It’s Not Racism, Mr. President

Repeat something and it becomes heard.  Repeat something often and it becomes accepted fact.  Repeat a lie and people believe it even if it defies logic.  But if you’re a prominent person and you repeat something that has no factual basis, you truly are a disgusting individual.

One of the accusations that the supporters and allies of President Obama have continued to assert is that challenges to Obama are based on something other than disagreement with his governing policies or philosophies.  Unwilling to listen to opposing arguments, they’re convinced that every difference of opinion has to be based on distaste for black people.

The latest to make this ridiculous claim is Sam Donaldson. Some of you may not even know who Sam Donaldson is so his making a pronouncement about the President may seem as important as your Aunt Lucy making one.  Donaldson was a former White House Correspondent and has been an employee of ABC since 1967.  Donaldson, who is considered one of the senior newsmen of Washington, stated that “Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!”  Donaldson was prodded to make his comment after reporter Neil Munro jumped in to ask the President a question about his new immigration mandate.  This is not a defense of Neil Munro, but what does this have to do with racism?

Donaldson, of course, has a history of aggressive behavior, having similarly asked untimely questions of both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, but that is just a matter of degree.  Those were Republican presidents, and, according to the MSM playbook, don’t merit any respect.  But throughout all the coverage of Donaldson’s comments, not one person asked the man on what he based his assertion.  Someone in a senior position for ABC News shouldn’t be able to spout ludicrous statements like this without any basis in fact, or without being questioned.

He’s not the first prominent individual to make this preposterous claim.  The President’s buddy and Attorney General said it himself.  On the topic of criticism of himself and President Obama, Eric Holder told the New York Times that “This is a way to get at the President because of the way I can be identified with him.  Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Not having any proof of this, I decided to do my own research.  It just might be shocking to the race-baiters, but I can find lots of people who gravely dislike Obama’s policies, but could care less about the color of his skin.  The Leftist retort to that is “of course, they are not going to admit their racism to you.  That is something that remains under the radar, lurking in the shadows.”  Those who truly believe this will never listen to reality or reason.  They are, in fact, unredeemable.

But here’s a story for you.  I recently went to Fenway Park to watch the Red Sox play the Atlanta Braves, and found myself sitting next to a couple of ”good ol’ boys” from Georgia.  I don’t often get to meet folks like this; they’re rather difficult to find around the West Side of Los Angeles.  I informed them that I was visiting #1 son, who is in Boston working for Governor Romney.  My neighbor replied that he was very unhappy with the performance of the current president, and would be voting for Mr. Romney in November.  Now keep in mind that this man was the epitome of a southern white boy.  He spoke and reeked old south. He even had some chew under his lip.  Picture Larry the Cable Guy.

I leaned over and quietly asked him if his distaste for President Obama had anything to do with his race.  He said “Hell, no.  That stuff has been over long ago.”  Then he said the most fascinating thing.  “You know who I wish you Republicans would put up for President?’’  I waited, fully expecting to hear names like Jim DeMint or Chris Christie.  He blurted out “Condi Rice. That woman is smart and classy.  The best thing President Bush did was make her Secretary of State.  Now that is someone who would make a great President.”

There’s no science behind what I did, but at least I tried to find out some facts.  I have asked the same question to hundreds of people who do not support the President, and have always received a similar response.  That doesn’t mean that somewhere there might be people who will base their vote on racial animus, but I haven’t spoken to any of them and neither has Sam Donaldson, Eric Holder, or any of their supporters.  They have offered no evidence for their position.

To accuse those who do not support this president of racism is disgusting.  To accuse all Republicans of racism is disgusting.  To use a position of prominence to assert that someone that disagrees with you is a racist is despicable.  And to assert that people are racists with no basis for that assertion is as low as you can get as a human being.

Now you know what I think of you Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Holder, and anyone who agrees with you.

Bruce Bialosky

Bruce Bialosky is the founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California and a former Presidential appointee.

http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2012/07/02/its_not_racism_mr_president/page/full/

Arguments Do Not Have Testicles

Recently, a student asked me whether I had a right to speak out on abortion given that I am a man and could never experience pregnancy. I countered by asking him whether arguments have testicles. The question drew laughter from other students who were listening to the exchange. But my point was serious and worth addressing at length.

The idea that men are ineligible to speak out on abortion has at least six flaws, each of which should be understood and articulated by men who desire to speak on the issue. Those argumentative flaws follow in no particular order of importance:

1. The argument is sexist towards men.There have been 26 million males aborted in America since Roe v. Wade. Men have every right to speak out on behalf of those millions of males who were victims of violence at the hands of women. To accept that men cannot speak up for them because they could never choose to have an abortion would have dangerous implications. Could a woman not speak up for a young female rape victim because she could never choose to commit a rape? Would they be prohibited from speaking because they were not members of the gender ultimately responsible for carrying out the crime? Surely not. Furthermore, the argument reinforces the dangerous idea that rights belong to groups and not to individuals.

2. The argument is sexist towards women. We must also consider the effects of male anti-abortion advocacy on unborn women. An unborn woman has a right to choose simply by virtue of the fact that she is a woman. Or so the argument goes. If a woman is persuaded to let her unborn female child live then she too can hear the evidence on both sides of the abortion debate. If she dies, she is not at liberty to hear arguments on either side of the issue from either a man or a woman. And she cannot make a decision concerning what to do with her body if she is dismembered in the womb. Ironically, a woman’s so-called right to body autonomy, when exercised, defeats another woman’s right to bodily autonomy (in roughly one out of every two cases of pregnancy).

3. The argument defeats Roe v. Wade.

Feminists would like to see the two dissenting Justices in Roe v. Wade silenced because they are men. But the same argument would silence the seven Justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade. They were also men. In other words, if a man’s opinion on abortion is invalidated simply by virtue of the fact that he is a man then Roe v. Wade would also be invalidated.

4. The argument would also apply to other medical procedures.

Women usually decide to let their male offspring live. When they do, they usually have their male offspring circumcised. As Francis Beckwith points out, a woman can never know what it is like to have a portion of her penis removed. So how can she be allowed to participate in both the abortion and circumcision decision while a man is excluded from the former?

5. The argument assumes the male pro-life speech is directed toward women.

People simply assume that the pro-life male is trying to control women when he argues against abortion. But oftentimes he is not even speaking to women. He is often motivated by a desire to change the hearts of men. This is because he knows that men often coerce women into abortions by threatening to leave them if they have the baby. Therefore, by entering the debate, the pro-life man may be reducing coercive control over women’s bodies. If women are better suited to speak to women, then it stands to reason that men are better suited to speak to men.

6. The argument also applies to slavery.

No one could reasonably argue that abortion only affects women. A better argument would be that it affects women disproportionately. But that does not mean women are the only ones who can address the issue of abortion. Historically, slavery has affected blacks disproportionately. But it does not lead to the conclusion that non-blacks are disqualified from commenting on a moral issue that clearly spills over to all segments of the human population.

Liberals are constantly trying to reduce the marketplace of ideas by reducing the number of voices that are eligible to participate. They have already silenced 52 million voices with the blade of a sharp knife. We cannot let them do further damage with dull ideas. Sharpening arguments requires vigorous debate. And vigorous debate requires acceptance of the idea that arguments are not gendered. Neither is the right to speak on matters of profound moral consequence.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts “Womyn” On Campus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/07/02/arguments_do_not_have_testicles/page/full/

Racial Politics Thicker Than Justice

When the House voted last Thursday to find Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress, members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked out.

Why is the Black Caucus trying to make this about race?

It’s about Holder’s refusal to turn over Justice Department documents requested by the House Oversight and Government Committee in its investigation of the “Fast and Furious” operation.

“Fast and Furious” was a “gun-walking” operation conducted by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF).  ATF would allow known smugglers to purchase arms from dealers in Arizona with the idea that they would trace them to their destination to operatives in drug cartels in Mexico.

Before the vote, Black Caucus chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) appeared on CNN calling the House contempt vote “….silly and detrimental to one human being.”   On MSNBC he told Al Sharpton, “This is partisanship at its most base level.”

Sure, it’s an election year.  And if you had to stretch to appreciate the complaint against Holder being made by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif), chairman of the House committee doing the investigation, you might buy Cleaver’s claim that this is just Republican political grandstanding.

But you don’t have to stretch to appreciate the case against Holder.

It seems pretty clear that “Fast and Furious” was a botched operation.  The ATF lost track of some two thousand weapons that disappeared into the hands of criminals in Mexico.  In December 2010, weapons traced to this operation were found on smugglers who murdered U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry.  Others were tied to the murder of at least 200 Mexican citizens.

The investigation into these ATF activities began with inquiries by ranking Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) after Agent Terry’s murder.

The Justice Department, in a letter to Senator Grassley, initially denied the existence of gun-walking operations.  But this picture changed when ATF whistleblowers brought facts to the contrary to light.  Subsequently, Justice withdrew its letter, saying its denial of the existence of these operations was mistaken.

Inconsistencies in Holder’s testimony before the House committee produced further reasons for suspicion.  And then Holder’s stonewalling for months, refusing to produce the documentation that the House committee requested.

Whether there is a fire here remains to be seen.  But there is plenty of smoke.

Yet Cleaver calls the House vote holding Holder in contempt “silly?” The chairman of the Black Caucus should have the opposite reaction if only for concern for his own community.  Illegal drugs smuggled into the US from Mexico cause havoc among black youth.  According to the Center for American Progress, there have been more than 25.4 million drug convictions in the US since 1980, and one third of them were black.

To grasp what’s really motivating Cleaver, I apply what I call the “A Time to Kill” test.

In the 1996 film “A Time to Kill”, a black man in a town in Mississippi hires a white lawyer to defend him after he kills two white racists who raped and mutilated his daughter.  When the lawyer makes his closing argument to the jury, he asks them to close their eyes.  He describes the atrocities that were done to the girl and concludes by saying  “now imagine she’s white.”  His black defendant is acquitted.

So close your eyes.  Consider the details about “Fast and Furious” and then picture that the Attorney General is not Eric Holder but John Ashcroft (first Attorney General of President G.W. Bush) and that the murdered border agent, Brian Terry, is black.

Would Emanuel Cleaver now call this contempt vote “silly?”  Would the Black Caucus have walked out?

For the Black Caucus this is about racial politics.

Fortunately for us, for Darrell Issa (who happens to represent my home district in California) this is about shedding light on what might be broken in ATF operations.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can do About It.

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2012/07/02/racial_politics_thicker_than_justice/page/full/

Heaven: God’s Highest Hope

Heaven: God’s Highest Hope.

Where Do I Go For Strength

Where Do I Go For Strength.

Overcommitters Anonymous

“Teach us to number our days . . . that we may gain a heart of wisdom.” Psalm 90:12

I am hopelessly prone to overcommitting myself. Is anyone else out there a little too quick to say “Yes” to every request? Let’s start our own little group—Overcommitters Anonymous. We can have weekly OCA meetings. We’ll become experts at saying “No.” Wanna join?

As I get a little older I realize, like Moses did in Psalm 90:1-17, that my time on this earth is limited. It is quickly passing. And that means that, more than ever, I want to be strategic and purposeful about where and how I am spending my time. It’s not because I feel like I’m better than others, or that some tasks and opportunities are beneath me. It’s just that I have this long list of goals I’d love to accomplish, people I want to invest in, and dreams I want to see realized—and there just doesn’t seem to be enough time.

Moses was gut-level honest about this reality. He says, “The length of our days is seventy years—or eighty, if we have the strength” (Psalm 90:10). This from a guy who didn’t even lead God’s people out of Egypt until he was in his eighties! Moses goes on to say of our years: “yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.”

I suppose old Moses may have just been having a bad day when he wrote this, but I suspect, more accurately, that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Moses had one of those wake-up-to-your-own-mortality kind of moments where he became aware, in a fresh way, that he wasn’t going to be around forever. And so his heart’s cry was very simple: “Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12). In other words, “Lord, I need you to clearly show me how to use the time that I have left.”

Which brings me back to my overcommitment problem.

I’ve found that often I am afraid to say “No” to people because I have a fear of offending them. I like being liked. I like being available. I like being helpful, and so I cringe at the idea of disappointing someone who has asked for my help. Another committee to serve on. Another project to lead. Another trip. Another . . . well, you get the idea.

For me, the antidote to my fear of offending people is cultivating a deeper fear—the fear of neglecting some of the core ministries and responsibilities that God has entrusted to me. Like, for example, my family. I want to be sure that my outside commitments don’t pull me away from my responsibilities as a husband, a son, a father, and a grandfather. If I have a healthy fear of neglecting my family, it will eclipse the lesser fear of potentially offending someone who has asked for a chunk of my time that would overcommit me.

After 18 years at The Moody Bible Institute, I’m now on staff at a church again, and I want to be sure that I am maximizing my effectiveness to the church that God has called me to. So, my Sundays are not free for “pulpit supply” the way they used to be, and more of my speaking time and energy is reserved for my church. If I overcommit myself, I risk neglecting that vital ministry.

So, maybe we don’t need a meeting of  “Overcommitters Anonymous” after all. We simply need to personalize the perspective and prayer of Moses as we consider every opportunity in terms of the priorities of our fleeting lives. Besides, I really shouldn’t commit to another meeting!

YOUR JOURNEY…

• Do you have a tendency to overcommit yourself? What fears prevent you from saying “No” to certain people or opportunities?
• What are some of your core responsibilities and commitments? How are those affected by overcommitment on your part?
• Take a few minutes to read through and then personalize Psalm 90:1-17. Spend some extra time praying the prayer of Moses, “Lord, teach me to number my days aright, that I might gain a heart of wisdom.”

http://getmorestrength.org/daily/overcommitters-anonymous/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GetMoreStrength+%28Strength+For+The+Journey%29

The Conditions of Discipleship

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also . . . . And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me . . . . So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple —Luke 14:26-27, 33

If the closest relationships of a disciple’s life conflict with the claims of Jesus Christ, then our Lord requires instant obedience to Himself. Discipleship means personal, passionate devotion to a Person— our Lord Jesus Christ. There is a vast difference between devotion to a person and devotion to principles or to a cause. Our Lord never proclaimed a cause— He proclaimed personal devotion to Himself. To be a disciple is to be a devoted bondservant motivated by love for the Lord Jesus. Many of us who call ourselves Christians are not truly devoted to Jesus Christ. No one on earth has this passionate love for the Lord Jesus unless the Holy Spirit has given it to him. We may admire, respect, and revere Him, but we cannot love Him on our own. The only One who truly loves the Lord Jesus is the Holy Spirit, and it is He who has “poured out in our hearts” the very “love of God” (Romans 5:5). Whenever the Holy Spirit sees an opportunity to glorify Jesus through you, He will take your entire being and set you ablaze with glowing devotion to Jesus Christ.

The Christian life is a life characterized by true and spontaneous creativity. Consequently, a disciple is subject to the same charge that was leveled against Jesus Christ, namely, the charge of inconsistency. But Jesus Christ was always consistent in His relationship to God, and a Christian must be consistent in his relationship to the life of the Son of God in him, not consistent to strict, unyielding doctrines. People pour themselves into their own doctrines, and God has to blast them out of their preconceived ideas before they can become devoted to Jesus Christ.

http://utmost.org/the-conditions-of-discipleship/

Lean On Me

“I will restore your leaders as in days of old,      your rulers as at the beginning. Afterward you will be called      the City of Righteousness,      the Faithful City.” — Isaiah 1:26

Something was rotten in the land of Israel — and it started at the top. After recounting the many failings and sins of its people, the great prophet Isaiah expressed his longing for the days – hundreds of years before his time – when the people of Israel were led by the likes of Moses, Aaron and Joshua.

This sounds pretty familiar. And while we often get involved in discussions about the sad state of affairs today and long for the good old days, typically, it’s just talk. Rarely, do we follow up with some type of action to change the situation.,

Not so in the case of Isaiah.

After criticizing the various leaders who had presided during his lifetime, Isaiah lays out a strategy for returning to the spiritual highs of the days of the Exodus (under Moses) and the settlement of the land of Israel (under Joshua). Isaiah argues that a true national revival must be rooted in justice, fairness and, most importantly, holding ourselves, our neighbors, and especially our leaders accountable.

In fact, the ancient sages explained the deeper meaning of the passage we read above as follows: God will only give His divine blessing to our community if we do our best to make sure that our leaders are good and upstanding citizens. After all, God knows that we are all responsible for the words and deeds of those who speak for us.

But this isn’t just true of our society’s leaders. Each and every one of us must feel a sense of accountability for his or her friends and family. And in turn, we must all ask our friends and family to be there for us – to help us reach the spiritual goals that we set for ourselves. As Isaiah understood so well, this is the best, most effective way for us to make sure that we’re always making progress in perfecting our relationships with God and with our fellow man.

So next time you are with your friends, or spend time with your loved ones, let them know how much you rely on them to make you a better person. And let them know that, in return, you will always be there for them – encouraging them on every step of their journey through life.

In this way – as Isaiah tells us – we will become a “City of Righteousness” and a “Faithful City.”

http://www.holylandmoments.org/devotionals/lean-on-me

Jesus Finds Joy In All His Work

Once when John’s disciples and the Pharisees were keeping a fast, people came to Jesus and said, “Why do the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”             J

esus said to them, “Can guests fast at a wedding while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. But the time will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them; then they will fast. No one sews a piece of new cloth on an old coat; otherwise the patch breaks away from it, the new from the old, and the tear is made worse. No man pours new wine into old wine-skins; otherwise the new wine bursts the skins, and both the wine and the wine-skins are lost. Instead new wine is poured into fresh wine-skins.”

One Sabbath Jesus was walking through the grain-fields; and his disciples, as they made their way through, began to pull off the heads of the grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Sir, why are they doing things that on the Sabbath are unlawful?” He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his followers were in need and hungry? how he went into the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the holy bread which only the priests are allowed to eat, and gave it also to those who were with him?”

And Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; so that the Son of Man is master even of the Sabbath.”

At another time he went into a synagogue. A man was there whose hand was shrivelled. And they watched Jesus to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might bring a charge against him. Jesus said to the man whose hand was shrivelled, “Rise and come forward.” Then he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good or to do harm? To save life or to kill? Who of you, if he has but one sheep and it falls into a hole on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Is not a man of much greater value than a sheep?” But they did not answer. Then looking around upon them with sorrow and indignation because they had no sympathy, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was entirely cured. But the Pharisees went out and at once began to plot with the Herodians against him, how they might put him out of the way.

http://kids.ochristian.com/Childrens-Bible/Jesus-Finds-Joy-In-All-His-Work.shtml

Leave It To God

“Roll on Jehovah thy way” (Ps. 37:6, margin).

Whatever it is that presses thee, go tell the Father; put the whole matter over into His hand, and so shalt thou be freed from that dividing, perplexing care that the world is full of. When thou art either to do or suffer anything, when thou art about any purpose or business, go tell God of it, and acquaint Him with it; yes, burden Him with it, and thou hast done for matter of caring; no more care, but quiet, sweet, diligence in thy duty, and dependence on Him for the carriage of thy matters. Roll thy cares, and thyself with them, as one burden, all on thy God. –R. Leighton

Build a little fence of trust Around today; Fill the space with loving work And therein stay. Look not through the sheltering bars Upon tomorrow; God will help thee bear what comes Of joy or sorrow. –Mary Butts

We shall find it impossible to commit our way unto the Lord, unless it be a way that He approves. It is only by faith that a man can commit his way unto the Lord; if there be the slightest doubt in the heart that “our way” is not a good one, faith will refuse to have anything to do with it. This committing of our way must be a continuous, not a single act.

However extraordinary and unexpected may seem to be His guidance, however near the precipice He may take you, you are not to snatch the guiding reins out of His hands. Are we willing to have all our ways submitted to God, for Him to pronounce judgment on them? There is nothing a Christian needs to be more scrutinizing about than about his confirmed habits and views. He is too apt to take for granted the Divine approbation of them. Why are some Christians so anxious, so fearful? Evidently because they have not left their way with the Lord. They took it to Him, but brought it away with them again.       –Selected

http://devotionals.ochristian.com/mrs-charles-cowman-streams-in-the-desert-devotional.shtml