The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/359081
C-4 Wednesday, August 6, 2014 The Press-Dispatch Points to ponder—by Rev. Ford Bond Observations by Thomas Sowell Think Big by Ben Carson Cease the cease-fires Rudderless U.S. foreign policy Continued on page 5 Israel supporters: Beware of Hillary A woman's perspective—by Mona Charen The trouble with banning trans fats Continued on page 3 Continued on page 5 Many years ago, on my first trip around the world, I was struck by how the children in the Middle East - - Arab and Israeli alike - - were among the nicest looking little chil- dren I had seen anywhere. It was painful to think that they were go- ing to grow up killing each other. But that is exactly what happened. It is understandable that today many peo- ple in many lands just want the fighting be- tween the Israelis and the Palestinians to stop. Calls for a cease-fire are ringing out from the United Nations and from Washing- ton, as well as from ordinary people in ma- ny places around the world. According to the New York Times, Sec- retary of State John Kerry is hoping for a cease-fire to "open the door to Israeli and Palestinian negotiations for a long-term solution." President Obama has urged Is- raeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have an "immediate, unconditional humani- tarian cease-fire" - - again, with the idea of pursuing some long-lasting agreement. If this was the first outbreak of violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, such hopes might make sense. But where have the U.N., Kerry and Obama been dur- ing all these decades of endlessly repeated Middle East carnage? The Middle East must lead the world in cease-fires. If cease-fires were the road to peace, the Middle East would easily be the most peaceful place on the planet. The Obama administra- tion's recent failures in the foreign-policy arena have on- ly highlighted how far Amer- ican leader- ship has fallen in this new century. From the Middle East to Eurasia, it often seems that President Obama is reacting to events instead of trying to shape them. Americans have begun to see his collective failures as an in- dictment on his presidency, and they long for clarity and purpose from their president. The clear foreign policy that is grounded in American ideas of pro- moting liberty abroad and preserving our security at home is what is need- ed now. That is how we became a su- perpower. Reversing these ideas al- lows our adversaries to become stron- ger and impairs our ability to respond to present-day threats. While Obama's foreign-policy ad- ventures have waxed and waned in the eyes of the American public, his inde- cisiveness in places such as Iraq and Syria has presented an image of weak- ness on the global stage. We have failed to adequately deal with Russian aggression in Georgia and Ukraine. Recognizing that the United States would soon be chang- ing administrations, Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. As a nation, we stood by and watched during that transition, as parts of Georgia fell under Russian rule. Vladimir Putin sensed our weak- ness and saw opportunity. Six years lat- er, he annexed Crimea, and now pro- Russian forces are trying to take over more land in Ukraine. What has the Obama administration done in response to this aggression by Russia? Not really much, other than impose toothless sanctions on Rus- sian businessmen close to Putin (but not the Russian president himself ), which have done little to make Rus- sia change course. Is this what Ron- ald Reagan would have done? Or would he have helped pro-democracy Ukrai- nians and pressed Europe to look for alternatives to Russian natural gas to preclude being held hostage by Rus- sian energy? Additionally, we need to reinforce our commitments to NATO and get the former components of the Soviet Union involved. Otherwise, Pu- tin will do this again. We need to em- bolden Europe to confront him. Russia is not the only country that has taken advantage of our preoccu- pation with the Middle East. Recent- ly, China has been expanding its mari- time boundary in the South China Sea. It also seeks to test our resolve to long- held security commitments we have with our partners in Asia. We must do more to let our Asian allies know that we will stand with them and confront China's territorial ambitions. China continues to threaten our country with cyber-attacks and is a repressive glob- al power. We need to do more to sup- port those people in China who long for democratic reform. If we had supported the masses who were trying to overthrow the tyranni- By Ed Feulner Like many Americans, you probably think it's up to you to determine how healthy your diet is. Well, the Food and Drug Admin- istration has a different idea. You see, the FDA is gun- ning for the trans fats in your diet. Last year, the agency tentatively decided to re- voke the status of partially hydrogenated oils as "Gen- erally Recognized as Safe." A recent FDA update notes that if this decision is final- ized, it could "mean the end of artificial, industrially pro- duced trans fat in foods." Wait, you may say, trans fats are bad, so this is a good thing. Not exactly. In the first place, it's al- most impossible to elimi- nate trans fats entirely from your diet. Some are naturally occurring, and we don't have enough evidence to conclude that natural trans fat is asso- ciated with heart disease. Secondly, if the amount of artificial trans fats we con- sume is a problem, it's one we already have well in hand. In 2003, we were consuming 4.6 grams per day, or 2 per- cent of a 2,000 -calorie diet. By 2012, this number had dropped to only 1 gram of trans fat per day, or 0.5 per- cent of the typical adult di- et. In short, even without the FDA trying to restrict con- sumption, we've had a re- markable 78 percent reduc- tion. The Institute of Medicine recommends that trans fat consumption should be as low as possible, not that we should seek to consume zero trans fat, whether artificial or natural. Yet the FDA is trying to eliminate the con- sumption of artificial trans fat. Why? That leads to the third point, an overarching one that forms the backdrop of this issue. The fact is, the FDA is moving its mission, as established by the Feder- al Food, Drug and Cosmet- ic Act of 1938, "into novel areas that are unrelated to the food-safety issues that the law is designed to regu- late," writes Heritage Foun- dation research fellow Dar- en Bakst. "It would do so by regulating nutrition and diet through limiting food choic- es." Adds Mr. Bakst: "Thus, the agency is trying to con- flate nutritional and dietary well-being with 'safety.' This action is extreme and unwar- ranted." It's one thing for the FDA to address an ingredient that causes acute health prob- lems. That is clearly within its purview, and is directly related to public safety. The consumption of trans fats, by contrast, is a matter for indi- viduals to decide and make their own choices about. As it turns out, they've already been taking steps about trans fat consumption for years. The FDA's overreach, in- cidentally, is not merely un- necessary. If can turn out to be harmful. Information about what foods to consume and in what amounts is ev- er-changing, and the feder- al government is hardly the best arbiter of what's reli- able. Consider the famous food pyramid, which urged people to consume a high level of carbohydrates — 180 degrees different from what passes for convention- al wisdom today. Plus, when one ingredient is removed by government fiat, the one In the last several weeks, I've heard people confidently declare that the 70 percent of Jewish Americans who vot- ed for Obama are finally sor- ry. I'm skeptical, but even if they are, they're probably telling themselves that Hill- ary Clinton would be a bet- ter friend to the Jewish state than the current president. They have short mem- ories. Remember the way first lady Hillary Clinton sat mute while Suha Arafat accused Israelis of poison- ing children? She then em- braced Arafat and kissed her on both cheeks. Clinton learned to mouth the right words when seeking a Senate sinecure from the (heavily Jewish) state of New York, and later the presidency. But her recent book and interviews suggest that her sympathies are by no means clear, and her judgment is worse. She refers in her book to the relative birth rates in Israel and the Palestin- ian territories and concludes that "we [are] approaching the day when Pal- estinians would make up a majority of the combined population of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and most of those Palestinians would be relegated to second class citizenship and unable to vote." This is an old canard, echoed by John Kerry. The demographics are almost certainly wrong (Israel's popu- lation growth has been steady, while the Palestinians' has been falling), but the politics are pernicious. Israel's Ar- ab citizens have full rights. They vote, own property, comment in the newspa- pers, and serve in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. Some even fight in the IDF. One of the heroes of the current conflict is Colonel Ghassan Alian, a Druze. Palestinians, who are not citizens of Israel, vote for their own leadership… at least once. If they don't vote more frequently, it's because they have a cor- rupt political culture. If they'd abandon their ambition to wipe Israel off the map, they'd have an independent state - - though whether it would be democratic is anoth- er matter. Israel is cur- rently the only country in which Arabs regular- ly cast free votes. What of Clinton's judgment? Charlie Rose interviewed her a week or so ago and demanded to know whether the administration "had done enough to prevent an invasion of Gaza." Clinton never challenged the premise. A friend of Israel (or any fair-minded person) might have said, "The better question is: Have we do- ne enough to defend the Middle East's lone island of democracy and plural- ism from the ceaseless terror attacks and rocketing by anti-Semitic, Islamist fanatics? " Clinton went on to offer her pre- ferred diplomatic course - - and guess what? - - it's indistinguishable from John Kerry's. Whom should the U.S. encourage to serve as interlocutors? Why, Qatar and Turkey, said Clin- ton. That would be the same Qatar that is the chief financial backer of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. And that would be the same Turkey that is a cheerleader and supporter of Hamas, whose prime minister recent- ly declared that Israel had "surpassed Hitler in barbarism"? Not only is Clinton's advice incon- sistent with friendship toward Isra- el, it's also inexplicable as a matter of American interests. As the alliances are shifting in the region, there is a rare agreement among Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emir- ates and the Palestinian Authority that Israel ought to be permitted to disarm and neutralize the threat from Hamas. Yet there was John Kerry, all smiles in Paris with the Turkish foreign min- ister. He later submitted a ceasefire proposal to both sides that even the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz said "could have written by [Hamas leader] Khaled Meshal." It would have recognized Hamas as the legitimate leadership in Gaza, promised billions more in funding and required no dis- mantling of rockets or the terror tun- nels Hamas has spent the previous in- ternational "humanitarian aid" dona- tions building. The Israeli cabinet, which had ac- cepted five ceasefires, including one proposed by Egypt, rejected this one. So the U.S. position is more damaging to Israel that that proposed by Egypt. What was Clinton's rationale for suggesting that we rely on Qatar and Turkey? "Hamas may feel like they're totally cornered," she explained. "They've got Egypt on one side and Israel (and I don't blame them at all)… on the other." Kerry seems to agree. His diplomacy (including perhaps the temporary closing of Ben Gurion Air- port) seems to have been aimed at making Hamas feel empowered. They make no distinction between the arsonist and the firefighter, and when it comes to voting, we should make no distinction between the Obamas and the Clintons. Mona Charen is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Institute. We Are There? An Epilogue Many television dra- mas of the past had an epi- logue, a few minutes at the end of a program to tie up the plot and to introduce the moral to the story. There is an epilogue to the madness and sin we witness daily throughout the world. The Book of Revelation dovetails with the Old and New Testa- ment prophecies that fore- tell of the end of time as humans know it, and it is not for the faint of heart. The end of time is not as the phrase suggests; it means the end of human government and the reign of sin. But before humani- ty can reach that point, sin must run its course. The Book of Daniel, chapter nine notes 7 at- tributes/purposes of the Messiah, which Chris- tians affirm is Jesus. Only two of the seven prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus during his min- istry: 1- made an end to sin and 2 - made recon- ciliation for iniquity. That leaves five to be fulfilled into the future. The effects of sin sur- round us and its effects at times numb the senses. I have pointed out in previ- ous columns that we, as a culture and nation, are witnessing the effects of throwing off the shackles of Christianity. The erosion of Chris- tian influence did not hap- pen overnight, but gradu- ally the Western World abandoned the morality and ethics that Christianity developed and that people ob- served. What is our fate? God has set a day and hour in which the bit- ter fruits of sin will be har- vested, and the madness will stop. This will become humanities worst night- mare. What began among the Judeans when they re- jected Christ in the first century will spill into the world, and sadly, Chris- tianized nations and peo- ple will forsake and deny him. The culmination of sin is a direct result of re- jection of Christ. Over 300 years ago, self-love and hedonism began its march into the Church through the En- lightenment. The move- ment claimed reason and logic could bring about the end to human suffer- ing and considered reli- gion a superstition. Many rejected the mir- acles and Christ's connec- tion to God. They still con- sidered him a great teach- er, but no more. Has not the Western World ar- rived collectively at the same conclusion? Judgment upon sin and humanity is going to come. The veil of dark- ness will be lifted, and the traitors, principalities, and spirits that worked against God to destroy mankind will be revealed. But the question re- mains: "Are we at that point, how close are we, and what do we do"? Jesus was asked this question by his disciples just before his ascension, "…They asked of Him, Lord, and will you at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? " Jesus responded, "… It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." They were not told when the Church age would end. But as inquis- itive humans, we want to know the end. Many pas- sages of scripture foretell of events that will proceed the "end times." The apos- tle John writes, "Little children, it is the last time:" That is all the informa- tion the church was given. Jesus told his disciples to go and be witness- es throughout the world and make disciples; busy yourselves with spreading the word that sin is forgiven and grace is available. And that is the epilogue. The modern liberal church has abandoned preaching forgiveness of sin and drifted into the establishing the King- dom of God here on earth, through government and coercion; whereas, the church taught as Jesus told Pilate at his trial: "His kingdom is not of this physical world." Still, the church needs to focus its efforts and en- ergies on the lost. Jonah, the reluctant prophet, did not want to take the news to Nineveh that God knew of their sins and was pre- paring to destroy their city. His unwillingness came because God of- fered the heathen city forgiveness as a means to avert judgment. We still need to preach the Kingdom begins with- in; one becomes a mem- ber by submitting to Christ. The Church needs to decide if it is going to fol- low the Great Commis- sion to take the saving power of Christ to the nations or build opulent Churches. A story will il- lustrate this point. A pastor friend in Hong Kong had a decision to make a few years ago. The church had the resourc- es to buy a small building [costing several million dollars] or minister to the lost, but the church could not do both. The church chose ministry. Heaven and earth will pass away, but a soul is forever. Think about it as you go about your Father's business.