The Curtain, Please

I sometimes wonder if I am becoming paranoid in my old age. Then a voice says, "It's not paranoia if you really are being targeted." Maybe it isn't paranoia, but just cynicism. The point is that I am starting to look for ulterior motives in everything. It's possible that I have begun to see my own heart clearly, and I realize that there are no truly pure motives there either. But enough psychobabble; here is the topic for today. When something doesn't make sense, look for hidden reasons.

Case number one: the group formerly known as the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) was loudly championing Obama's health care reform efforts. This made no sense to me since there was so much for senior citizens not to like about the Democrats' plan. Reduced services, increased premium costs, death panels (so-called,) and more elements made the reform bill onerous to most savvy seniors. I know that AARP lobbying usually tracks with the Democrat issues and candidates, but this one seemed too contrary to the stated purpose of the organization.

In a World Net Daily article , Chelsea Schilling pulls back the curtain and reveals the wizard behind all the smoke and mirrors. According to Schilling's investigation, AARP collected $249 million in membership dues last year (2008.) In that same period, the organization received $773 million from royalties and advertising associated with the "Medigap" insurance policies it recommends to its members. In other words, over seventy percent of their 2008 revenue came from insurance companies. Confused? Aren't insurance companies at odds with Obama over health care reform? Maybe, but when the dust settles, insurance companies will be charging even more for their "Medigap" products because of the way the reform bill is structured. Higher premiums means more royalty dollars to AARP. Make sense now?

(Time out for a brief testimonial: I have discovered an alternative to AARP which seems to be more to my liking. Check it out at www.amac.us if you are interested.)

The way the Democrats abandoned the democratic process to push health care down the throats of their constituents also puzzles me. I used to think, in a mildly cynical way, that all any politician cared about was getting re-elected. One of the most amazing aspects of the health care reform debacle we just witnessed was the way Nance Pelosi strong-armed reluctant members of her party to vote for the bill even though it was political suicide. An LA Times article details the incredible position shifts that were forced upon the Speaker's own principles (if that word applies) and those of her colleagues. No constituency, no cause was safe from "Mean Machine 1," as her late night battle jersey named her.

Unfortunately I can not take you to the Emerald City and pull back the curtain on this one. I have a suspicion about what forces pull the levers in Washington these days, but no real proof. Either through naivete or giant hubris, Barak Obama has chosen to step out from behind the curtain just enough to expose at least the tip of the ideological iceberg that is floating down the Potomac. I must quickly admit that the impending disaster didn't begin when Obama took office. Sadly, George W. Bush was letting some bergy bits bang into the hull of the ship of state before he left (think bailouts and stimulus.)

So in my metaphor, Obama and his merry crew of socialists are sailing purposely into the path of the enormous growler. (Yes, Virginia, they are socialists -- and communists; read the resumes of those the president has gathered to himself.) They have taken over the US auto industry and health care. Steel, coal and petroleum were long ago hobbled by government meddling; a quick survey of recent history reveals several overt statements by Democrat leaders indicating a desire to "nationalize" these industries. Even agribusiness is becoming a government run sideshow with all the ill conceived subsidies and ridiculous mandates (ie. ethanol.)

I may be too trusting, too optimistic, but I hope that Michigan candidates like Bill Cooper and Pete Hoekstra can get elected and become a counterbalance to the leftward swing we are seeing. I hear hopeful honesty in national voices like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Tom Tancredo and many others. I hope there are enough people dissatisfied with the wizard who has been revealed to vote him back to Kansas (or Illinois.) I trust my Oz metaphor is near to the truth. I sometimes think, however, that this is more like Alice's tumble down a rabbit hole. If we have descended into absurdity, there is no hope.

Clouds Without Rain

For several years now I have had an idea for a novel simmering on the back burner of my mind. (This time frame is not unusual; it took three decades of simmer and one of writing for my first novel to see printer’s ink.) The working title for my back burner project has been Clouds Without Rain, from “Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift he does not give.” (Proverbs 25:14 ESV) The key scene is a smoky back room meeting between fictional characters John Dooley and Horatio Mann. These two entirely imaginary villains concoct a scheme to take over America not by violence or political action, but by surreptitiously flooding the public schools with subversive curricula. Over a few generations, these patient masterminds propose to convert the entire US population from independent thinking, free market capitalists into mind-numbed robots groveling at the government teat.

I hadn’t progressed very far with this idea, for lack of a good cast of supporting characters and a credible plot line until this week. In one short periodical, Eagle Forum’s March edition of Education Reporter, I found enough ingredients to move the pot from simmer to boil. In one article, the Reporter cites recent research published in the Archive of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine concluding that “abstinence-only sex education can be more effective than so-called ‘comprehensive sex ed.’” Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation identifies eleven other studies that found abstinence programs reduce sexual activity. Not only that, Rector notes that abstinent teens are happier, less likely to drop out of high school, and more likely to graduate from college. If this is surprising news to you, perhaps it is because previous positive evaluations of “comprehensive” sex ed programs by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) are not supported by the evidence and suffer various methodological problems, according to two independent reviewers. In less kind words, the CDC has been promoting false information.

Another attack submarine waiting to be included in my plot was discovered in a reprint of a National Review article by Roger Kimball commenting on the legacy of one Howard Zinn. (I won’t even have to change his name because it already sounds sinister.) Few people outside academia would recognize Zinn, but as Kimball reports, Zinn’s A People’s History has been beloved by progressives since it was published in 1980. And why not, as it encapsulates their hatred of America as an imperialistic, “wellspring of earthly evil,” according to John Perazzo from frontpagemag.com. Purporting to tell history from the perspective of “the slaughtered and mutilated,” Zinn does his job as well as a tour guide at Versailles who presents a tool shed as exemplary and then comments on how shabby the whole place really is, says Kimball.

So we have the degradation of both morals and morale underway; what else might thicken the stew? How about an Orwellian plot to track the success (an uncover the failures) of the clandestine educational plot. The front page of the Forum’s March Reporter details Obama’s plans to require applicants for "Race to the Top" money to establish pre-K through college data systems to “track progress and foster continuous improvement.” If these records included only test scores, it might not be cause for alarm, but much more is anticipated. Other data may include Social Security numbers, disciplinary records and family wealth indicators. One has only to consider the things that go into “disciplinary records” these days to worry about their misuse. In our PC crazed academy, fostered by “outcome based,” touchy-feely standards of “tolerance,” the potential for mischief is beyond troubling. One wonders if nine-year-old Patrick will suffer later recrimination for threatening his schoolmates with a weapon, a two-inch plastic toy that he placed in the hands of his Lego policeman.

It would be sad enough if our public education system had merely failed to deliver the promised gift of a well informed citizenry. The real story of my novel is that the clouds which appear not to bring the promised rain in fact bring a deadly radiation of poisonous thoughts that will ultimately set the stage for America’s destruction through internal decomposition. Think about that the next time you hear one of Obama’s people talking about setting national standards for education. Maybe if I get my book in print quickly, I can look like a prophet when disaster comes. Or maybe we can stop it.

Nailing Down Jesus

I am sometimes baffled by the way other people think. I am fully aware that not everyone sees the world the same way I do; I made that point recently in "All the News That Fits." But I occasionally forget that there are those out there who don't think Heaven matters at all; many don't even believe Heaven exists. Perhaps I am guilty of having the same closed mind I accuse them of having.

I have previously referred to my reconnection with Philip Yancey's book, The Jesus I Never Knew. (Some may wonder if I am getting a percentage of the royalties since I mention the book so often. I have no motive other than to recommend the book to anyone who seeks to understand who Jesus is.) In the chapter on the ascension Yancey wonders what the world would be like if Jesus had not come out of the grave. It strikes me that those who don't believe Christ rose now live in just such a world, at least by their own measure. Those who scoff at religion, particularly the miraculous episodes, imagine that they live in a world without any significant impact bythe "myths"of Scripture.

To pretend that an historical event never happened is foolish; to believe that the founding events of the Christian religion have not had a singular effect on the world is ludicrous. Even if you could ignore the millions of lives which have been undeniably transformed by Christian belief, you would stumble into the system of hospitals and schools which owe their very existence in large part to religious principles put into practice. Though present day doubters try to deny the religious underpinnings of our forefathers, America would not have taken its present form, if any form at all, were it not for the foundational principles of natural law taught by John Locke and others, which spring directly from Judeo-Christian religious teachings.

Christians themselves often behave as if they doubt the implications of the resurrection. Yancey writes, "In many respects I would find an unresurrected Jesus easier to accept. Easter makes him dangerous.... Easter means he must be loose out there somewhere. Like the disciples, I never know where Jesus might show up.... As Fredrick Buechner says, 'we can never nail him down, not even if the nails we use are real and the thing we nail him to is a cross...' Killing Jesus, says Walter Wink, was like trying t destroy a dandelion seed-head by blowing on it."

The last thing anyone would logically do to convince doubters is repeat the unlikely story that their leader had come back from the grave, unless he had in fact done just that. This Easter season, if you feel self-conscious telling the old story, remember what Paul said, "I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed." (2Tim 1:12) If you feel like you are bucking the trends, swimming upstream, fighting every day just to do what you believe is right, you are in good company; that's what they nailed Jesus for just three days before the first Easter.

All the News That Fits

The New York Times motto, "All the news that's fit to print," needs to be carefully parsed these days. There has always been a false assumption by many readers that the motto means the Times prints an assortment of current events that are "fit" in the sense of being sufficiently broad and unbiased to inform the public, while maintaining an air of professionalism. Not a scandal rag nor repeater of gossip, the Times can be trusted, so the thinking goes, to provide the essentials necessary for sound thinking and good citizenship.

The problem is that no news organization is free from bias. The simple decision to run one story and not run another is bias against the story not run. The editing process pares down (or fluffs up) the reporter's submission according to the editorial policies of the organization. Money has always played a part in editorial choices both from the standpoint of the need to sell papers and the less obvious need to keep advertisers happy. Finally, the world-view of the reporter and the editor impact all five journalistic W's: who, what, when, where and why -- especially the why.

Given that a survey by Media Research Center indicates the vast majority of big city journalists today are left-leaning in their politics, liberal in their social views, and atheistic or agnostic about religion, is it any wonder that conservative issues do not get reported fairly? One has only to listen to Diane Sawyer's interview of Mel Gibson after The Passion of the Christ became a surprise box-office hit. The look on her face as she asked Gibson if he actually thought the Bible was true tells the whole tale. She was astounded that he professed to believe the Bible. The liberal elite simply do not grasp the concept that millions of their fellow countrymen still believe and at least attempt to live by the ancient truth of Scripture.

I am gradually losing all respect for people who bash Fox News because they think it is biased. Of course it's biased. Every person who mouths opens his mouth speaks from a personal bias. But their complaint says one of two things about these people. It may simply reveal an innocent ignorance, either of media bias in general, or, as is often the case, ignorance of what Fox is all about because they won't watch it. More seriously, it may suggest that the person who can't abide Fox is so thoroughly immersed in the world-view presented by the liberal media that anything outside of the New York Times box is disregarded as unimportant.

Fox News is biased; they admit it, in a manner of speaking. I know the phrases "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide" seem to indicate even handedness and neutrality. But in fact, they do what every other media outlet does: they cover the news in a way that satisfies a segment of the population. They openly admit that they are conservative in their views and hope to please enough viewers to stay on the air. If success is measured by numbers of viewers, then Fox is a resounding success. This shouldn't surprise anyone who understands America. We are liberal on the coasts and conservative in the heartland. People in New York and LA think they are the rulers by which all things are measured. They are different from Fox in that they pretend to be unbiased.

(Notice to the coasts: though you may think you are the majority because you and your buddies are packed together like sardines in a can, there are more of us running free out here in fly-over country than you can imagine. Furthermore, we hold some things dear that you have cast aside: decency, honesty, morality, and yes, God, guns and country music.)

If God had chosen this generation to bring the Christ into the world, and he could only appear on one television interview show, which one would he choose: Larry King or Bill O'Reilly? It's a trick question. I think Jesus would pick Larry. Remember what he told the grumbling Pharisees: "Those who are well have no need of a physician; I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance."

Money Talks

I took a break from grading term papers tonight to attend a meeting hosted by the Center Right Coalition. The audience barely outnumbered the speakers, but it was an interesting evening nonetheless. One of several politicians in the room, CRC spokesman and former Michigan 61st District Representative Jack Hoogendyk, introduced Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan who spoke of his past work to establish a "right to work" law in Idaho. This law makes it illegal to discriminate against those who choose not to join a union. In essence, it bans union shops.

Glenn informed us that it took ten years and several million dollars (counting spending on both sides of the issue) to pass the right to work law in Idaho. He foresees a similar battle in Michigan if we attempt to do the same thing here. The ironic thing about this is that only about 12% of Michigan residents belong to a union (according to Hoogendyk's estimate.) This means that a small minority is strangling the state economy for the benefit of a few. Glenn reported that in states where right to work laws are in place, unemployment is in the low single digits, home values are not depressed and business is generally booming. Right to work works.

Naturally, union forces are dead set against right to work. It essentially kills the cash cow they milk for their existence. Lacking the ability to force workers to pay union dues, union coffers would soon resemble the state treasury in Michigan. Because of this, the Teamsters, the UAW, the AFL-CIO and other powerful national unions will come to our state and spend outrageous sums to defeat the measure. A victory for right to work here would spell disaster for unions everywhere, since Michigan is an iconic union stronghold, mostly due to the former strength of the auto industry and its attendant unions. We also have the dubious honor of being the birthplace of the National Education Association, the country's largest union.

This situation is strikingly similar to another where a small minority dictates to the larger population what to think and how to act. I am referring to the mood established by the gay rights lobby. One of the papers I just finished grading advocated the normalization of same-sex marriages. The young lady who wrote the paper was convinced by her research that the prohibition of homosexual marriage was equivalent to the historical discrimination against African Americans. Her thesis promoted the idea that the Declaration of Independence assertion that all men are created equal applies to same-sex marriage. She cited a Washington Post/ABC poll done recently which found support for same-sex marriage trending upward since 2003, with the balance shifting in favor of gay marriage in the most recent poll.

This should not be surprising. First, it is a liberal media poll, which would likely have a left leaning bias among those who chose to respond. As a balance point, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showed no such lead for proponents of gay marriage. A CNN poll has the number at 54% opposed, 44% in favor, while CBS reported recently 53% opposed, 42% in favor. More to the point, the GLBT activists have been drumming their "equal rights" mantra into the heads of anyone who will listen for years. As my young researcher testifies, the argument is taking hold.

Bill Cooper, a candidate for Pete Hoekstra's House seat, was adamant in his support of right to work. As a successful Michigan businessman, he has seen firsthand how the climate in Michigan has gradually stifled any real economic growth. If (when, according to his optimistic outlook) he makes it to Washington, he pledges to work for national right to work law. He is also in favor of laws supporting traditional marriage. What bothered Cooper most, and the rest of us as well, was the prognosis for passage of right to work legislation in Michigan any time soon. Glenn believes the legislature must first pass something which can then be taken to the voters (forced their by the unions.) This will be a years-long process, Glenn claims.

I believe we can speed the progress of both right to work and defense of traditional marriage. We just need to be more vocal about our opinions. The Apostle Paul admonishes Timothy to be ready to speak the truth "in season and out of season." We are entering a political season in 2010. November will bring us a chance to speak truth to power as the old Quaker phrase puts it. I recommend that we not wait until the polls open this fall, but begin today by countering the onslaught of propaganda at every opportunity. Speak evil of no one, but speak the truth to all. If we don't shore up the levy of truth, we'll be washed away by the flood of lies.

Intended Consequences

The textbook debate going on in Texas right now is instructive of a larger issue. Greta Van Susteren of Fox News ran a clip of Patricia Henry, Texas Board of Education member, saying, "Well, I think you have made it very clear that the [national] textbooks are the result of what comes out from this standard.... we are the largest purchasers of textbooks. So therefore, we do influence what happens in other parts of the country." California used to hold sway over textbook content, a fact which partially explains why content has become increasingly liberal. If the move to digital or on demand books takes over the textbook industry, one-state influence may cease to be a determining factor in curriculum content.

Until the digital revolution comes, the debate will continue. The big flap in Texas is that conservatives want certain things taught in their schools, radical things like American exceptionalism, individualism and the value of limited government, according to another Texas board member. These are indeed radical ideas, radical in the original sense of the word, coming as it does from the Latin, radix, meaning root. The conspiracy I hinted at in "Informed Consent" is plainly evident in the opposition to Texas conservatives. A picture posted in James McKinley's NY Times article shows protesters wearing shirts proclaiming, "Save Our History." Conservatives would answer that they are doing precisely that.

People might be confused by the progressives' actions if they don't understand the agenda. A teachers' union in California recently spent millions in support of SR1322, a bill which sought to end the practice of having public servants take a loyalty oath. Granted, the oath, a product of the 1950's, smacked of McCarthyism in some details, but on the whole, it was a pledge to defend the state and the nation from malicious influences. Reading the argument of the teachers' union reveals that they took exception to the idea that pride in one's state or nation should be fostered. It appears they believe that defense of and pride in one's country is demeaning to those from other states or countries. Even the RINO "Governator" Swartznegger saw clearly enough to veto the bill when it reached his desk.

Under its tiny brown cap, the little acorn hides the mighty spreading oak. The seed of tomorrow is planted by the deed of today. An article in Suite 101 says, "The dearth of knowledge in what is considered basic in Arts and Science classes is [increasing] every year among college freshmen and may be traced to earlier education... Part of the blame lies with high school teachers that [sic] often have only a rudimentary understanding of their subject area." College teachers today are themselves the product of the dumbed-down curriculum that plagues academia.

I don't know how the textbook debate in Texas will turn out. In a hundred years (if we last that long) the dominant ideologues may report their version of the squabble as "History." No generation is exempt from bias, yet there are those today who claim the exclusive right to invent the truth as they go along. Solomon once said, "Truth will continue forever, but lies are only for a moment." (Proverbs 12:19 NCV) If progressives have their way the truth may soon lie alongside Gutenberg and his children. Perhaps if Google succeeds in digitizing everything ever written, some future Ezra will electronically resurrect the authorized version. (See Nehemiah 8)

Carpe Momentum

There is no such thing as time as we know it. Time is not a substance that can be detected with the senses; it is not even an ephemeral something which we assume exists, but escapes definition. There are no empirical data catalogued in some esoteric library documenting the physical description of time. Time, quite literally does not exist.

Time is a construct which humans have invented to record the passage of events. As far back as the rising of the first sun on the first human being, we have divided our existence into segments. Before mechanical measuring instruments were developed, the passage of the heavenly bodies marked the divisions of time. (More accurately, the rotation of the earth dictated the astral positions.) The Egyptians invented the hour but were unconcerned with its variable nature, lengthening and shortening with the seasons as it did. They were satisfied with twelve periods each of day and night, mindful but not concerned that they were unequal from day to day. The Babylonians became more precise, inventing the first small division of time, the she, which represented a barleycorn-length of the sun’s shadow on a sun dial (3.3 modern seconds.)

Today we have atomic clocks which measure in nanoseconds (one millionth of a second.) We are carefully concerned with infinitesimal distinctions, needing for some reason to track the movement of subatomic particles and electronic computations. Yet we still are no better than Adam and Eve at managing our time. No matter how hard I try, I still run out of time nearly every morning as I prepare to leave the house. Even when I allow myself hundreds of extra barleycorns, I always seem to be rushing to beat the sun to my appointed place on time. The only purpose for time is to keep me cognizant of the fact that there never seems to be enough, unless I am in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles, on which occasion time stands still.

Ultimately, the only time we have is the present moment (or nanosecond.) This moment is entirely contingent on the moment which precedes it. By this I mean that as you sit reading this right now, you exist in the reading moment because you sat down to read in a previous moment. You can see your computer because you approached it in a previous moment. Etcetera ad infinitum. There is no “time past” other than a memory of events arranged in a chronology and stored in either a human brain or some type of mechanical recording device.

If you are still reading this you are undoubtedly one of my dearest friends or else curiosity has compelled you to discover where in heaven’s name I am going with this. Here is my point. The Apostle Paul admonishes Christians to “redeem the time” in his letter to the Ephesian church. Paul was still operating under the adopted Babylonian barleycorn time (Hebrew halakim,) but seems to have understood that time is a unit of commerce that can be bought and sold, metaphorically speaking. Today we most frequently encounter this concept as we consider how most of us make a living. Whether paid by the hour, by the piece or with a salary, we can compute the time “spent” to earn a wage. Less obviously, we speak of “spending” our time in all sorts of unremunerated pursuits.

If time is as I have suggested, merely a chronological arrangement of all the moments in which we exist, every moment dependent on the one which precedes it, then “redeeming the time" means making every moment count. My title plays on the famous phrase, "carpe diem," meaning, "seize the day." The Latin "momentum" speaks of movement, adding urgency to the admonition while echoing the brief nature of our existence in any one moment.

Was the first century apostle advising us to invest every bit of our lives as wisely as possible because he realized that what you do in any given moment affects all the remaining moments of your existence? Did his travel to another dimension (the third heaven) give him a prescient understanding of the space-time continuum? I don't know. I suspect at the very least he would have said, "Make the most of every moment; it's all you have."

Shame on Us

Once again we are being treated to a lesson in democracy from the middle east. Why is it that the Iraqi people will risk life and property to go to the polling place, and many of us will not get off the couch to vote? The turnout in Iraq for this election is slightly lower than previously recorded, but these excited new democrats (small "d") still vote in numbers two to three times what we do.

The AP news article about the election pictures this woman proudly displaying her ballot proof finger, and the text mentions that her countrymen might wish they were bulletproof. Once again, though not as strongly as in the past, the forces of Islamic tyranny are threatening violence against any who dare to exercise their right to freely choose their leaders. Could there be a more stark contrast of ideologies than this: one group wants the freedom to choose who will lead them; the other group wants to "lead" by force of arms.

I know political memory in the US is dreadfully short, but I wonder if anyone can recall the argument waged by the enlightened intellectual progressives against poor benighted George W. Bush's plan to bring democracy to Iraq. Much of the antil-war sentiment was based on the assumption that it was a fool's errand to offer democracy to people in the middle east. According to genteel opinion, the Arabs were too steeped in centuries old tribal ways to appreciate the finer points of democratic political governance.

It seems the experts were wrong. A couple hundred thousand Iraqi troops kept the peace this week and allowed the people to make their own choices with blessedly little violence. Note that those peacekeepers were Iraqi troops, trained by the US to be sure, but home grown nonetheless. No "invaders" were forcing a fairy tale election on a reluctant populace. Hundreds of candidates from across the political spectrum vied for the chance to make policy and direct the nurture of the growing freedom. It seems pretty clear that no one party will emerge dominant, but coalitions have been working so far; it is likely they will yet.

I would be the fool if I expected to hear, "Attaboy, George," from the left side of the aisle. It would be beyond fantasy to imagine that even one of the outspoken critics of the war in Iraq would apologize for speaking so rudely now that he is proven wrong. I mourn the absence of simple courtesy from our politics. What's at stake is more than mere civility; there is a serious consequence of the refusal to admit fault in this case: it allows the myth that Iraq was a bad war to survive unchallenged. I care not a whit for the reputations of those who are too small to admit their mistake, but I care deeply about what their mistaken ideas foster in the national mind.

I gave a writing assignment recently, asking my students to tell me about their heroes, modeling their essays after one of my blog posts. Grading that set of papers was one of the most encouraging things I have done in a long time. But the relevant part of this story is that one of my students broke down in tears partway through the assignment and had to leave the room. When she returned, she handed in her essay saying that she could not continue because the topic was too painful emotionally. I read later that her hero was a young man who died in Iraq one day before he was due to come home. Her tears were not just that he died, but that in her mind his sacrifice was meaningless.

At the moment I read that, I almost cried. My son and tens of thousands like him went to the Gulf to lay the groundwork for the moment pictured above. To date, over four thousand brave, strong and true men and women have paid the ultimate price to purchase what that picture represents. The Bible says we must give honor to whom it is due; who deserves honor more than those who fight and die for freedom, no matter what flag it rises under? Shame on those who from lack of moral integrity perpetuate the myth that the Iraq war was a mistake. And shame of us if we don't take encouragement from those brave Iraqis and do our part in the land of the free and home of the brave.

Informed Consent

As I sit typing this morning, the sun is pouring in my window and I am listening to the sweetest music I know. For someone who grew up in West Michigan, who loves the change of seasons, but favors summer, the sound of the first robin of spring is a symphony of promise. There may be another snowstorm or two; the ice may yet hold the lake prisoner, but the clock of the seasons is sweeping winter off its face. That elated chirruping of the robin in my yard makes my heart sing.

If you will excuse my poetic nature further seeping into my prose, I will suggest that there is a parallel situation in politics. The choices made by the electorate in this country in 2008 ushered in a wintry chill for conservative thinkers. I sadly admit that the temperature was already dropping during George W's term, especially near the end. (The bailouts were like snow before Halloween.) The guarantee that the Constitution would be put on ice was signed in November. Subsequent polling proves that many who invited Jack Frost to the White House were largely unacquainted with his true nature, but invite they did, hoping for a positive change. Think Narnia before the children came to the rescue.

We are going to be given some interesting choices when election time comes around next fall. The word I'm hearing from conservative friends and prognosticators makes me think this may be the most important election in decades, or perhaps generations. The blatant disregard for constitutional principles prevalent in Washington is almost beyond belief. The new progressives parading as Democrats want change of a magnitude on par with the recent earthquake in Chile. I see buildings falling, homes and businesses destroyed, and lives forever ruined.

I believe there are three primary causes for the present dismal political situation. The first is ignorance. Sadly, the richest nation on earth, despite having almost universal education through near adulthood, has dumbed the electorate down to a pitiful second or third class status intellectually. Perhaps by design (yes, I speak of conspiracy,) the teaching of meaningful history regarding the foundational principles and people which led to America's greatness has been all but deleted from public education. Forget that the Judeo-Christian influence has been erased; no substantial effort is made to teach the concepts of natural law, separation of powers, or limited constitutional governance (or anything else that made the American Revolution revolutionary.)

The second cause of the sad state of political affairs is apathy. This may be related to the previously mentioned ignorance in some cases, but even those who know better don't always study, support or vote for candidates who reflect their values. My heart tells me, and many recent polls assert that the majority view in this country is right of center both politically and socially. The problem I see is that more liberals (progressives) are politically active than their conservative counterparts. Rush Limbaugh has suggested that conservatives are too busy making a living and raising a family to get involved in a significant way. I hope the so-called tea party movement is an indication of change in that regard.

The third reason that winter has come (and it will never be Christmas) is that many former conservative politicians have succumbed to the icy hypnotism of power. Once they get in office, they seem to contract selective amnesia. Witness RNC Chairman Michael Steele backing the candidate for New York's 23rd, Dede Scozzafava, who stood to the left of her Democrat opponent. Lindsey Graham sitting down with John Kerry to work on carbon cap and tax legislation provides an example. George W. Bush's abandonment of free market principles in the financial crisis is another. Closer to home, our Republican representative in Lansing voted for the dreadful business tax. These actions make no sense except as a go-along to get along move. Whence principle?

The consent of the governed is a sacred trust granted to the people of the United States at the cost of the blood, toil and tears of the Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence says in part, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of the involvement and education of the governed as a prerequisite to rational consent.

There are those on the left who say that we Christians should not be allowed to assert our beliefs in the public square. I would ask them to interpret these words of our founders: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [the rights endowed by the Creator], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." To paraphrase what I recently wrote in "No Freedom to Speak," the First Amendment loses all meaning if our political adversaries are not allowed free expression of their ideas. I am not yet ready to take up arms (a course of action which our founders anticipated,) but I genuinely fear that if Christians don't begin to take informed action, our options may soon resemble those faced by our founders. I pray we wake up before that.

No Freedom to Speak

I don't always agree with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, but tonight I found myself in hearty agreement with his position on the NCAA's decision to pull the Focus on the Family ad supporting, surprise, family values. O'Reilly interviewed a guest spokeswoman for a national women's organization who applauded the NCAA move saying the ad could potentially "lure" (her word) unsuspecting viewers to the "hateful" (her word) Focus web site. O'Reilly countered by opining that the NCAA acted in a "cowardly manner" by removing the ad based on a minority objection by activist groups.

O'Reilly tried unsuccessfully to point out the utter hypocrisy in the woman's argument. She believes that the Focus position on abortion and gays is so dangerous that the right to free speech does not apply to them. She said, and I am paraphrasing, that Americans don't want to hear the "divisive" (her word) opinion of exclusive organizations like Focus on the Family. She apparently lives in such a small world that she can't see the hateful and divisive nature of her own words. She apparently has no concept of the wide range of opinion held by Americans on these controversial topics.

What scares me, and seemingly Bill O'Reilly as well, is that there is a growing number of people and organizations who will listen to the whining voices of a minority opinion and react defensively. In this case, the ad itself was a model of non-controversial good sense. Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesperson, said he was "befuddled" by the NCAA's move to pull the ad. "Have we really become a society where it's considered distasteful and controversial for a dad to hope the best for his son?" he said. "If so, we have a lot of soul-searching to do as a nation."

Schneeberger couldn't have said it better. It is not the American way, nor should it be the Christian way to censor our speech to avoid offending those with whom we disagree. Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of reasoning will effectively end all evangelism. The gospel has always been a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. The modern definition of tolerance prohibits any statement that can be interpreted as critical or exclusive. The heart of the gospel message is a bad news/good news situation. The bad news: people are separated from God by their sin; the good news: God has provided a path to reconciliation. This is both critical and exclusive.

So if I must be intolerant to be a faithful Christian, call me intolerant. I will not tolerate sin. I will not tolerate principles, policies or practices that encourage sin. I will try to say these things in the most loving and understanding way possible, but I will continue to say these things. I will work to encourage policy makers who want to foster an atmosphere in which sinful things are discouraged with whatever legal, ethical means are at our disposal. It is my right as an American to seek to promote policies and programs that will bolster my belief system.

Still, I must painfully admit that it is also within the rights of people like the woman O'Reilly confronted to do the same. Where she and those like her go awry is to insist that I don't have the right to express my opinions. In the end I must say that while I wholeheartedly disagree with some of my fellow citizens' opinions, I will steadfastly defend their right to express them. I only wish they would grant me the same opportunity.