4 to 1.
If you wonder if the media still shows bias in favor of President Obama, all you need to do is to watch a newscast by ABC, NBC, and especially CBS, any evening or read almost any major newspaper (online) any day. And in case you missed here, here are a few news stories you might not have heard about:
Item #1 – The President goes to a fast food restaurant near the White House to buy hamburgers for the correspondents who report from there. The symbolism: He’s just a nice guy who, like most Americans, eats hamburgers.
Item #2 –The President takes his wife out on a date for dinner and to see a show in New York City. He does pay for the dinner and theatre tickets; the taxpayers paid for the $74,000 it costs to fly him round trip in a military jet. The media made little mention of ths.
Item #3 - The First Lady plants a vegetable garden on the grounds of the White House. The symbolism: She identifies with Americans who are struggling in this economy.
Item #4 –The First Lady and her daughters recently flew to Paris to meet her husband (stopping over on his way back from speaking in Egypt), to go sight seeing and buy some designer clothes (which she almost always wears). We aren’t told what their transportation costs the American taxpayers.
Iten”#5 – While the First Lady was still the wife of the U.S. Senator, her salary as an administrator at a Chicago hospital increased from well over $100,000, to over $300,000 just after her husband’s efforts got that same hospital a million dollar assistance from the American taxpayers. Just a “coincidence” the media largely failed to report.
Note :In last fall’s election, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked registered voters: “Who do most reporters want to see win?,” Seventy percent answered Obama. (Just 9 percent thought it favored John McCain.) Of these, 62 percent of Democrats and independents said the media favored Mr. Obama. In other words, people were not expecting the media to be unbiased in the election!
In the recent book by television news reporter, media analyst, and author, Bernard Goldberg, we read the incredible story of the media’s bias for our now President Obama. In its exhaustive analysis of coverage of Barack Obama by ABC, CBS, and NBS evening news coverage, the Media Research Center, among many findings, reported that: (1) Out of the 81 total reports about him from his 2004 Democratic Party Convention speech until the start of his campaign in early 2007, there was not a single negative story about him. (p. 171) “The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a ‘liberal’ 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a “rock star,” rising star,” or “superstar” during the same period. ..The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image. The protectiveness that reporters showed during the early primaries made it difficult for his rivals to effectively criticize him. And when it came to controversies such as the [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright affair, network reporters acted more as defenders than as journalists in an adversarial relationship. If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination [and the election] for Barrack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier.” (p. 172-3)
Former Democratic Party pollster (for Senator George McGovern in 1972 in his Presidential campaign) and now political analyst, says: “There is one institution in America which has no checks and balances … And that is the press. And there was a reason for that. It wasn’t that the Founding Fathers loved the press. It was because the press was supposed to protect the country. That’s why Jefferson said, ‘I would much rather have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers.’ But [when the media] leaves the ramparts and become a partisan outsider for one party or the other or one candidate or the other; essentially [deciding] who should be president and who should not be president; what truth people should know and what truth they should not know; then what they become, what they constitute, is a threat to democracy.” “The fundamental job of journalists is to look out for us – the American people! If nobody cares what the press says [knowing that have an institutional bias], journalists will be watchdogs in name only. They may bark from time to time, but nobody will listen. And their weakness will make it easy for a corrupt [or wrong-headed and dangerous] government to get away with murder. That is the danger we face when the mainstream media go on a noble mission to make history.” [emphasis mine] Writes Mr. Goldberg: “..just as judicial activists exploit their position on the bench to make law, so media activists exploit their position to shame the news. Instead of chronicling the news, they decide to influence it; instead of reporting on a presidential election, in 2008 they tried to determine its outcome.” (p. 166-7)
In chapter 18 of his book, Mr. Goldberg lists ten questions he would have asked Mr. Obama had he been able to interview him during the campaign. I think that these questions should still be asked of our President by an unbiased media:
1) How do you define “post-partisan politics”—because it seems to me that what you really mean is “folks on the right, come over to the left?
2) Name two or three conservative ideas you find useful and would be central
to your “post-partisan” political philosophy.
3) Is it fair to say is [Rev.] Jeremiah Wright’s sermons had not been made
public you would still be worshipping at his church? [Rev. Wright has
declared that America brought 9/11 on itself and that the government
created AIDS to eradicate black people.]
4) What did your wife really mean when she said, referring to your candidacy,
that it was the first time she was proud to be an American?
5) Some people believe that the reason so many young black people are behind the eight-ball in this country is not because of old-fashioned racism, but because of dysfunctional behavior: fifteen-year-old girls having babies, teenagers dropping out of high school for example. You spoke forcefully and eloquently … about this kind of behavior. But then you dropped the subject. As someone who enjoys tremendous support in the black community, you might have had some positive impact on the lives of these kids if you had made it a recurring theme in your campaign. Why didn’t you?
6) Regardless of your age at the time of Bill Ayers’ bombings [ Mr. Ayers is a former member of the Weather Underground, a left-wing terrorist group that planted bombs in the Capitol and the Pentagon in the 1970’s.], why did you have anything—anything—to do with a man like Ayers, …who [also] said his only regret was that he didn’t do more to stop the war in Vietnam?
7) According to news reports, you have a half brother living in a hut in Kenya? Is that true? Have you ever sent him money? If not, why not—since you’ve professed compassion for the poor?
8) You won’t release your college records. That makes me wonder why not. Was it something you wrote while in college that you don’t want voters to know about? Was it your grades? [Could he have been a poor student, than even the unjustly ridiculed President Bush?] I’m puzzled, help me out.
9) How willing are you to disappoint liberals?
10) As you know, some critics have suggested the media went easy on you. Agree or disagree? What do you say to those who believe that journalists wanted to help shape history by dong what they could to get the first African-American elected president of the United States? [p. 143-5]
Some final statistics from the book to consider:- Looking at how journalists voted the past 40 years:
- In 1968, 86% voted for the Democrat, Hubert Humphrey
- In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern
- In 1980, twice as many journalists voted for Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan.
- In 1984, 58% of journalists supported Walter Mondale who lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide.
- In 1988, White House correspondents from major newspapers, networks, magazines, and news services voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis by 12 to 1 over George H.W. Bush.
- In 1992, Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents supported Bill Clinton over President Bush 89% to 9 percent..
- In 2004, campaign journalist based outside of Washington, D.C., supported John Kerry over President Bush by a 3 to one ratio. Those inside the Washington, D.C. area voted for Kerry 12 to 1.
- In 2008, a study in Investor’s Business Daily put the campaign donation ratio of journalists at more than 11-to 1 in favor of Democrats.
- In 1981, 65 percent of journalists across the country identified themselves as liberals, 17 percent as conservatives.
- In a 1996 study of journalists based in Washington, 61% said they were liberals, 9 % said they were conservatives.
- In 2007 the Pew Research Center found self-identified liberal journalists outnumbered conservatives 4 to 1.
If you wonder if the media still shows bias in favor of President Obama, all you need to do is to watch a newscast by ABC, NBC, and especially CBS, any evening or read almost any major newspaper (online) any day. And in case you missed here, here are a few news stories you might not have heard about:
Item #1 – The President goes to a fast food restaurant near the White House to buy hamburgers for the correspondents who report from there. The symbolism: He’s just a nice guy who, like most Americans, eats hamburgers.
Item #2 –The President takes his wife out on a date for dinner and to see a show in New York City. He does pay for the dinner and theatre tickets; the taxpayers paid for the $74,000 it costs to fly him round trip in a military jet. The media made little mention of ths.
Item #3 - The First Lady plants a vegetable garden on the grounds of the White House. The symbolism: She identifies with Americans who are struggling in this economy.
Item #4 –The First Lady and her daughters recently flew to Paris to meet her husband (stopping over on his way back from speaking in Egypt), to go sight seeing and buy some designer clothes (which she almost always wears). We aren’t told what their transportation costs the American taxpayers.
Iten”#5 – While the First Lady was still the wife of the U.S. Senator, her salary as an administrator at a Chicago hospital increased from well over $100,000, to over $300,000 just after her husband’s efforts got that same hospital a million dollar assistance from the American taxpayers. Just a “coincidence” the media largely failed to report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
