The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/378625
D-4 Wednesday, September 10, 2014 The Press-Dispatch Points to ponder—by Rev. Ford Bond Observations by Thomas Sowell Think Big by Ben Carson Irresponsible choices Resisting the demand for submission Continued on page 5 Where is the nation building at home? A woman's perspective—by Mona Charen The encouraging rise in school choice Continued on page 5 The latest Gallup poll indicates that 14 percent of the people "moderate- ly disapprove" of Barack Obama's per- formance as president and 39 percent "strongly disapprove." Since Obama won two presidential elec- tions, chances are that some of those who now "strongly disapprove" of what he has done voted to put him in office. We all make mistakes, but the real question is whether we learn from them. With many people now acting as if it is time for "a woman" to become president, ap- parently they have learned absolutely noth- ing from the disastrous results of the ir- responsible self-indulgence of choosing a President of the United States on the basis of demographic characteristics, instead of individual qualifications. It would not matter to me if the next five pres- idents in a row were all women, if these hap- pened to be the best in- dividuals available at the time. But to say that we should now elect "a woman" president in 2016 is to say that we are willfully blind to the dangers of put- ting life and death decisions in the hands of someone chosen for symbolic reasons. If we were to choose just "a woman" as our next president, would that mean that any criticism of that president would be consid- ered to be a sign of being against women? No public official should be considered to be above criticism—and the higher up that official is, the more important it is to hold his The Islamic State and the other advo- cates of Sha- riah law are growing rap- idly, along with their zeal to eradicate or convert all "infidels." For those who are asleep at the wheel, in the opinion of these fanatics, most of Western civ- ilization—including America—fits in- to the infidel category. I normally encourage conversation and compromise where possible, but how does one negotiate or compro- mise with someone who desires your elimination? Maybe if you meet some of their demands, they will only dis- member you or kill you more slowly. Obviously, the expansion of groups like the Islamic State represents an existential threat to our own nation and our way of life. If ever there was a time to work together for self-preser- vation, it is now. There really is no time to squabble about who was right and who was wrong regarding our activi- ties in the Middle East. Our enemies will use every opportunity to divide us and distract us, which will make their job of destroying us much easier. In order to prevail in the war on terror, we must have an overall strat- egy, the goal of which is annihilation of the terrorists, as opposed to sim- ply winning battles with them here and there. This means paying much more attention to military prepared- ness, both offensive and defensive. That means significantly increasing our covert operations, without blab- bing to the world about what we will or will not do. It means cultivating strong and trusting relationships with our al- lies and never leaving them to worry about abandonment for political rea- sons. It means helping other countries in the region to realize that they, too, will soon be targets of the Islamic State, which will radically alter their comfortable lives. When it comes to the elimination of those trying to destroy us, we have to be smart enough to realize that we must have airtight borders to prevent easy access for terrorists. Some say this is too difficult. I guarantee that it is easier than trying to rebuild a nation that has been destroyed because we thought logical defense was too hard. There is no question that unpleasant- ries brought about by our own forces will be necessary to accomplish our goals and defeat terrorism, but you cannot win a politically correct war. Our enemies' desire to establish a caliphate is no joke. Their convert-or- die doctrine parallels some of the so- cial philosophies enforced by the po- litical-correctness police in this coun- try. Either you accept their interpre- tation of what is moral and correct, or the name calling starts, and they attempt to destroy your business or reputation. We despise the Islamic State, but do not see the same ugliness in our own tactics. The truth hurts, and it is much easier to ignore it or try to demonize its bearer. Unless integrity, courage and common sense result in the abili- ty to honestly examine our own hypoc- risy, we will lose the war of ideas and identity, and the land of the free will become a distant memory. I've been privileged to get to know some incredibly smart and talented military leaders, as well as covert op- erators and innovative engineers. I am confident that with our talent and faith, not only can we win this war, but we can show the world a better way. Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Uni- versity and author of the new book "One Nation: What We Can All Do To Save America's Future" (Sentinel). By Ed Feulner America is built on the philosophy of bootstrap- ping, or pulling yourself up through your own talents and abilities. No tool is bet- ter suited for doing that than a good education. For years, however, a good primary and secondary edu- cation has been increasingly difficult to find. But I'm hap- py to report, at the start of another school year, that an encouraging trend is under- way: School choice is help- ing more and more children get the best education possi- ble—and putting the teach- ers' unions on notice that the failed status quo is no longer acceptable. Take the dramatic rise in students participat- ing in school-choice pro- grams. The number tak- ing advantage of options such as vouchers, tuition tax credit programs and ed- ucation savings accounts has gone from fewer than 50,000 in 2000 to more than 300,000 today. As education expert Vir- ginia Walden Ford notes in the "2014 Index of Culture and Opportunity," when we consider all school choice options—deductions for home—schooling expens- es, for example more than 1 million children are bene- fiting from choice in educa- tion. That's quite a jump to occur in just over a decade. Charter school enroll- ment is climbing as well. In 1999, fewer than 500,000 stu- dents were in such schools, but now the number is clos- er to 2 million. From 2001 to 2011, charter-school en- rollment increased by about 1.22 million students. This shouldn't surprise us one bit. It's only natural that parents would take ad- vantage of the rise in school choice options to ensure that their kids were in the best schools possible. The idea that you have no choice but to attend the school closest to where you live, or the school that the "authorities" assign to you, is absurd. It's bla- tantly anti-American, quite frankly. When someone re- ceives a Pell Grant to help finance higher education, the government doesn't as- sign him to a college. Why should it be any differ- ent for the education that precedes college? Of course not. Yet some- thing far more important to us—not only as parents who care about our children but as citizens who care about our country—is treated as a non-negotiable, take-it-or- leave-it commodity. That's why the rise in school choice is such a promising trend. It means that the stranglehold that teachers' unions still exert on American education is weakening. It means that parents who want the best education possible for their children can pick the best one available, not settle for whatever they're given, no matter how poor it is. It's hard to imagine a more hopeful trend for our nation. As Ms. Ford notes, this means children who at one time would have had a very slim chance at succeed- ing are doing just that. She cites the example of Jordan White, who, after enrolling in a Washington, D.C., pri- vate school, went on to grad- uate from Oberlin College. "Jordan is now work- ing in Japan as a translator for a large Japanese com- pany," she writes. "With- out the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship she received to attend the school of her choice, Jordan believes that The clearest expression of a foreign policy doctrine President Obama has articulated came in 2012 when he announced that the "tide of war in Afghanistan" had "turned" and that this was lucky because it was "now time to focus on na- tion building here at home." Al-Qaida, defined so nar- rowly as to exclude every- one save Osama bin Laden and his closest friends, was declared "defeated," and a satisfied commander in chief confidently turned to domestic matters. Obama's assumption that a vigorous foreign policy and a suc- cessful domestic agenda are in conflict is wrong. The U.S. experienced high rates of economic growth and devel- opment (with occasional recessions) throughout the post-World War II pe- riod while also maintaining the world's largest military. In the 19th century, Great Britain's citizens enjoyed among the best living standards in the world even as the nation maintained an em- pire and ensured freedom of navigation for all. Though many Americans now recoil from the role for themselves, the British served for most of the 19th cen- tury as the "world's policeman." In his West Point speech, Obama mocked his predecessor for believing that "every problem" has a military so- lution. What he fails to see, even now, is that while there are risks in action, there are also risks in inaction. The choice to refrain from intervening in Syria was not safe or "smart." It wasn't like voting present in the Illinois sen- ate. By declining to support the less radical factions opposing Bashar al- Assad, he permitted the most savage actors to dominate, and now they've spilled over Syria's borders into Iraq and created a threat that even Secretary of De- fense Chuck Hagel says is "beyond anything we've ever seen." The unifying theme in global events over the past several years is not, as Obama claims, "that the world has al- ways been messy," but that aggressors smell weakness. "Weakness," President Reagan used to say, "is pro- vocative." China is asserting territo- rial claims in the South China Sea and elsewhere and bullying Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and the U.S. Russia, having swallowed Crimea in one bite, is now chewing on the eastern half of Ukraine, providing sanctuary to Edward Snowden and protecting Assad. Iran is asserting its "inalienable right" to enrich uranium and jeering that "America cannot do a damned thing." And ISIS is raping, thieving, crucifying and beheading its way to regional dominance, while promising to make America suffer on the home front. So where is the nation building at home that this global retreat was de- signed to enable? Though we are technically in a re- covery, our anemic growth rate of 1.9 percent has left half of America be- lieving that we are still in a recession. Unemployment remains at 6.2 per- cent and would be more than 10 per- cent if the labor participation rate had returned to 2009 levels. For blacks, the unemployment rate is 17 percent. Wage growth has been very slug- gish, and new business start-ups— the source of about 70 percent of new jobs—have been weak. The number of Americans receiving food assistance has spiked since 2008, from 28.2 mil- lion to 47.6 million. The president has called income inequality the "defining challenge of our time." Yet on his watch, the gap between rich and poor has increased. For the first time since the 1960s, the poverty rate has stayed above 15 per- cent for three straight years, while me- dian household income has declined. Government debt continues at re- cord levels, and student loans have outpaced all other consumer debt ex- cept mortgages. The world's highest corporate taxes encourage American companies to locate abroad. Seventy- six percent of American adults do not believe that their children will have as good of a life as they do, and 60 per- cent believe the country is in decline. One of the aphorisms attributed to Lenin to excuse the massive crimes he committed on the way to building a socialist paradise was: "In order to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs." Human rights activist Vladimir Bukovsky noted with bitter- ness that while he had seen many bro- ken eggs, "I have not met anyone who tasted the omelet." Obama has turned his back on an explosive world to focus on nation building here at home. Where's the omelet? Mona Charen is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Kingdom Of God Is Life Death, conflict, and suf- fering has become a reg- ular headline among the daily news stories. A grow- ing chorus from the world community is clamoring for the destruction of the new terrorist group ISIS, which many who consider themselves religious. What gives me pause is from within the Christian community a loud chorus is demanding death to the terrorist, without regard to what Jesus spoke in the Ser- mon on the Mount about kill- ing, revenge, mercy, and for- giveness. I realize we live in an evil and sinful world, but hear me out. The Sermon on the Mount is considered one of the greatest orations of all time. Across three chapters in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus raises the bar on acceptable human behavior while offer- ing a glimpse into the spiri- tual realm of the perfect. The Sermon on the Mount is the linchpin of the Kingdom of God. It is here that Jesus takes the listener beyond the let- ter of the law. Jesus does not invent new command- ments; He directs the lis- tener's attention to the fact that their religious leaders have negated the spiritual aspects of the Law while offering ways to skirt its transcendent application. As one reads the opening verses of the sermon he/she will discover that Jesus takes what is weak and shunned, and makes it desirable. He demands those who would fol- low Him be- come perfect, as His Father in Heaven is perfect. The Sermon on the Mount as presented is a one-way dialogue with no commen- tary on how those who heard Jesus speak respond- ed. I caught a glimpse of how some of those pres- ent who heard him speak may have reacted in an ar- ticle I ran across while preparing a sermon on this topic. Written many years ago by Virginia Stem Owens, a freshman literature teacher at Texas A&M, she offered her analysis. Owens assigned the class to read the Sermon on the Mount, which was in their literature book, and re- spond to it. She expected most students would have some sense of familiarity with the passage and of- fer "some deference to pi- ety" in their written reflec- tion, since many of her stu- dents came from conserva- tive families. Was she in for a shock. Some of her most mem- orable student responses were: "In my opinion reli- gion is one big hoax." "There is an old saying that 'you shouldn't believe everything you read' and it applies in this case." "It is hard to believe something that was writ- ten down thousands of years ago. "In the Bible Adam and Eve were the first two peo- ple. If they were then where did black people come from? Also, the Bible says nothing about dinosaurs and I think God would have mentioned them." "The things asked in this sermon are absurd. To look at a woman is adultery? That is the most extreme, stupid, un-human statement that I have ever heard." "In this essay the author ex- plains the doc- trines of an era in the past which cannot be brought into the future in the same context. This essay now cannot be taken the same way it was written. It can be used as a guideline for good manners." "No one knows exactly what to believe. If pondered enough, one can find rea- sons to prove almost all as- pects of religion are false." "This is a direct quote from the Bible. Why is it in the Literature Book? It sim- ply states what I've studied in Sunday School & Con- firmation over the past 18 years. I see no point in this. College is a time to reassess your life." As is evident many stu- dents were offended and offered weak excuses why this story is irrelevant to their life! The question is why? The sermon challenges their life and lifestyle! Two students from the class were stung by their con- science and it is evident in their responses: "The stuff the churches preach is ex- tremely strict and allows for almost no fun without thinking it is a sin or not." "I did not like the essay 'Sermon on the Mount.' It was hard to read and made me feel like I had to be per- fect and no one is." The words of Jesus still re- mains fresh, relevant, and a challenge to a materialistic, hedonistic and violent cul- ture. Over 250 years ago John Wesley preached in the slums of England and the pulpits of the wealthy. He found that The Kingdom of God resonated with the hud- dled masses, the discarded, the wretched, the poor, and even the well to do. In the midst of the cha- os around us, maybe all of us would be better served if we took a fresh look at the Sermon on the Mount, and lived as if we really believed it! Think about it!