The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1196721
B-4 Wednesday, Januar y 1, 2020 The Press-Dispatch OPINION Submit Letters to the Editor: Letters must be signed and received by noon on Mondays. Email: editor@pressdispatch.net or bring in a hard copy: 820 E. Poplar Street, Petersburg As the year 2019 has ended and the year 2020 begins, I did not re- ally know where to start or where to end my article. There are 12 months that have come and gone and like a flash of light, poof it's done. So I began to search in my memory bank what highlights have happened each month. Well, in order to do that, I took my cell phone and went to the cal- endar section and checked out a few things that I may have pro- grammed for reminders. To my surprise, I found very few items that I notated, because I discov- ered I was writing my appoint- ments and schedules into a paper calendar. I found out I kept three calendars in three different places which made it hard to track what's going on that are important in my life. Then I remembered I began to make entries into my I phone calendar begin- ning March 2019, and bingo, I could not be- lieve how much easier it was to track sched- ules. Reminding me what schedules or appoint- ments I needed to do each day became lots easier. Hey, I belong to the old school of paper calendar planning. I found out that being re- tired after 45 years of faithful ser- vice to my chosen career did not make me just fade away and go un- der the radar screen. In fact I now feel somewhat busier as I reviewed that calendar reminder program. But here's the difference. I could do things on my own terms, my own sched- ule, my own sweet time, most of the time. I did say most of the time. Yeah, most of the time. And that my dear friends is what I seem to hear as well from my retired friends and acquain- tances. I initially thought I will just have the leisure of sitting on a comfortable rocking chair, watch the world go by, and have no cares. Nah, not true. We retirees laugh when we My Point of View By Dr. H. K. Fenol, Jr., M.D. Highlights of the year Minority View By Walter E. Williams Virginia's Second Amendment attack Continued on page 5 Continued on page 5 Virginia Governor Ralph Northam apologized for his medi- cal school blackface stunt, but he will have much more to apologize for if he signs into law a bill that attacks Virginia citizens' Second Amendment rights. The measure is Senate Bill 16, which would ban "assault" firearms and certain fire- arm magazines. Since Democrats have seized control of Virginia's General Assembly, they are like- ly to push hard for strict gun con- trol laws. Those laws will have zero impact on Virginia's criminals and a heavy impact on Virginia's law- abiding citizens who own, or in- tend to own, semi-automatic weap- ons for hunting or their protection. As a friend once explained to me, "I carry a gun because I can't car- ry a cop." I am proud of my fellow Virgin- ians' response to the attack on their Second Amendment rights. Firearm owners in the state have joined with sheriffs to form Sec- ond Amendment sanctuary coun- ties. That means local authorities will be required to protect Second Amendment rights in the face of any attempt by Virginia's General Assembly to abrogate those rights. Eighty-six counties — over 90 % — in the Virginia commonwealth have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions. Spotsylva- nia County's board of supervisors voted unanimously to approve a resolution declaring that county police will not enforce state-level gun laws that violate Second Amendment rights. Sheriff Chad Cub- bage said, "Be it be known that the Page Sheriff hereby de- clares Page County, Virginia, as a 'Second Amendment Sanctu- ary,' and that the Page County Sheriff hereby declares its intent to oppose any infringement on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms." Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins made a vow during a board of supervi- sors meeting, where the board unanimously agreed to declare the county a Second Amendment constitutional county, to "proper- ly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to pro- tect their constitutional right to own firearms." In an attempt to appease citi- zen resistance, Northam suggest- ed there would be a ban on on- ly the sales of semi-automatic ri- fles. He would allow gun owners to keep their current AR-15s and similar rifles as long as they regis- tered them. Otherwise, they must surrender the rifles. I'd urge Vir- ginians not to fall for the regis- tration trick. Knowing who owns what weapons is the first step to confiscation. Gover- nor Northam further warned, "If we have constitutional laws on the books and law en- forcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books, then there are going to be consequences, but I'll cross that bridge if and when we get to it." Some Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill say that local po- lice who do not enforce gun con- trol laws should face prosecution and even threats of the use of the National Guard. Virginians must heed the words and capture the spirit of their two most distinguished citizens, Thomas Jefferson and James Mad- ison, who wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. These reso- lutions referred to the federal gov- ernment but are just as applicable to state governments in principle. They said: "Resolved, That the sev- eral States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited sub- mission to their General Govern- ment ... and whensoever the Gen- eral Government assumes undel- egated powers, its acts are unau- Points to Ponder by Rev. Ford Bond Christianity Today? Federal spending explodes at nearly $300K per household I learned long ago politics and religion do not mix well; they are like oil and vinegar. You want to polarize a church? Quit preaching Jesus, and preach politics and so- cial justice. Christianity Today, a magazine for evangelical Christians, has thrust the publication into the on- going impeachment debate, and claims [per se] it is speaking for Jesus, or at least what Christians should do– support impeaching President Trump. The magazine presents itself as an Evangelical magazine for Christians, and has taken a stand against President Trump. It has called into question supporters of the President who are Christians, and it is making the assertion that they may not be moral Christians, and should rethink their support. The position taken by the edi- tor, Mark Galli [Trump Should Be Removed from Office], is not in it- self what concerns me. He has the privilege to accept at face value the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House of Representatives. What I find disturbing is that he begins the article with "The typi- cal CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the pub- lic square, to encourage all to pur- sue justice according to their con- victions and treat their political op- position as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that wel- comes Christians from across the political spectrum, and remind ev- eryone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage." Then he adds the "however," and launches into a political and moral treatise on why Trump has to go AND why Christians need to support this position: "That he [Trump] should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments… Re- member who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your jus- tification of Mr. Trump influenc- es your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbeliev- ing world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don't re- verse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any serious- ness for decades to come? " I understand the point Galli is trying to make, but historical- ly, from George Washington to Barack Obama, presidents have had affairs, been drunkards, kept paramours, gambled, lied to the nation, enriched friends, and start- ed unnecessary wars. What stands out to me is that all these men were flawed, and nothing has changed in the human condition that would make electing another palatable. Again, Galli made his point loud and clear. "How can a Christian support Trump as president? " Is not this the same issue as "How can a Christian be a Democrat? " or "How can a Christian be a Re- publican? " Siding with the impeachment party, Christianity Today has painted itself as their mouthpiece, whether intentional or not. Christianity Today has lost the big picture. The prophet Daniel, in a prayer, made a declaration for all time "who" controls the levers of power: "Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, for wis- dom and might are His. And He changes the times and the sea- sons; He removes kings and rais- es up kings; He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He re- veals deep and secret things; He knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with Him." The apostle Paul likewise makes an interesting declaration: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principal- ities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wicked- ness in the heavenly places." Therefore, God uses flawed men and women to achieve His will, Star Parker is off. The following column is by Dennis Prager. The editor-in-chief of Christian- ity Today, Mark Galli, wrote an ed- itorial calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. In my view, this editorial only serves to confirm one of the sad- der realizations of my life: that re- ligious conviction guarantees nei- ther moral clarity nor common sense. The gist of the editorial — and of most religious and conservative opposition to President Trump — is that any good the president has done is dwarfed by his character defects. This is an amoral view that says more about Galli than it does about the president. He and the people who share his opinion are making the following statement: No mat- ter how much good this president does, it is less important than his character flaws. Why is this wrong? First, because it devalues poli- cies that benefit millions of people. And second, because it is a sim- plistic view of character. I do not know how to assess a person's character — including my own — outside of how one's actions affect others. Since I agree with almost all of President Trump's actions as president and believe they have positively affected millions of people, I have to conclude that as president, Trump thus far has been a man of particularly good character. Of course, if you think his policies have harmed mil- lions of people, you will assess his character negatively. But that is not what never-Trump conser- vatives or Christians such as the Christianity Today editor-in-chief argue. They argue that his policies have indeed helped America (and even the world), but this fact is far less significant than his character. In the words of Galli: "(I)t's time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical in- competence." This rhetorical sleight of hand reflects poorly on Galli's intellec- tual and moral honesty. Galli and every other Christian and conservative opponent of the president believe their concerns are moral, and that the president's Christian and other conservative supporters are political. This is simply wrong. I and every other sup- porter of the president I know support him for moral reasons, not to win a "political pok- er game." Galli's view is purely self-serving; he's saying, "We Christian and oth- er conservative opponents of the president think in moral terms, while Christian and other conser- vative supporters of the president think in political terms." So, permit me to inform Galli and all the other people who con- sider themselves conservative and/or Christian that our support for the president is entirely moral. — To us, putting pressure on the Iranian regime — one of the most evil and dangerous regimes on Earth — by getting out of the Iran nuclear deal made by former President Barack Obama is a mor- al issue. Even New York Times col- umnist Bret Stephens, who loathes Continued on page 5 Heritage Viewpoint By David Ditch Continued on page 5 Continued on page 5 Amid the drama surrounding impeachment, both parties came together on one area of shared sup- port: spending enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars and adding to the $23.1 trillion national debt. Congress had little time to prop- erly review fiscal 2020 spending bills, which weighed in at more than 2,000 pages of clunky text. The legislation contained a mul- titude of flaws, including lobbyist- driven handouts and a private- pension bailout that could open the door for even larger bailouts down the line. This is a business-as-usual con- clusion to an irresponsible decade. The degree to which Washington has been reckless with the nation's finances is hard to comprehend. Since 2010, the federal gov- ernment has spent $293,750 per household. Federal spending started the decade at an artificially high level due to the 2009 "economic-stimu- lus" package. There was a slight dip after the stimulus ended, and the tea party wave ushered in a brief period of restraint in Con- gress. Sadly, this flicker of respon- sibility was short-lived. According to the Office of Man- agement and Budget and the Con- gressional Budget Office, feder- al spending totaled $ 37.6 trillion from 2010 through 2019. Spread across 128 million households (per the Census Bureau), that yields $293,750 in spending for every household. Federal spending in 2019 was equivalent to the combined econ- omies of 16 states. In fiscal 2019, which ended Sept. 30, the federal government doled out $4.4 trillion. The full scope of that much money is virtually im- possible for the human mind to grasp. One way to understand the sheer enormity is by comparing it to the size of state economies. 191222_Spending-chart_Ditch. jpg To match the amount that the federal government spent in fiscal 2019, one would need to add the to- tal economic output of Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Io- wa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minne- sota, Missouri, Nevada, Oklaho- ma, Oregon, South Carolina, Ten- nessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. We should treat the notion that this level of federal activity is too small with deep skepticism. Spending per household is up 47% since 2000. The federal government spent $ 34,700 per household in 2019, which is serious money no matter what part of the country you live in. Is nearly $ 35,000 per house- hold too much spending? To put it in context, we can go back to the last time the economy had a surg- ing stock market and unemploy- ment under 4% , the year 2000. Back then, federal spending was about $2.49 trillion after ad- justing for inflation. Divided by the number of households in 2000, the government spent just $23,600 per household in today's dollars. That means that the spending in- crease from 2000 to now is a stag- gering 47% per household, even af- ter controlling for inflation. In re- al terms, the federal government is nearly half-again larger than it was less than two decades ago. The budget would balance to- day if spending had grown more modestly. With the federal government growing so quickly, it should come as no surprise that this year's def- icit likely will exceed $1 trillion, even if the economy remains strong. Some on the left counter that the high deficits are primarily the fault of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law just before Christ- mas 2017, and that the solution is funneling more taxpayer dollars to Washington. That assertion is in- Pursuit of the Cure By Dennis Prager A response to Christianity Today