Today's Religious Persecution

            In the year 313 Roman Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan.  It legalized Christian worship and effectively ended an era of  Christian persecution that had included, among other atrocities, circus entertainment featuring rather non-competitive contests  between Christians and lions.  

            Several centuries passed during which Christianity spread throughout Europe as well as parts of Asia and North Africa.  The movement suffered temporary setbacks caused by invasions from Norsemen, barbarians, and Muslims, but it flourished with the colonization of the Americas and Africa to become the world's dominant religion.  Persecutions were not unknown during this period, some, like the Inquisition, perpetrated by Christianity itself. 
            Now, one would expect that with the advent of modern civilization religious persecutions would cease altogether.  Yet, that is not the case.  To be sure, we have seen Christians slaughtered in Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria, and Eritrea by radical Islamists, but that doesn't explain, for instance, the ferocity of the eradication campaign against Christians in North Korea.  Nor does it explain the attacks against Christianity in this country.
            With few exceptions, like church burnings, the assault against Christians in America has not resulted in fatalities.  But it is real nonetheless, only in a different guise.  The barbarians of today take the form of atheists whose billboard in Times Square pronounces that we don't need Christ in Christmas,  the self-proclaimed champions of religious freedom who would prohibit Christmas carols in schools or Nativity scenes on the public square, and the secularists who would excise all expressions of Merry Christmas in favor of the inoffensive Happy Holidays.  They would in effect replace our constitutionally protected freedom of religion with freedom from religion.
            Christmas proclaims Joy to the World and Goodwill toward Men.  Perhaps there are some among us who need to be reminded that the reason for this proclamation is the message of universal love brought to us by the one whose birth we celebrate in this most joyful of all seasons.

The Slavery of Debt

            Martin Bashir is finally gone.  He said he resigned from his job at MSNBC, but we all know he was fired for the vile on-air attack he made on Sarah Palin.  He suggested someone defecate in her mouth, a method of punishment used by some slave owners.  Why would Bashir attack Palin in this disgusting way?   Because she had said that America had become enslaved to debt.

            Here in part is what she said:  "Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China.  When that money comes due...it'll be like slavery...We are going to be beholden to the foreign master."
            Liberals, who care nothing about spending this nation into oblivion, went nuts.  When Ron Paul echoed Sara Palin's words by saying "Ultimately, debt is slavery," Salon Magazine called him a racist.  Al Sharpton, who is well known for his own brand of racism, slammed Palin.  He screamed, "Our federal debt is like slavery?  Slavery was a horrific, vile, a vile practice explicitly based on race.  So it's hard to avoid sounding racist when you make comparisons like that."  The Reverend might have remembered that his Bible says, "The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender's slave." (Proverbs 22:7)
            Let's look at some facts.  Our national debt is 1700% higher today than it was in 1971.  The debt is now over $17 trillion, and, if we include unfunded liabilities, it is over $70 trillion.  Individual Americans are also enslaved by debt.  According to the Federal Reserve, household debt, which includes credit cards, mortgages, car payments, medical debt, and student loans, averages $75,600, or 154% of personal income.  Credit card debt alone totals $798 billion, more than $15,000 per household.  Meanwhile, our government, oblivious to the impending catastrophe, is strangling our economy by taxing us to the hilt to fund runaway entitlements  and disastrous programs like ObamaCare. 
            How did we get so far into debt?  We had virtually no national debt 90 years ago.  Calvin Coolidge, who was president then, explained why.   He said, "A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny.  It condemns citizens to servitude."  He knew something about economic slavery even back then.  I wonder what he would say today.   

           

Write, Write, Write

            I recently wrote that thinking is what I did for a living.  Of course, that's only half of it.  If you have acquired the habit of clear and logical thinking, you then have to develop the skill to apply it.  More than likely, this will involve communications.  My career was mostly in Marketing, a field in which good communications skills are absolutely essential.

            The best advice I could give kids today to improve their ability to communicate is to learn how to write.  And like any other facility, this one depends on practice.  Lots of it.  I'm not talking about texting your friends every minute of the day.  I'm suggesting a daily practice of putting your ideas down on paper.  You did it in school, so continue to do it even when your formal education is over.  Keep a diary.  Write letters.  Start a blog.  Anytime you get an idea, write it down.
            Learn how to write, but also learn how to write better.  Start with simple instruction books like E.B. White's Elements of Style and perhaps a book on editing.  Better still, find a mentor, an accomplished writer who is willing to look at your scribbles and suggest improvements.  I did it for my son Marc and I'm proud to say that his excellent writing skills have been a key to his success in business.
            My first mentor was my father.  He happened to be a linguist, perfectly bilingual in French and English, but also conversant in Spanish and Italian, with a smattering of Vietnamese and Arabic he picked up while working overseas for the State Department.  His best advice to me when I was in high school was how to expand my vocabulary.  He said, "Always have a dictionary at hand.  When you see a word you don't know, look it up immediately.  Write it down.  Then use it in three different sentences.  Do that, and this new word will be yours forever."
            Just as an aside, a couple of weeks ago I stopped at a used-book store and picked up a copy of Winston Churchill's "History of the English-Speaking Peoples."  I hadn't read two chapters when I ran into three words I didn't know, all three oddly beginning with the letter "e": exiguous, effulgence,  and ebullition.  I looked them up and wrote them down, along with their definition.  I doubt I'll ever use any of these words in a letter to the editor, but at least I'll know what they mean if I ever run into them again.  I won't give you the definitions here...you'll have to look them up them up yourself.

Thinking

            Some years ago, when I was still working for a living, I happened to be gazing out the window one day when a friend came by and saw me through the open door of my office.  He was a sales manager based in Kansas City, so I didn't get to see him or him to see me very often.  He said in a loud voice, "Now I know what you do.  You think."  The comment was made half in jest, but I took it as a sincere compliment.  Because thinking is indeed what I did for a living.  It is what I've done all my life.  So this article is about thinking.

            What we do with our lives must be driven by thought, serious thought.  To drift aimlessly through life is pointless and likely unsatisfying.  So many young people push away from the shores of their formative years and embark on the vessel that will take them through adulthood without a destination in mind and, of course, no idea how to get there.  Without a thought to how they want to spend the rest of their lives, they are bound to drift aimlessly without the satisfaction of ever having accomplished anything of value.  Which brings me to education.
            The habit of serious thought begins in school, but more specifically in high school and even more so in college.  Education introduces students to the thoughts of others, be they related to science, history, the arts, religion, or philosophy.  It is by learning how others think that we learn how to think for ourselves.  Indeed, I've always maintained that the object of a school, in its purest Socratic meaning, is to teach students how to think.
            Once the habit of thinking has been formed, it must be pursued throughout life.  The writer Paul Theroux once said that when he is between books, he feels superfluous. Exactly right.  When one's mind is not engaged, it's as if one's life is suspended.  Now, you don't have to be an Aristotle or an Einstein to be a thinking person.  Technicians, craftsmen, builders, care givers, engineers, waiters,  clerks, homemakers, and even politicians think about the results they want to achieve and take pride in their accomplishments.  Thoughtful people can bring value to any walk of life, from the extraordinary to the mundane.
            I shake my head at the time wasted by today's kids who spend hours texting or playing video games, or staring vacuously at a big screen TV, when they could be reading  a good book or engaging their minds in so many other ways.  I look at these kids and ask myself: Whatever happened to intellectual curiosity?  But that's a topic for another day.

Munich and Geneva

            What possible justification do we have for legitimizing the Iranian regime?  Iran is the world's single biggest sponsor of international terrorism.  The list of its atrocities is too long to fit on this page.  Yet, we lift sanctions, free up $7 billion, and give the Iranians the right to continue enriching uranium.  The agreement signed in Geneva fails to cover centrifuge manufacturing and testing, weapons research and fabrication, and the expansion of Iran's ballistic missile program.  Iranians are dancing in the streets.  Why not?  They won.

            Chuck Hagel, masquerading as our Secretary of Defense, says "...the risk is very minimal for us in this,"  Try telling that to the Israelis who will be the first to be bombed out of existence once Iran has nuclear weapons.  In a conversation among friends the other day, the question was posed, "Will this agreement force Israel to act preemptively against Iran?"  The group answered unanimously, "Yes."  The next question was, "Will Obama come to Israel's aid?"  Once again the answer was a unanimous "No."
            Critics consider the Geneva agreement nothing less than abject surrender.  Worse, it is being compared to Chamberlain's disgraceful surrender of Austria in Munich.  "Peace in our time," crowed Chamberlain.   "It's always better to negotiate," echoes Obama.  Munich was followed by World War II.  What will follow Geneva?
            Not to worry.  The administration says sanctions can be re-imposed in six months.  When?  After Israel is reduced to ashes?  The Virginian-Pilot's editorial page on November 27 had the most appropriate cartoon.  It showed a clueless dolt trying to figure out how to unscramble an egg and put it back into the broken shell.  The egg was broken in Geneva.

Mendacity et al

            Mendacity, cynicism, hypocrisy.  These three words, in my opinion, characterize the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Senate.

            Mendacity is the propensity to utter falsehoods, to hide the truth, to lie.  Not only did President Obama lie to the nation when he said people could keep their health plan, keep their doctors, and see reduced health costs, he repeated the lie over 30 times.  Presidential spokesperson Jay Carney, the man one congressman called a professional liar, defended the lie, as did a long list of Democrats in the Senate, including North Carolina's own prevaricator Kay Hagan. 
            And let's not forget the monstrous lie perpetrated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in declaring that the loss of lives in Benghazi had been caused by a video, when they knew all along that it had been the result of a pre-planned terrorist attack.
            As for cynicism, what could be more cynical than Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats invoking the nuclear option to prevent filibusters, the only tool the minority had to stop Obama from stacking the courts with the most radical leftist judges?  Let's remember what Senator Obama said in opposition to Republicans changing this rule: "One day the Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority."  In 2005 Harry Reid himself said such a rule change would be an "assault on democracy."  Now that's cynicism.
            As for hypocrisy, we only have to recall the promise that the Obama administration would be the most transparent one in American history.  The obfuscation, stone-walling, and paranoid secrecy pervading the White House and the Justice Department are the very opposite of transparency.  Consider the lack of candor and co-operation in the investigations of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and NSA surveillance.  Add to that the punishment and blacklisting of any insiders who dare to tell the truth; whistleblowers are routinely fired, but the guilty are sent on paid vacations.
            In spite of all the malfeasance, supporters claim it is all constitutional.  If it is, then I would have to agree with Charles Krauthammer who calls it "constitutional indecency."  Indecency, I was taught as a boy, is shameful.  Not in Washington.

                       

The Tyranny of Paternalism

            Paternalism, writes Charles Krauthammer, is one of the three pillars of ObamaCare, the other two being mendacity and subterfuge.  Of the three, I find paternalism the most odious.

            Those of us who are of a certain age remember "Father Knows Best," a TV series starring Robert Young.  The father played by Young was the very model of benevolent paternalism:  he was neither permissive nor harsh, yet he retained the kind of practical wisdom necessary for family problem solving. 
            There is another kind of paternalism, the kind embodied in ObamaCare.  This paternalism begins by denying the ability of others to make independent decisions and to be responsible for the consequences of their choices.  In response to the complaints from hundreds of thousands of people who have had their health insurance policies cancelled, President Obama and his spokesmen reply with a supercilious arrogance that drips with disdain for the very people they claim to help.   The message is clear: The policy you have is no good.  It is substandard.  You're obviously too ignorant to make an informed decision about your health care needs.   So we have something better for you.
            This is the kind of paternalism that was a pillar of Marxism and Leninism before ObamaCare arrogated it for his Progressive agenda.  It is the belief that government is the solution to all problems.  It is an echo of the authoritarianism against which Americans went to war with England and its king.  Plainly speaking, this paternalism is un-American.
            And now the people are angry.  They're angry because they can't keep their old insurance policies, because they can't keep their doctors, because their premiums and their deductibles are going through the roof.  And they're angry at the president who lied to them repeatedly about these things.  Americans don't like liars, especially the ones who treat them like ignorant fools.
            What?  Do I hear the rumblings of rebellion?  It may be time for Mr. Obama to read a little history about what Americans do when they feel the weight of tyranny pressing on their necks.

Tear It Down!

            As we approach the Promised Land of November 30th, we are told that the ObamaCare website might be only 80% ready, that the payment feature might not be ready at all, that glitches number in the hundreds and will need lots more Band Aids.  We won't know the full extent of the mess until the deadline is reached.  In the meantime, the sign-up disaster has given us a trove of words that reflect the richness of the English language.

            Some of the adjectives describing the failure of the website have been mild: elementary, dysfunctional, inexcusable, misbegotten, historic.  Some add a sense of doom: catastrophic, abysmal, stunning, astounding, disastrous.  Still more try to assign a dimension to the problem: colossal, epic, gargantuan, and galactic (my favorite).  The list goes on.
            The point is that we are at a loss for the one word that truly measures the impact of this government-engineered screw-up.  Some say that it dooms ObamaCare, because the young people counted on to sign up have been turned off by repeated failures to get on line or get answers to their questions; they hear that their information may not be secure and may expose them to the consequences of identity theft, and that their premiums and deductibles -- if only they could figure what they are --  will be prohibitively expensive.  As a result, few are enrolled and fewer still are actually making payments.
            Then we have the 5 million (or is it 8 million?) policy holders who have been notified that they are losing their coverage, not to mention the 50 million small business employees who may also soon be dumped unceremoniously onto the same uncovered snow bank.  In spite of the president's attempt -- legalities aside -- to apply a fix to this problem, there really is no fix possible without the cooperation of state insurance commissioners and the insurance companies themselves. Meanwhile, an increasingly incredulous public renders its opinion of our dissembling president with poll numbers that are sinking like a corpse with cement shoes.
            What even the left-leaning media is coming to realize is that this is a defining moment for progressives, maybe even for honestly compassionate liberals.  To borrow an image from the Reagan era, ObamaCare is becoming the Berlin Wall of American history.  The voices of the disillusioned and disenfranchised are only a rumble now, but they will soon erupt into a roar:  Tear It Down!

           

           

Ethanol and Other Follies

            Every time I stop at a gas station to fill up, I am reminded that good intentions come to naught when they clash with common sense. 

            Before I pull the nozzle I'm told that the fuel I'm about to pump contains 10% ethanol.   What a wonderful idea!  By replacing gasoline, ethanol reduces our dependence on foreign oil.  And, of course, burning less fossil fuels means less pollution.  Who could argue with that?
            Well, it so happens that this argument clashes with common sense reality, because it ignores the negative effects of ethanol.  First of all, the production of ethanol requires an increase in corn harvests, meaning that more land (5 million more acres so far) must be converted to this crop.  And where does this land come from?  From grasslands, from filled-in wetlands, and conservation lands.  And what else is needed?  Fertilizer.  Lots of it.  We're talking billions of pounds of nitrates that can filter into our streams, our rivers, and our aquifers. 
            But nitrates are not the only polluters occasioned by the thirst for ethanol.  You can't just put corn juice in your tank.  It has to be converted to a flammable liquid, just like oil needs to be refined into gasoline.  Where is that done?  In factories burning coal and polluting the air.
            What else?  It costs more to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline.  And devoting so much land to growing corn for ethanol raises the price of all other corn products.
            Ethanol is not the only idea that our well-intentioned energy gurus have come up with that clashes with reality.  How about wind farms?  Is the little energy produced by wind turbines, whose tips can rotate up to 170 miles per hour, worth the lives of thousands of eagles and migrating birds?  How about insect-eating bats?  The Journal of BioScience estimates that in 2012 between 600,000 and 900,000 bats were killed by wind turbines.  Consider that one bat can consume between 600 and 1,000 mosquitoes and other insects in just one hour.  Could it be that flying insects, not humans, are the biggest beneficiaries of wind turbines?
            The United States government is moving full speed ahead to subsidize other renewable energy sources (biomass, thermal, hydro, etc.), but has not always been wise in choosing winners and losers.  The list of losers like Solyndra ($535 million lost), Spectrawatt ($500 million), First Solar ($1.46 billion), Sun Power ($1.2 billion), Fisker Automotive ($529 million), Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700 million), Brightsource ($1.6 billion), and many others have proven again and again that investment in renewable energy is no slam dunk. 
            Some $80 billion of taxpayer money has been flushed down the renewable energy drain since Obama took office in 2009.  This is not to say that renewable energy has no future.  It does.  But it would be wise, I think, to consider the pros and cons of any project before pouring money into it.  The market, which uses its own money, is much better at that sort of thing than the government, which uses ours.  I doubt very much that the market would have picked $80 billion worth of losers or raped the land to produce more corn.  

Subsidies

            Forget about all the trouble ObamaCare is having with its website.   The fact is ObamaCare is bound to be a raging success.  The computer problems will be fixed eventually, and enrollments will come pouring in.  Sure there will other problems with people facing increased premiums and higher deductibles.  But it's all part of the plan.  You see, those who are calling ObamaCare a train wreck are ignoring the program's real goal: votes.  And, as we all know, votes equal power.  And unlimited power in the hands of government leads to tyranny.

            How will ObamaCare produce votes?  With one simple method called subsidies.  We've already heard that most people who have managed to get through the tangle of the ObamaCare website have learned that they are eligible for Medicaid.  Eligibility for Medicaid has been raised to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).  A family of four with an income of $31,155 or less can now get free medical care with Medicaid.  All these new Medicaid enrollees are sure to vote Democratic in gratitude.
            But what if you make more than 138% of the FPL?  Not to worry.  You can make up to 250% of the FPL (almost $59,000) and get a subsidy from the federal government to help pay for your increased premiums.  That's on a sliding scale, of course, but free money is free money.  Add these people to the list of likely Democratic voters.
            Incredibly, you can earn up to 400% of the FPL and get a subsidy from the government called an advance premium tax credit.   It's kind of hard to explain how it works, but the point is that just about anybody earning under $95,000 a year gets free money to offset the cost of health insurance under ObamaCare.  More grateful voters.
            Now, does President Obama and his Progressive entourage really care about the poor?  Nonsense.  When the president and his wife spend millions of taxpayer dollars on themselves every year to live like royalty, do they display any affinity for the poor?  On the contrary, the real object of Obama's ideology is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a Socialist form of government that redistributes wealth and creates an underclass of citizens dependent on government.  Grateful voters, all.
            ObamaCare , with control of one sixth of the economy, is the key to the Progressives' permanent takeover of this country.  The only way to stop ObamaCare is to defeat every politician who voted for it.  Otherwise, if you want a glimpse of the future, they're playing previews of coming attractions in Cuba.

           

Trust

            The words "In God We Trust" appear on the back of every bill in my wallet.  This reminds us that our Founders believed that we could rely on a higher power to watch over us.  Now, I'm sure our increasingly secular society would love to eliminate any reference to God, not just on our currency, but in every aspect of our daily lives.  But if we can't trust in God, who can we trust?

            The answer we get from the Progressives in this country Is...Government.  After all, government knows what's best for us.  The latest example of that Progressive dogma is ObamaCare.  The law and its thousands of pages of regulations smack of an arrogance that belittles everyone seeking a solution to health care.  You want a simple policy that covers only catastrophic illnesses?  Not good enough.  ObamaCare has something better for you.  Even though you're a childless single adult you still need pediatric dental coverage;  if you're 60 years old you still need maternity coverage.  It may cost you a lot more, but that's what fairness is all about.  A talk with someone in the Administration might go something like this:

            __ We know what's best for you. Trust us. 
            __ Wait a minute!  I thought the president said that if I liked my health plan, I could keep it, and that no one will take it away, no matter what.    
            __  He did say that, but he just forgot to add that your policy had to meet the standards set forth in the ObamaCare regulations.  Just a slight omission.
            __ And didn't he also say that I could keep my doctor? 
            __ True.  But some doctors are refusing to participate in the program.  So you might not be able to keep yours.  It's not your fault: it's your doctor's fault.
            __ But will my costs go down like the president promised?
            __ I believe you are being a little selfish about this.  We need you to pay more so that people with no insurance can get it for free with government subsidies.
            __ So was the president lying when he promised I could keep my health plan and my doctor, and that my costs would go down?
            __ Of course not.  He was in the middle of a re-election campaign and he didn't want people like you to get upset and not vote for him.  In politics there is no such thing as a lie.  It's just politics.
            __Oh, thank you.  You had me scared there for a minute.  So I can really trust the president?
            __You bet.
            __Good. 'Cause I really like his smile.  So where do I go to sign up?
            __ The president gave you an 800 number to call.  Just dial that number, and a nice person who knows what's best for you will help you.

We Will Not Forget

            "It's Over."  So read newspaper headlines after the president signed the bill to end  the government shutdown and extend the debt ceiling.  Everybody shakes hands.  It's all behind us now, so let's forgive and forget.  Really?  Not so fast. 

            Will we forget the vicious name-calling, like White House aide Dan Pfeiffer comparing tea party members to jihadists, "people with a bomb strapped to their chest"? 
            Will we forget HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius assuring us that all was well with the opening of ObamaCare exchanges, when it was clear that it was an enormous disaster?   
            Will we forget the image of a clueless Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel showing up for the first time ever to receive caskets returning from Afghanistan, when his department had announced that it would not pay death benefits to the families of the dead soldiers? 
            Will we forget National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis squirming before a congressional committee and saying he couldn't remember the name of the person he talked to at the White House who told him to prevent public access to national parks and the Washington Mall?  
            Will we forget the guard who admitted, "We're just following orders.  We were told to make it as painful as possible."? 
            For me, the most indelible image is of the veteran with tears running down his cheeks, not in sadness or sorrow, but in anger and frustration at President Obama for dishonoring the men who fought and died for this country by preventing veterans from  visiting the WW II Memorial.  Behind him were men and women depositing the Mall's metal barricades at the White House fence.  In the spirit of Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, they rejected Obama's insult, shouting, "Take Down These Barricades."
            It's not over.  We will not forget.

State solutions

            From the floor of the Senate in 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts rose to give another one of his fiery anti-slavery speeches.  This time he went too far when he called  South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler an imbecile and said, "Senator Butler has chosen a mistress. I mean the harlot, slavery."  Two days later, Butler's cousin, Preston Brooks, a congressman from South Carolina, avenged his family's honor by bludgeoning  Sumner with his gold-tipped cane and almost killed him.  It took years for Sumner to recover.

            Maybe we have grown a little more civilized these days.  But the counterproductive spectacle of name-calling going on in Washington these days makes some of us wonder if the federal system of government devised by our Founding Fathers is fatally flawed.  Extremists at both ends of the political spectrum rarely show that they are interested in solving problems.  Instead, when they take time off from slandering each other, they go trolling for votes so they can stay in power, or seek glory in martyrdom by sacrificing themselves on the altar of ideology.  But it needn't be that way. 
            In  a recent article, Cal Thomas demonstrated that Washington should follow the example of several states that have achieved a high level of success in those very areas that have plagued our federal government.  Louisiana, Ohio, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Wisconsin have all done very well in growing their states' economy: GDP is up, unemployment is down, personal income is up, taxes are down, manufacturing is up, deficits are down. 
            How did they do it?  They enacted tax reform, they shrunk their bureaucracies, they modernized programs like Medicaid, and they worked with private industry to create jobs programs that really work.    
            If these states can solve their problems, why can't Washington?  Thomas points out that the five states all have Republican governors.  This is more than a clue.  What they all have in common is the belief that smaller government, lower taxes, and free enterprise are the elements that foster growth.  Not more spending, not higher taxes, not job-killing regulations.
            North Carolina, with tax reform enacted this past year by its Republican legislature and signed by its Republican governor, seems to have gotten the message.  Maybe the next time Cal Thomas writes about the states that have shown the way to economic growth, North Carolina will have been added to the list.

"Killong Jesus" Pros and Cons

            I have just finished reading “Killing Jesus,” the well-publicized book by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard.  As many are aware, the book has already been praised as well as panned by many.  In my opinion, a little of both is in order.  Like “Killing Lincoln” and “Killing Kennedy” before it, “Killing Jesus” is a great read.  It is captivating and flows easily from chapter to chapter.  The controversy surrounds “facts” used by the authors as a basis for the book.  Right up front they say that they make an effort to separate fact from legend, and then proceed to violate their promise. 

            I think the Christian community of faith will applaud the book, because it is full of background information on the times Jesus lived in, especially details on the Roman empire and its effect on Israel.  At the same time, the book follows the gospels closely in presenting Jesus as the Son of God.  This is clearly a book written by believers.
           As to the person of Jesus, critics have already been quick to point out that too much fluff has gone in to augment the meager facts as we know them.  O’Reilly and Dugard have a vivid imagination that is evident at all times.  That’s not bad, just creative license. 
            More interesting to me are the scenes in the Bible that the authors chose to include as well as the ones they chose to ignore.  The Last Supper, for instance, has the washing of the feet found only in John, while it ignores the consecration of the bread and wine, which is central to the Synoptics. 
            Other scenes as written violate principles of history writing, that is, they cannot be substantiated by witnesses, corroborating evidence, or plausibility.  For example, the authors report as fact the words Jesus spoke in agony in the Garden of Gethsemane as he prayed alone while the apostles slept.  There are many such scenes that rely on myth, legend, and Christian tradition.  For this reason, it is best, in my opinion, to call “Killing Jesus” a historical novel rather than  A HISTORY, as the subtitle says.
            All in all, this is a good book.  It is well-researched and engrossing at all times.  The description of Jesus' torture and crucifixion is riveting and likely to move believers and non-believers alike.  Flaws aside, I highly recommend reading "Killing Jesus."

 

Rains from the Eaves

            On December 13, 1862, Union General Ambrose Burnside attacked the Confederate army by sending his troops charging up Marye's Hilll west of Fredericksburg where the rebels held the high ground.  The result was a massacre of epic proportions.  Confederate General James Longstreet later compared the rate of falling Federals to the "...steady dripping of rains from the eaves of a house."

            Every time I reflect on the current battle in Washington I think of Senator Cruz leading his cohorts in Congress in a battle he cannot win against Senator Reid and his Senate Democrats who hold the high ground.  The attempt to defund ObamaCare cannot succeed any more than the senseless charge of Burnside's troops at Fredericksburg.  Senator Cruz, as valiant as he is, should have chosen a different time and better ground to engage the enemy.
            The Union army occupied the town of Fredericksburg, just as the Republicans control the House.  It held the town hostage, just as the Tea Party is accused of holding the country hostage by refusing to pass a clean spending bill.  But, just as in Fredericksburg, Republicans cannot dislodge the entrenched opposition holding the high ground.  As a consequence of this  foolhardy charge, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are drooling over the prospects of  voters in next year's elections causing the Republicans in Congress to fall like "dripping of rains from the eaves of a house."
            The question remains: How will the voters remember this tawdry episode?  Will they hold the Republicans responsible for closing down the government, or will they recall the obstinacy of the Democrats in refusing to pass House bills to ease the burden on veterans, on national parks, and on D.C. government?  Will they hold the president accountable for preventing WW II veterans from visiting their memorial on the Washington Mall or the graves of their fallen comrades in Normandy?
            To me, there is one important difference between the attitude of the victors at Fredericksburg and that of the Democrats in Washington.  The Confederates did not rejoice at the slaughter of their foes; they felt a genuine compassion at the sight of the bodies of Union soldiers piled high on Marye's Hill.  In Washington we hear the Democrats and their media sycophants call the Republicans racists, anarchists, obstructionists, and worse.  The president himself is blitzing the country excoriating his opposition, while vowing never to negotiate a cease fire.  There is a meanness in his speeches that has never been heard before.
            Is this the kind of leadership we should expect from our elected officials?  In a battle as nasty, brutish, and ugly as this one, is it any wonder opinion polls of politicians are dropping?  Perhaps like "rains from the eaves of a house"?

           

           

Terrorism and Islam

            The most contentious issue these days is Obamacare.  It is difficult to comment on it, however, because the Beltway wars on Obamacare sway back and forth so fast that the battlefield reports get old by the hour.  So let's look at another war where nothing seems to change.

            This war is the war on terrorism, and the constant is Islam.  What do the two sides (or is it three?) in the Syrian conflict have in common?  Islam.  What do the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood have in common?  Islam.  What do al Qaeda in Yemen, Ansar al Sharia in Libya, and Al Shabaab in Somalia have in common? Islam.   What do Hamas, Hezbollah, and the mullahs in Iran have in common?  Islam.  And what else do all these groups have in common?  They are all terrorists.  Can anyone possibly fail to see the connection?
            The scariest thing for me is what is happening right here at home.  Why was Major Hassan not treated as a terrorist?  Why were the Boston bombers living among us in plain sight?  Why has Minneapolis become a recruitment center for Somali suicide bombers? 
            Muslims in this country demand our tolerance and respect.  Why should we give it to them when they are intolerant of our values and disrespectful of our way of life?  They take offense at our criticism of their religion.  Yet, it is Islam that treats women like chattel and encourages the murder of infidels.   Why are their leaders silent about the atrocities committed by Muslims in Mali, the Sudan, and the Philippines, not to mention the Middle East?   Where is their outrage when Muslims burn our flag, storm our embassies, destroy Christian churches, and dance in the streets to celebrate our misfortunes? 
            Then we have President Obama.  Why is he so sympathetic to Muslims?  Why is he so willing to negotiate with Iran while it is building a nuclear bomb?  Is he so blind not to see that he is being played like a fiddle by the likes of Assad, Rouhani, and Putin?  In fact, why is he telling us that al Qaeda is on the run and the war on terror is coming to an end, when all the evidence points to the opposite? 
            Why is our president assuring us that Islam is a religion of peace, when it clearly is anything but?  Will it take another Twin Towers for him to see the light?

           

Some Positive News

            People critical of my blogs accume me of being too negative.  They are right.  There are many things going on that cry out for opposition, but there are also good happenings to celebrate.  So let's look at some positive news.

            NOVA Women's Healthcare, an abortion clinic in Fairfax, Virginia, was shut down after state and local governments enacted regulations it was unable to meet.  The clinic performed  3,066 abortions in 2011 and 3,567 in 2012.   Are you listening, Planned Parenthood supporters?
            North Carolina enacted sweeping tax reforms that reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate by 25%, and corporate income tax from 6.9% to 6% in 2014 and 5% in 2015.  These tax reductions will put more money in taxpayers' pockets and will make North Carolina more attractive to business investors and job creators.  And these are only the first measures in much needed tax reform promised by Republicans who now control both the legislature and the governorship.
            Halfway around the world, Australians, fed up with Liberal Prime Minister Julia Gilliard's tax and spend policies, elected Tony Abbott, a conservative, to head the new government.  He promises, among other measures, to reduce foreign aid, to curb the number of asylum seekers, and to stop the government from spending any more money on wasteful and unproductive green-energy technologies.  Too bad he's not an American citizen eligible for the presidency.
            In Colorado, State Senate President John Moore and State Senator Angela Giron  were both recalled by voters in their districts for their extreme positions on gun control.  The Moore and Giron campaigns were funded to the tune of $3 million, including $350,000 from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while opponents had only had $500,000 to fund their effort.  After getting bounced, Giron had the gall to say that this story was all about voter suppression.  
            When Al Gore accepted his Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, he predicted that Arctic sea ice could disappear completely in 30 years because of global warming caused by carbon emissions.  Apparently his computer models were a little off.  In the past year the amount of sea ice has increased in size by an area equal to 19,000 Manhattans.  It is the greatest increase in sea ice on record.   It would appear that forecasts of global warming and imminent doom used to justify fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy have been grossly exaggerated.   Battery Park, Florida beaches, and polar bears are safe for now.

Hillary Honored, America Dishonored

            With all the attention focused these days almost exclusively on the Syrian embarrassment, other notable items have been squeezed off the front page.   One in particular made me want to vomit.  On September 10th, the eve of the twelfth anniversary of 9/11 and the first anniversary of Benghazi, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia honored Hillary Clinton for her lifelong career in public service.

            Say what?  How can any self-respecting organization choose to honor Mrs. Clinton on that day when her inexcusably bad judgment and the gross errors of her department led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi.  I cannot imagine a more deliberate insult to the brave men's families who are still waiting for answers as to what really happened and why.
            What we do know about our former Secretary of State is that she was intimately involved in the cover-up of the facts surrounding the Benghazi tragedy.  She shamelessly lied repeatedly to America, to the world, and to the grieving families about a video being the cause of the attack on our consulate.  
            We do know that her signature was on the order that denied increased security for the Benghazi compound.  When she finally admitted responsibility for the State Department's failure in protecting our people in Libya, she should have resigned.  But there was not an ounce of honor in her duplicitous heart.  To this day she has not paid the price for her mendacity and gross dereliction of duty.  Instead, we are left with her unforgettably callous response, "What difference does it make now?"
            This was the woman the National Constitution Center chose to honor?
            Also adding to my revulsion on that day was a Republican.  The man who presented the honor to Hillary Clinton was the Chairman of the National Convention Center, none other than Jeb Bush, the brother of the president who for years has been the target of relentless slanders by Mrs. Clinton's party.  I have been an admirer of Jeb Bush.  He did a terrific job as governor of Florida, and I always thought he would make a fine candidate for the presidency.  But now, If he decides to run in 2016, I hope he doesn't come knocking on my door asking for my support.
            Of course, the Administration and the mainstream media would like us to forget Benghazi.  Perhaps I should, too.  It's ancient history.  After all, what difference does it make now?

No Schadenfreude

            Schadenfreude is a German word defined as pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.  As a lifelong Red Sox fan, I was definitely guilty of schadenfreude last week when the Yankees blew two games against Boston in the late innings.  They had not lost two consecutive games at home while scoring eight or more runs since 1911. 

            This got me to thinking whether or not I was also guilty of schadenfreude watching Barack Obama's embarrassing show of incompetence at home and abroad on the Syrian issue.  I have often attacked the president for his mendacity, his hypocrisy, his divisiveness, his narcissistic arrogance, and his destructive radical ideology.  But it's not until now that I've actually begun to feel sorry for him.            
            The man is virtually all alone.  The international community will not join him in his proposed attack on Syria;  even France's vow of support is of the feeble "You go first" variety.  If Obama goes it alone with a limited strike--announced in advance, if you please-- he will be laughed at for his timidity.  It would be worse than doing nothing. If he follows McCain's advice and tries to take down Assad's regime, he will invite a retaliation that could engulf the entire Middle East, a response for which the president is clearly not prepared.
            It is even worse on our shores.  Congressmen who went home for the Labor Day recess have been overwhelmed by the voiced opposition of their constituents.  Diehard supporters of the president who are up for re-election must be aghast at the prospect of voter revenge.  It remains to be seen how many will defect in the coming days.
            Because of my relentless attacks on the president, one of my Liberal friends has asked me to go easy on him.  OK.  Having lost his friends overseas as well as the vast majority of Americans, if Obama loses Congress, too, I promise not to derive pleasure from his misfortunes.  I will only feel sorry for him and sorry for my country's loss of prestige, a loss that falls squarely on his shoulders, no matter how much he ends up blaming everybody else.
            I'm sorry, my Liberal friend.  That's the best I can do.

Syria Redux

            He flinched.  After all the bravado, after all the promises to punish the iniquitous poisoner of children, the president flinched.  Scoffed at by the international community and abandoned by his staunchest ally, Barack Obama looked over his shoulder and found that his leadership had no followers.  A risible caricature of weakness in the eyes of the world, he now appeals to Congress for an affirmation he knows will never come.  This emperor truly has no clothes.

            The president could have gone right ahead and launched missiles on his own authority.  He didn't seek Congressional approval for bombing Libya, and no one would have been surprised had he once again invoked his executive authority to bomb Syria.  He had drawn the red line, and Assad crossed it repeatedly.  It was time to punish the ogre.
            There was just one little problem: the president had failed to define his strategic objective.  The president repeatedly assured the world that his action was not aimed at a regime change or degrading Syrian military assets.  The punishment would be limited and would not last long.  But, punishment in the form of pin pricks is not a strategic objective in the context of national security.  Is it any wonder the president persuaded no one to go along with his pusillanimous leadership.
            It will be interesting to see if Obama decides to save face by attacking Syria without Congressional approval.  At a meet-and-greet of the Perquimans County Republican Party with Congressman Walter Jones on August 28, the word "impeachment" came up a couple of times.  Jones himself said he would be the first to submit a resolution in the House of Representatives for the impeachment of the president if he goes against Congress on Syria.  The House is not likely to vote for Impeachment at this time, and if it did, no conviction could be obtained in a Senate dominated by Democrats.   But if Obama continues to rule like a tyrant, the move for impeachment is likely to gain supporters.
            President Obama has lost the support of his beloved international community.  How much longer can he count on his fawning fans to put up with his failed leadership?

Creeping Authoritarianism

            I came across this interesting quote from James Madison the other day: "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by silent and gradual encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." How perfectly this mirrors what is going on today with "Obama's creeping authoritarianism," a phrase coined by the Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger.  It amazes me that Madison could foresee this sort of thing happening more than 200 years after the drafting of our Constitution.

            If President Obama is ever impeached, it will be for his deliberate and repeated violation of his oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States.  The evidence is all around us.  Sometimes it is blatant and arrogant as when he said, "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own.  I won't wait for Congress," and, "We're going to do everything we can...with or without Congress."  In other words, Obama intends to use his executive authority to make his own law.
            We have already seen this with the president's multiple executive orders and other decisions to bypass laws enacted by Congress, the most recent examples of which are his postponement  of ObamaCare's employer mandate and his use of taxpayer funds to subsidize health insurance costs for Congressmen and their aides.  Both actions were violations of specific provisions of the law, a law he signed.   Oh, well.  Since ObamaCare is his baby, I guess that means he can do whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says.  But where in our Constitution does it say that the President of the United States is not obligated to execute the law when he doesn't feel like it?
            At other times Obama uses his henchmen to do his dirty work.  Remember when Eric Holder made up his own version of the Voting Rights Act or when Janet Napolitano decided not to enforce immigration law? 
            Worst of all, though, are the "silent and gradual encroachments" by Obama lackeys in the EPA, the Energy Department, the NLRB, the IRS and others.  They not only make and impose their own laws in the form of regulations, they also act as judge and jury when their regulations are not obeyed.         
            What we're talking about here is  the importance the Constitution places on the separation of powers. If the president ignores Congress and makes his own laws; if he picks and chooses which laws he will execute;  if he does not abide by Supreme Court decisions, then he simply is not preserving, defending and protecting the Constitution. That is the very definition of authoritarianism.  It is also the path to despotism.  And that, in my view, is an impeachable offense.

           

             

Education Law Changes

            For the first time in the eleven years I have been living in North Carolina, I can say that I am happy with the results of legislation passed by our representatives in Raleigh.  In particular, I am pleased with the state's tax reforms.  They not only will reduce income taxes beginning next year, they will also make North Carolina a much more attractive state in which to do business.  I am hopeful that this last change will have a positive effect on our community.  Goodness knows we could use more employers in Perquimans County.

            Other changes have not been met with equal enthusiasm, especially legislation affecting education.  Overall spending for K-12 education is increasing by 2.1%, but there are some changes in the budget that will leave teachers' unions and some individual teachers grumbling. 
            One of those changes eliminates tenure; teachers will no longer earn lifetime security after four years of teaching.  Up to now, it has been almost impossible to fire teachers who enjoy the protection of tenure's security umbrella.  That only 17 of North Carolina's 97,184 teachers were fired last year is proof of that.  I know from personal experience as a school board member for 13 years that a small school district cannot afford to fight a well-funded union in court to remove incompetent, abusive, or uncaring teachers, even test cheats.   Merit pay and performance bonuses are much better inducements to excellence.   The legislature gets a gold star from me on this one.
            Another change unpopular among teachers is the elimination of extra pay for a master's degree.  The legislature relied on research showing that teachers with advanced degrees are no more effective on average than those without them.  The change seems to suggest that teachers obtain these degrees just to get a boost in salary.  That charge may be unfair in many cases.   Unfortunately, the reputations of good teachers who work hard to improve themselves can be sullied by others, like a guidance counselor I knew who waited 25 years to go for his doctorate so he could increase his base pay before retiring and thus get a big boost in his pension.  Here again, I think merit pay and performance bonuses are a better way to reward  excellence in the classroom.
            I hope our legislature will not stop here.  Anyone who looks at the superiority of educational systems in places as far distant as South Korea and Sweden knows that there is a lot of room for improvement here at home.  I'm likely to get a lot of flack on this one, but I am a big proponent of increased school hours and  a longer school year (perhaps through year-round classes).  I also support charter schools and school vouchers; North Carolina is inching in this direction, but needs to do much more.  And we should give more high school students the option of either preparing for college or acquiring the hands-on technical skills to enter the job market upon graduation.  
           Finally, we need to update a curriculum that is not competitive with other countries in math and science, and leaves so many graduating students pathetically clueless on the principles of freedom and democracy and the history of our country. 
            When I was a kid, we studied something called Civics.  Now the kids all think Civics are cars made by Honda.