Tea Party Leaders Outraged Over House Passage of Fiscal Cliff Bill

January 2, 2013 in My Blog Post with 0 Comments

Tea Party Leaders are expressing outrage and disappointment over the House passing a bill late New Year’s Day that allows President Obama and Congressional Democrats to raise taxes on wealthy Americans with no guarantee of future spending cuts.

“Sadly, our New Year’s predictions have all come true,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. “Congress and the president had all year to do their jobs and be fiscally responsible – and, just like we said they would, they waited until the last possible moment to fail their nation miserably with a ‘fiscal cliff’ scheme to raise taxes and keep overspending.

The issue for those who believe the nation has a spending problem and not a revenue problem suddenly became a nightmare when 85 Republicans in the House joined 172 of their Democrat colleagues in supporting the measure that was sent over in the wee hours of the morning on New Year’s Day.

For the past 17 months the fiscal game of chicken rarely changed. Obama and liberal Democrats demanded higher taxes on families making over $250,000 annually and Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner with some assistance by presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wanted to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and reduce spending, especially on the big entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare.

But in the end it was Obama and his team that got Boehner to go off the road as opposed to risk getting blamed for raising taxes on most every American taxpayer.

The final version that President Obama is expected to sign will extend the tax cuts for some taxpayers but individuals making over $400,000 and families over $450,000 will owe Uncle Sam more money in 2013 and beyond.

Additionally, estate and capital gains taxes will go up for the same group. The bill also extends jobless benefits for one-year and cuts Medicare reimbursements for doctors.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add almost $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation is even more outraged that some Republicans – including Boehner – voted in favor of the bill.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

What ‘The Hunger Games’ Trilogy and the Sandy Hook School Tragedy Have in Common

December 23, 2012 in My Blog Post with 2 Comments

What does the author of one of America’s best-selling novels about children killing each other for sport and the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting have in common? The answer is both of them claim Newtown, Conn., as their residence.

Suzanne Collins, the award winning best-selling author of The Hunger Games trilogy, lives with her family and writes in the quaint Northeast community of Newtown. She shares her picturesque town with the 27 victims who were murdered – 20 of whom were children – in the tragic massacre that took place there on Dec. 14.

Before I go any further or before anyone jumps to a baseless conclusion, let me be clear about something. I am not blaming the Sandy Hook shootings on Suzanne Collins.

I’m sure she is grieving for those who lost their lives just like the rest of the nation; maybe more because she might have known or socialized with some of the parents whose children died.

However, I am going to question why Hollywood, book publishers and the entertainment industry as a whole, write and produce scripts where people, including children, randomly and with no emotion, callously murder others with “assault” weapons and then wonder why like scenarios are playing out in real life.

If you have not seen or read The Hunger Games, you have undoubtedly heard of it, given both the book and the movie received rave reviews. Collins said she was inspired to pen the novel after channel surfing and catching various reality television shows and footage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

It’s a story about children who live in desperate poverty within one of 12 districts in the nation known as Panem. As punishment for a past rebellion, children between the ages of 12 and 18 are forced to hunt down and kill one another in a televised contest – similar to gladiator events of ancient Rome – until only one child remains. In contrast to the multiple murders, it revolves around a love story between two of the contestants pitted against one another.

Here is a portion of a review of the movie by Kenneth Turan, the film critic for The Los Angeles Times.

“As to the kid-on-kid violence that has been the subject of so much talk, [Director Gary] Ross has managed to adroitly downplay that, keeping the mayhem to a PG-13 level. Most of the children in the film want nothing to do with killing, and the ones who do look considerably older than the heroines of previous ultra-violent films like “Hanna” and “Kick-Ass.”

“Katniss, of course, is one of the reluctant participants, and Lawrence’s ability to involve us in her struggle is a key to the effectiveness of ‘Hunger Games.’ The film’s strengths are not so much in its underlying themes or its romantic elements, (the weakest aspect, in fact) but its recognition of the book’s narrative strengths and its ability play them straight. If, as the ads suggest, the whole world will be watching this, viewers will likely be satisfied with what they see.”

Entertainment Weekly‘s Lisa Schwartzbaum gave the film an A-, writing:

“This ‘Hunger Games’ is a muscular, honorable, unflinching translation of Collins’ vision. It’s brutal where it needs to be, particularly when children fight and bleed. It conveys both the miseries of the oppressed, represented by the poorly fed and clothed citizens of Panem’s 12 suffering districts, and the rotted values of the oppressors, evident in the gaudy decadence of those who live in the Capitol. Best of all, the movie effectively showcases the allure of the story’s remarkable, kick-ass 16-year-old heroine, Katniss Everdeen.”

And believe me, children fight and bleed in “The Hunger Games.”

I saw the movie with my then 12-year-old son this past summer when we had several hours to kill in a small town between tournament baseball games. He had already read the book and seen the movie, describing it as a “great action flick.”

It was no more than 30 minutes into the movie before I realized what I was witnessing on the screen. I turned to my son in the darkened theatre and said, “This is what a society without God looks like.” It was also the only time his mother and my ex-wife have disagreed about what is and is not appropriate for him to watch.

Believe me, I am no prude when it comes to watching movies. I mean, my favorite trilogy is the “Godfather” series and I would argue it contains as much murder and lack of God’s presence as does “The Hunger Games.” The difference is, I am an adult and after watching Al Pacino run his family operation at least a hundred times, I have no desire to duplicate his business practices or the tactics he chooses to enforce them.

But if Hollywood and the liberal elites who so often host million dollar plus fundraisers for President Obama and MoveOn.org want to get serious about curbing youth violence – and violence in general – they should examine their own products before, or at least at the same time as, rushing to criticize the National Rifle Association and law-abiding gun owners for suggesting that an armed police or security officer be stationed in every school in America.

Unfortunately, Newtown, Conn., and other communities such as Aurora and Columbine, Colo., will never be the same after such senseless and horrific acts of violence have tainted their streets.

Still, it is my desire that our nation’s children be protected at schools with adults trained to stop or slow down the criminally and mentally insane and at home with fewer opportunities to view needless acts of violence on television, movie screens and computer monitors.

Only then should we convene and decide what guns to prohibit responsible citizens from owning while irresponsible elitist decide what acts of violence are appropriate for our children to see and hear.

My children have an armed police officer that is stationed at his Germantown, Tenn., elementary school every day. Why can’t the rest of the country be as fortunate?

Gun Control and Mental Illness; How We Should Handle Both

December 19, 2012 in My Blog Post with 0 Comments

Since the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy last week, news and blog sites have consistently published articles and posts – some even well written and thought out – on the topics of if we need more restrictions on guns and can we stop mentally ill people from committing heinous crimes. I believe the answer to both is no.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a former state legislator who earned and maintained an A plus NRA rating, meaning I opposed restrictions on guns and supported the concept of allowing responsible citizens to defend themselves from irresponsible criminals.

I grew up hunting but no longer go because I would rather spend my leisure time playing tennis or watching my kids grow up, but do occasionally like to venture into the woods behind my home for target practice. And I have a valid handgun carry permit.

In my personal and political experience, the major problem with liberals who want to make possession of any gun illegal is one, they don’t own guns themselves and two, their motivation centers more around weakening the political power of conservatives and gun rights activist than is does on addressing why people are committing crimes in the first place.

Let’s first examine some of the gun laws the political and social elite would like to change.

Ban assault weapons

The rifle used by Adam Lanza to commit this horrific crime was a Remington Bushmaster .223 rifle. The clip, or the magazine that contains the bullets, can typically be loaded with up to 20 rounds. His mother, Nancy Lanza purchased the weapon legally and apparently took her son target shooting at a local range in an effort to bond with him.

The first was her right under federal and state laws. The second was a horrible idea.

Banning this weapon would have made no difference in the Sandy Hook shooting because Lanza could have used a variety of other weapons to murder those precious children, including the two handguns in his possession. He was not going to get rushed by a room full of six and seven year-olds, as when he stopped for the one to two seconds it would have taken to reload.

Mandate that clip’s hold no more than 10 rounds

Again, it would not have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting. If you want to make an argument that the theater shooter in Aurora, Colo. last July might have been rushed by adults while he was reloading, I would give you the benefit of listening. Still, I doubt that would have happened with theatre seating and when most moviegoers were panicked or had not idea what was happening until it was too late.

Liberals such as President Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein want to ban what they call assault weapons on the chance it will weaken and fragment a group of voters (gun owners) who at times has defeated or ended the careers of many Democrats. Now it’s payback time.

According to the state’s governor, Dan Malloy, Connecticut already has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. But what Malloy and others want are stronger federal gun laws because he and others realize it is doubtful their laws can get much stronger.

Plus, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to obtain a carry permit or carry a handgun on their person or in their car. Adam Lanza broke the law as he left his home but of course that was apparently after he shot and killed his mother.

By the way, here is another part of the Connecticut gun law that as I read it, would allow a high school student to take a rifle or shotgun on school property.

“It is unlawful to possess a firearm on public or private elementary or secondary school property. This prohibition shall not apply to a person with a firearm carrying permit, with permission from school officials, or while traversing school property with an unloaded firearm for the purpose of gaining access to lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided entry is not prohibited by school officials.”

Mental Illness and the possession of guns

As to the issue of mental illness, I am certainly no expert but reports today suggest that Lanza killed his mother and went on the shooting spree because he was angry she was considering committing him to a mental institution. It is unfortunate it did not take place earlier as it should have.

Counselors who suspect their patients are dangerous and are capable of going harm to themselves or others should be required to report them to the proper authorities.

How and when that happens should be the focus of the debate surrounding mental illness.

But if you would like to read what a died-in-the-wool liberal thinks about gun control and mental illness, read Froma Harrop’s latest column.

The bottom line is that mentally ill people, especially those under duress are more apt to commit serious crimes unless they are proper supervised, medicated or both. Let’s talk about how that can happen before we pass restrictions on guns that will make no difference in the hands of a criminal or insane person.

After Another Shooting Tragedy, Let’s Talk About Mental Health

December 17, 2012 in My Blog Post with 2 Comments

The article below was written by Shannon Royce, who deals with this issue every day. She has a child with a mental illness. It’s right on point on why we must address mental health now. You can read more of Susan’s writing at http://chosenfamilies.org

 

Like the rest of the nation, I watched in horror as the tragedy of the Newtown, Connecticut massacre broke on Friday.   The unthinkable, the unspeakable had happened.  Again.

Like the tragedy in Arizona in January, 2011, the tragedy in Colorado in July, 2012, we now have another loss of devastating impact.  The innocents of Newtown, 20 beautiful children, will never flower.  We will never see the doctor, teacher or athlete who could have been.  And six adults lost their lives seeking to protect them and their classmates.

The loss is unimaginable.  We grieve from a distance.  The families and community grieve intimately.

And then it begins.  The same discussion of gun control we saw in the aftermath of Arizona and Colorado.  Those who would make political hay out of this tragedy.  An opportunity for them to press their perspective with new fervor.

And then I saw this article of a Mom in crisis rolling around social media this weekend.

And I agree with this writer that it is time.  How many more tragedies must we have before we consider the issue of mental health in America?  And closer to home, how many more tragedies must we endure before we consider the role of the church for families in mental health crisis?

How should the church engage these issues?  Not just after they happen but before they happen. What would Jesus do?  We are His body.  What should we do?

We need to understand better what happens when mental health challenge and evil meet.  What happens when disability mingles with sin.  We see the devastating results.  We need to consider what we can do to prevent them before they occur.

Two years ago I founded a ministry for families living with hidden disabilities.  ChosenFamilies.org is a Biblical worldview ministry for families living with those disabilities that don’t show on the outside with any physical marker.  There is no wheel chair, no assistance dog that might indicate this is an individual who might require our assistance or accommodation.  Yet there is a deeply life affecting disability even still.

Hidden disabilities cover the Autism spectrum; those with mental health concerns such as bipolar disorder, depression, Schizophrenia; those with neurological concerns such as Epilepsy or Tourette’s.  Each of these disabilities is deeply life affecting for the individual and the family who loves him or her.

Clearly there are distinctions between those on the Autism Spectrum, those with mental health concerns, and those with neurological disorders.  But the thing they have in common is they each are hidden from obvious view.  They tend to be misunderstood.  We don’t know how to respond to them.  They make us uncomfortable.

And we tend to avoid that which makes us uncomfortable.  We are busy.  Our calendars are full.  Full of good things.  Important priorities.

I am reminded of the man who fell into trouble as he went to Jericho.  The church leaders who saw him did not throw a rock at him.  They did not curse him.  They took no deliberate action to harm him.

They just walked past on the other side of the road.

Jesus commended the man who stopped, took notice, and got involved.  He said the good Samaritan was our example of how to respond.  We need to stop, take notice, and get involved.  This is not about programs, though programs may be fine.  This is about personal engagement.

We are called as the body of Christ to engage the fallen and broken world with the grace and power of the Gospel of Christ.  That includes those with mental health concerns.

 

Shannon Royce is president & C.E.O. of ChosenFamilies.org, a non-profit organization for families living with hidden disabilities. She is an attorney, marathoner and cancer survivor who lives with her husband and two sons in the D.C. area.  She is a Southern Baptist preacher’s kid who formerly worked with the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Sandy Hook School Shooting Sparks Call From Liberals for Gun Control Laws

December 15, 2012 in My Blog Post with 0 Comments

An horrendous shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. today that killed 20 children and eight adults has prompted an immediate outcry for gun control laws from leading liberals, especially on assault weapons such as the one used in Friday’s tragic shooting.

The shooting is one of the worst in U.S. history and immediately sparked memories of the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, and the Virginia Tech rampage in 2007.

There is little doubt supporters of gun control will square off against those who support the right to keep and bear arms in the coming days, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that today was not the time to discuss gun laws.

“I think that day will come, but today’s not that day, especially as we are awaiting more information about the situation,” he said.

The Very Rev. Gary Hall, Dean of Washington National Cathedral – which considers its mission to be a spiritual home for the nation – has released a statement in response to the Sandy Hook tragedy today.

“The horrific shooting of children and adults in Newtown, Connecticut, is a tragedy that elicits both our grief and our moral outrage on behalf of the victims and their families,” said Dean Hall in his statement. “In a political climate unwilling to address the realities of gun violence in America, a wide range of faith traditions, including the Episcopal Church, has strongly advocated gun control for several decades. And we pledge to work with our national leaders to enact more effective gun control measures.”

Most lawmakers had left Washington on Thursday and were back in their districts, but some liberal members of Congress wasted no time in calling for stronger gun control laws.

“If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don’t know when is,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York in a statement of his own. “Yet another unstable person has gotten access to firearms and committed an unspeakable crime against innocent children. We cannot simply accept this as a routine product of modern American life.”

Other Democrats took to Twitter to voice their thoughts on gun control.

“Dear Colleagues: it’s time 2 act to control access 2 handguns,” wrote Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) on Twitter. “This not about ducks & deer. I pray for the victims. I pray for our courage.”

“We must act to stop this epidemic of gun violence,” said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn).

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken advocate of gun control, appealed to President Barack Obama to use both of this week’s tragic shootings to engage public support for more stringent gun laws.

“Dear Colleagues: it’s time 2 act to control access 2 handguns,” wrote Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) on Twitter. “This not about ducks & deer. I pray for the victims. I pray for our courage.”

“We must act to stop this epidemic of gun violence,” said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN).

So far, gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, have not released any statements on the shootings.

Elimination of Mortgage, Charitable Deductions May Harm Middle Class

December 3, 2012 in My Blog Post with 0 Comments

A suggestion by some Democrats that eliminating tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions could be part of a fiscal cliff deal is raising the specter of significant harm for the middle class, according to some experts.

And they are saying the church is at risk as well.

Some believe that President Obama may support eliminating these deductions despite repeated assertions during his campaign that he plans to protect the middle class.

The Tax Policy Center argues that households earning more than $250,000 (defined as wealthy by the Obama administration) realize an annual tax savings of around $5,460 from taking advantage of their mortgage deduction. Compare that with the approximate $91 annual tax savings for households making less than $40,000 annually. Experts also argue that earners making $250,000 per year will get hurt more than low-income earners.

Arnold Ahlert, a former advertising executive turned columnist for Jewish World Review and FrontPageMag.com, sees the conversation about changing the mortgage deduction as just another way to pander to the Democratic base, especially those who don’t own homes. He addresses many of those issues in a recent column titled “The Deduction Cap Trap.”

“In my opinion, populism is the reason behind all the hubbub. There are lots of people who don’t own homes at the lower income level and I think the White House is just trying to take another swipe at the well to do,” Ahlert told The Christian Post. “Basically, I think the left is interested in saving their ideology and programs and their willing to take the country down in the process. This simply helps them achieve that goal.”

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Why ‘Powerful’ People Engage in Affairs and the Tools They Employ

November 14, 2012 in My Blog Post with 0 Comments

Note: This post is longer than most but there is much to cover.

Yesterday I received a call from a reporter in Nashville wanting my thoughts on why powerful people engage in inappropriate relationships. Having fallen into that trap myself when I was a State legislator, I had some experience with the issue.

Over the past few years the list of inappropriate relationships that have been exposed nationally include former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, former New York Gov. Elliott Spitzer, Sens. John Edwards, David Vitter, and John Ensign, Congressmen Anthony Weiner and David Wu, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Now former CIA Director David Petraeus can be added to a list that doesn’t even include pastors or prominent businessmen.

But first I believe you should eliminate the word “powerful” to arrive at the obvious answer for why affairs begin, which is original sin. Such relationships have existed since man’s fall and unfortunately our world keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

As one of my editors at The Christian Post asked during a conference call on Tuesday when we were discussing the recent affair involving Petraeus, “When will people who hold prominent positions learn their affairs are oftentimes revealed on the front page of every national news site?”

I had no good answer. Why didn’t we learn our lesson from studying the biblical account of David?  But let’s return to the original question.

The reasons affairs begin vary and are many, but the first mistake people often make is to allow themselves to be placed in a vulnerable position with a person they are attracted to (emotionally or physically). If you are married and that person is not your spouse, it is a recipe for disaster. Trust me.

Growing up, my mom insisted I be home at 11:30 p.m. on weekends even when girls my age could stay out later. “Nothing good ever happens after midnight,” she would say. And she was right. The same applies when we allow another married person access to the intimate physical and emotional world God intended only for married couples. Nothing good will come of it.

The Rev. Billy Graham always made it a practice never to be alone with a woman other than his wife. Today that is not enough.

There are basically two types of affairs. The first is purely of a sexual nature and occur when two people engage in sexual acts with someone other than their spouse or someone who is married to another. As we discovered in the case of former President Bill Clinton, an intimate sexual act can be more than just intercourse.

The second is an emotional affair. It doesn’t involve intimate sexual contact but rather a connection of feelings and emotions shared outside the boundary of marriage. Many affairs involve both.

Dr. Floyd Covey has a doctorate in theology and counseling and sees the damage from both types of affairs in his Collierville, Tenn., practice.

“Lots of people minimize the impact of emotional affairs. There’s really not much difference as far as the damage they both evoke,” Covey remarked. “Many times it’s easier to move beyond the effect of a purely physical affair but more difficult as long as there’s still an emotional tie.”

From what I have learned in covering the story between Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, I believe their sexual affair first began as an inappropriate and very dangerous emotional one when he allowed an attractive and aggressive woman to get close to him with no barrier of protection.

To my point, some of his former aides have expressed surprise at the access he gave her during the time she was covering him in Afghanistan.

Today’s technology (cellular, text, email), including the use of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter give us instant and more private options of communicating with others. While their advantages are many, so are their liabilities because so many inappropriate relationships today begin outside of earshot or vision of others.

Michael Malone, a licensed family counselor in Tupelo, Miss., sees the workplace as the most common environment where emotional affairs begin.

“Most affairs, especially emotional ones, start in the workplace and this is by far the most dangerous environment. Everyone is looking for a connection and if they cannot find it at home with their spouse, they’ll look for it elsewhere, and the workplace is the most convenient place. Oftentimes the element of fantasy from an emotional affair overrides the passion from a physical affair,” he said.

“No longer do people have to meet in the break room or find an out-of-the-way restaurant to communicate during business hours. Chatting on social media sites or texting is easier and certainly more conducive for sending personal or intimate messages.”

Petraeus and Broadwell thought they were being smart. They employed a technique often used by terrorist to communicate. They set up an email account where both had access. Instead of composing a message and hitting the send button, they wrote their message and saved it as a draft. Then the other person would log into the account, open the folder and read the message.

What I know from those who have engaged in both physical and emotional affairs in recent years, the common denominator and greatest culprit is technology.

Brace yourself because I realize what I am about to say will anger some, however, I firmly believe that if you are married you must allow your spouse complete and total access to your cell phone, text messages, email and social media accounts.

That’s what I said: COMPLETE and TOTAL access. In other words, when you lay your phone down on the kitchen table, you should have no fear what your spouse would read if they picked it up. (And no, you can’t have a disposable phone or second computer.)

The other piece of advice I would offer is to find group of fellow Christians of the same sex who can hold you accountable and with whom you can share your challenges and thoughts with in a confidential manner. Marriage is hard and challenging and these guidelines are not foolproof, but they will go a long way in keeping your marriage within the boundaries God intended.

Page 3 of 22«12345»1020...Last »