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"?