Why Supprt Israel

In the midst of the Arab Spring last Thursday, President Obama reversed decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East by taking the Palestinian side against Israel. Among other things, Obama called for a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders, which would leave the country eight miles wide and totally indefensible. This would jeopardize the very existence of Israel.

The next day, Obama got a dressing down by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "It's not going to happen," Netanyahu said Friday. "Everybody knows it's not going to happen." Land for peace has been tried and doesn't work. Paul Greenberg called this, "the oldest established permanent mirage in the Middle East. . . the Israelis may have finally seen through this game."

By Sunday, Obama was back peddling fast, claiming his remarks were misrepresented. Perhaps polls showing that 67% of Americans disapproved changed his mind. Perhaps addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee did. Wisely, he reversed course. Obama stated,

"Even while we may sometimes disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad."

Those are the words he needed to say, and the words he needs to mean.

After 2,000 years, God kept His promise calling His chosen people back to their land. Ezekiel 34:12-13 says: "As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among the scattered sheep, so will I seek out my sheep and deliver them from all the places where they are scattered. . . . .And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from among the countries, and I will bring them to their own land. I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, in the valleys and in all the inhabited places." That happened as the modern state of Israel was created in 1948.

The borders of Israel were expanded in 1967 after Syria, Egypt, and Jordan attacked without provocation. Since its inception, the state of Israel has been under almost continuous attack by rocket and suicide bomber. Hamas, in Gaza, and Hezbollah, in Lebanon, have both stated goals of driving Israel into the sea. Now Hamas has joined a unity government with Fatah, the party that controls the West Bank. Israel should trust them? They have vowed Israel's total destruction.

Repeatedly Israel has given land for peace. They gave back the Sinai and Gaza, but the terrorism didn't end. Greenberg stated,

"American policymakers still talk about the conflict between Israel and her neighbors as if it were a territorial dispute - just a matter of drawing lines on a map. . . [but] this has never been about the creation of another Arab state, but the elimination of a Jewish one."

Why should we continue to support Israel? There is a mutual friendship and shared Judeo-Christian heritage, but there are better reasons. We need to be on Israel's side because God is.

God gave them the land as a perpetual heritage. God made the original covenant with Abraham and repeated it often. The prophet Isaiah wrote to Israel in Isaiah 54:5,10,

"For your maker is your husband. . . . For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from you, nor shall My covenant of peace be removed."

Paul, in Romans 11:29. writes, "For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." God keeps His promises.

More importantly, God told Abraham in Genesis 12:3, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you." Since they became a nation, we have been Israel's primary defender and protector. Could this be the reason that we have experienced unparalleled blessing and prosperity? With all the bad news in the world facing us, what more can we expect if we abandon our friend?

Don't Nibble Around the Edges of Abortion, End It!

A Public hearing was held on yet another bill that nibbles around the edges of the abortion debate. This bill is L.D. 1463, which would assign a degree of legal standing to unborn babies so that those who injure them could be charged with a crime. Many states already give unborn babies this legal standing. Maine is just now considering getting on board, and it would join other bills under consideration that would require informed consent.

The opponents, as usual, argue that this is yet another attempt to erode constitutionally protected abortion rights. Alysia Melnick of the Maine Civil Liberties Union stated, "This bill would clearly separate a woman from her fetus in the eyes of the law." Her argument is that to consider the baby as more than a blob of tissue attached to the mother would get people to thinking this blob of tissue with a beating heart and a unique genetic code was a person. If people began to think that way, they might get the idea that the person had a right to live.

Horrors! Thus they accuse the sponsors of the bill of wanting to erode abortion rights. Oh, no, they were told, implying that we would never do something as stupid as challenge a woman's right to choose. This bill's sponsor, Senator Debra Plowman, R-Hampden, assured them, "At no point is this intended to affect a woman's right to choose [abortion]." Apparently she doesn't want to be accused of that. But, why wouldn't we want to? Do you really believe, Senator Plowman, that our Constitution guarantees a woman's right to an abortion? I've read the Constitution a number of times, and I can't find it. It's not there!

What I do find in the Constitution is that the fourteenth Amendment reiterates the Fifth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence by saying, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Our Constitution guarantees the right to life, not the right of a woman to choose death for her baby. Now the right to privacy has trumped that right to life, and abortion is the law of the land. As a result, 50,000,000 precious babies have been denied the right to be born.

Why would we not want to affect a woman's right to choose abortion? Why are we such cowards to say so? Are we afraid they will ridicule us? Why should we give up the debate over Roe versus Wade? Why do we accept the argument that Roe versus Wade is established, settled law? As established, settled law, they claim, it has somehow become sacred and untouchable. Hogwash!

Unfortunately, that was the same argument that was used to preserve slavery. The Dred Scott Decision by the Supreme Court was established law, and it allowed property rights of slave owners to trump the rights of the slaves to be free. It should have been the moral imperative of every decent citizen to oppose that wrong headed decision. It should be the moral imperative of every decent citizen to fight for the right to life for unborn children. To not argue for a total end to abortion is cowardice.

Can you imagine William Wilberforce standing before parliament arguing, "No, sir, we do not want to end the slave trade. We understand that it is established law. We merely want to pass some bills to make sure the slave traders are informed and can make an intelligent choice about whether to traffic in human lives." How ridiculous! does anyone actually think that would work? No!

Wilberforce had to attack the trade itself as evil. Yes, it was evil to trade in human lives, and the practice needed to be ended. There wasn't room for compromise. Yes, abortion is evil in that it destroys innocent human life, and the practice needs to be ended. Yes, Roe verses Wade needs to be reversed. Let's say it.

Let's have the guts to say, "Yes, we will do everything we can to overturn Roe versus Wade because it is bad law and was made through faulty reasoning." Yes, because of the currently political situation, we can work toward partial measures that will limit it, but we will not rest until it is overturned.

Time to Shut Planned Parenthood's Cash Spigot

This Saturday, I plan to participate in the "Walk for Life" sponsored by First Step Pregnancy Center in Bangor. This is one of the many ways that they raise funds to help in their effort to save innocent, unborn babies from death. They are doing a good work, and they have to raise their own funds to do it. Planned Parenthood doesn't have to do that. They receive $300 million in subsidies from the Federal Government, plus additional funding from many state governments, to carry out their agenda of ending the life of unborn babies through abortion. Something is wrong with this picture. It's time Planned Parenthood's government funding spigot is shut.

Why shouldn't Planned Parenthood have to hold their own fundraising events? Maybe they could have their own walk too. They could call it the "Walk for Death." But why should all of us be forced through our tax dollars to fund an organization that practices what many of us consider a great evil? Actually, since our Federal Government is broke, why should we borrow to fund their efforts so they can continue to end the life of future taxpayers?

There are those who disagree with shutting off the spigot. Our President and the Democrats in the Senate have drawn a line in the sand. They and other Planned Parenthood allies always want to trot out the "good things" that Planned Parenthood does to justify continued funding. But the problem is, those things don't change the fact that Planned Parenthood is the nation's number one provider of abortion.

One of our children's newest favorite movies is "Tangled." There is one scene in the movie where the heroine is lured into a tavern with a benign sounding name but filled with an assortment of thugs, toughs, and criminals. Fearing for her life, she explains her dream to them. Touched by the beauty of it, they all begin telling their own dreams. Deep inside they are really wonderful people with admirable dreams. One wants to be a concert pianist. Another wants to be a mime. Still another collects miniatures. Ah, but alas, they really are all thugs, toughs, and criminals who make their living through crime. None of their dreams change that fact.

Everyone wants to be thought well of. that's human nature. Everyone will always present their best side - even Planned Parenthood. But it is kind of hard to hide reality. That's the situation with Planned Parenthood. For all of its "good intentions," they remain the nation's number one provider of abortion. As such, they do not deserve one cent of public support. Please do not use our tax dollars to fund them. Shut off the cash spigot.

Transgender Restrooms - The Loss of Common Sense

This past week, I have read articles on hearings being held for L.D. 1046, the so called "Bathroom Bill," and articles on the lawsuit going forward against the Orono Elementary School for violating the "rights" of a transgender student who was refused use of the girl's bathroom. As a society, have we gone insane?

The simple fact that we have hearings on "The Bathroom Bill" shows that we have totally lost common sense as a society. The bill would clarify who could use which bathrooms. The reason the bill is necessary is that the Maine Civil Rights Commission has left the situation in limbo, not issuing common sense guidelines for schools and businesses, but indicating that people need to be allowed to use whatever bathroom fits their perceived sexuality, rather than their biological sex. Can they be serious?

My wife and I are the old fashioned sort that never had ultrasounds before our babies were born. Every time my wife gave birth, it was always a surprise. the midwife would take a look between the babies legs and, "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!" Not once did she ever say, "Well now, we'll just have to wait and see till the baby is older and can decide for itself." Of course not! Biology has already decided.

Actually, the Bible tells us that God already decided. Genesis 1:27 teaches, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He create him; male and female He created them." Psalm 139:23-24 also teaches that God "formed my inward parts, [He] covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise [Him], for I am fearfully and wonderfully made." That doesn't leave much room for choice. We are what we are born. We are what God made us. Why have we stopped encouraging people to be what they were meant to be? Why have we stopped expecting people to take responsibility for who they are?

A young woman we know, pregnant for her second child, recently had her husband come to her and say he wanted to be a woman. Hello? He left her to pursue the homosexual lifestyle. He had already done what a man does. He had impregnated his wife twice. Now he needs to be the man he was meant to be and protect and provide for his family. Rather than do the right thing, he chose to abandon his family all because he decided to choose a different sex.

We hear that transgender people feel embarrassed to use bathrooms designed for their biological sex - that they are more comfortable in the bathroom of the opposite sex. To my mind, it would be more embarrassing to go into a bathroom where everyone had different plumbing; although I can imagine some of the guys I went to high school with who would pretend to transgender just to get a peek. If the issue is self-consciousness, the answer would be to transition to single occupancy restrooms, or place a few alongside the communal restrooms, as some stores are doing now with family restrooms. But don't open the door to making every little girl embarrassed by a biological boy in their restroom, or open the door to pedophiles and sex-perverts to prey on little girls.

Our restrooms should not be open and inclusive. Especially, the restrooms our children use should not be open and inclusive. When will we stop worrying so much about the supposed rights of people's choices and start worrying about protecting our children? When will parents rise up and finally say, ENOUGH! STOP THE MADNESS! When will we make our stand?

Beyond Wisconsin - The Real Crisis in Education

Now that the standoff between the teacher's union and the governor of Wisconsin has faded from our front pages, it might be time to consider the greater scandal in education - that is the failure of our public educational system to produce well educated adults.

I shouldn't have to prove the statement. Anyone interested can find the statistics easily enough. recently, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a reputable organization of 34 of the world's most advanced countries placed U.S. fifteen year olds in the middle of the thirty-four nations educationally. Education Secretary, Anne Duncan, states that by next year 82% of all public schools could be failing. She writes,

"When a child is meeting the state standards, they are in fact barely able to graduate from high school. And they are absolutely inadequately prepared to go to a competitive university, let alone graduate."

That is the bigger scandal.

What is the problem? We have a multitude of dedicated, hard working teachers. We spend more money for education every year. As we have read, the teachers in Wisconsin are well paid with lots of benefits. All more money will accomplish is more of the same. Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Educationally, if we expect different results, we will have to look for different solutions.

Business guru W. Edward Deming stated, "Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you are getting." This is true in every situation. Public education is accomplishing exactly what it is designed to accomplish. Unfortunately, the results for which they are designed aren't the same results most Americans want. This is because, instead of concentrating on teaching the skills needed to thrive in society, our schools are becoming more and more indoctrination centers for tolerance.

Kevin Jennings, our nation's "Safe Schools" Czar, is a good example. He has stated, "every public school, private school, or parochial school has an obligation" to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum. Even if your parochial school believes that homosexuality is a sin condemned by God? "Lord forbid a Baptist or Mormon school," he added, as he denounced private schools and school choice/voucher programs as "very dangerous" because they oppose his agenda. Very dangerous? They are the ones that have produced real educational results, they and home schools. Oh, but that isn't the agenda, indoctrination is. Do we really need pro-homosexual curriculum in, as he has stated, "kindergarten, and first grade, and second grade, every grade," especially when Little Johnny can't read?

These attitudes are not unique to Kevin Jennings. Check out these real headlines from our nation's newspapers over the past several weeks: "U.S. Teachers Tell U.N. Sex is a Spectrum - Advocate Mandatory Classes to Free Students From Religion." Principal Orders (Ten Commandments) Yanked From School Lockers." "University Defines Christians as Oppressors." "District Taking Money But Censoring Christians." "No Opting Out of Pro-Gay School Participation." These are but a sampling. It seems as though tolerance of everything is good except tolerance of traditional or Christian values.

Catherine Ross, a law professor at George Washington University, expressed their opinion well. She wrote,

"I am not primarily concerned here with the quality of academic achievement in the core curriculum areas of homeschoolers, which has been the subject of much heated debate. Instead, my comments focus on civic education in the broadest sense, which I define primarily as exposure to the constitutional norm of tolerance."

She continues,

"In order for the norm of tolerance to survive across generations, society need not and should not tolerate the indoctrination of absolutist views that undermine toleration of difference."

In other words, she doesn't think that homeschooling Christian parents should be allowed to teach their beliefs to their children,no matter how well they are doing academically. Indoctrination of their views is more important than achievement of core curriculum areas.

Parents should teach values to their children, while public schools should concentrate on teaching core curriculum. But as Mike Farris said,

"The 'It takes a village to raise a child' crowd believe that all children are the children of the village."

No! Parents are the ones responsible for their children. Perhaps it is time the schools again get serious about education and worry less about indoctrination. Maybe then they will have time to teach core curriculum, and maybe then we'll regain our place as the top educationally.

Three Cheers for the House

In the last blog entry, I asked where the outrage was in Congress over our President's decision to neglect his duty as Chief Executive to enforce and defend the law. I was specifically referring to his announcement that the Attorney General Eric Holder, and the Justice Department, would no longer defend DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act). They also won't prosecute child pornographers or investigate Planned Parenthood among other things.

Well, imagine how pleased I was to read that on March 9th, John Boehner, our Speaker of the House, organized and led a five-member Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) which will hire its own lawyers to fight for DOMA in court. Three cheers for them. The Republicans involved all signed the Pledge to America, and they are sticking to their pledge. They are committed to fight for marriage.

DOMA is now being challenged in the First District Court of Appeals. Pray for the right decision, and pray for these bold, principled congressmen. Let these congressmen know you appreciate their effort.

Defending D.O.M.A.

President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have announced that they will no longer defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in court. Perhaps they have forgotten what their jobs entail. They represent the Executive Branch of government. This means they are not responsible to make law (the job of the Legislative Branch) nor interpret law (the job of the Judicial Branch), but enforce law. Nowhere do they have the authority to forget about those laws they don't like or don't think appropriate. The President and the Executive Branch is charged with the task of executing the laws passed by congress. Article II of our Constitution requires the President to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States." His job is not to re-interpret it.

The Defense of Marriage act was passed by congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. The house voted 342-67 to pass and the senate voted 85-14. Clearly, they reflected the mandate of overwhelming public opinion. In every state where homosexual marriage has been on the ballot, it has lost. Once again, he is trying to bypass the will of the people and allow the liberal judges to remake the law and the morality of this country. Clearly, President Obama is out of step with the American people.

But more importantly, President Obama is out of step with God. It was God who instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden by creating one man for one woman and uniting them for life. Throughout the Bible, we see God's anger at the distortion of His plan, and homosexuality is a distortion of God's plan for sexual intimacy and marriage. Homosexuality turns God's plan for the family on its head. It was never meant to be two guys playing house, but it was the institution for the procreation and protection of children so that they could be raised to productive maturity. God designed it best. He knew that not only would it take a male and a female to procreate, but He knew that children need both a mother and a father in the home to provide the best conditions to raise them. Society has always understood this definition of family.

I would urge President Obama and Attorney General Holder to do your job. Defend the law. Live up to your campaign rhetoric when you declared that you believed marriage was between one man and one woman. President Obama, do the right thing, not the politically expedient thing that panders to your base. I would urge our Republican Congress to stop playing the wimps. House Speaker John Boehner stated,

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversy that sharply divides the nation."

Real tough, John. Where is the outrage at this abrogation of duty on the part of the president? Where are the elected leaders who will step up to the plate and defend marriage?