Charles Krauthammer has a great article on the danger of the new socialism = environmentalism. He says:

The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

With the Senate blocking President Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d’etat served as the administration’s loud response to Webb: The hell we can’t. With this EPA “endangerment” finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society — as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based — you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend clean-air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn’t lurking in CIA cloak. He’s knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.

You can read the entire article here.

(HT: Gene Veith)

Savior of the Nations, Come” was written by Am­brose of Mi­lan around AD 397, and it was trans­lat­ed from La­tin to Ger­man by Mar­tin Lu­ther.

Savior of the nations, come;
Virgin’s Son, here make Thy home!
Marvel now, O heaven and earth,
That the Lord chose such a birth.

Not by human flesh and blood;
By the Spirit of our God
Was the Word of God made flesh,
Woman’s offspring, pure and fresh.

Wondrous birth! O wondrous Child
Of the virgin undefiled!
Though by all the world disowned,
Still to be in heaven enthroned.

From the Father forth He came
And returneth to the same,
Captive leading death and hell
High the song of triumph swell!

Thou, the Father’s only Son,
Hast over sin the victory won.
Boundless shall Thy kingdom be;
When shall we its glories see?

Praise to God the Father sing,
Praise to God the Son, our King,
Praise to God the Spirit be
Ever and eternally.

(HT: James Grant)

George Grant has a good, concise article on how we ended up with celebrating Christmas on December 25th. Read it here.

From James Grant:

Steven Beebe, Regents’ Professor and Chair of the Texas State Department of Communication Studies, recently discovered portions of  an unpublished manuscript from C. S. Lewis in the Oxford University Bodleian Library. Beebe has documented that this was possibly the beginning of a possible book project by Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien on language. This is from the Texas State University News Release:

“What is exciting” said Beebe, “is that the manuscript includes some of Lewis’s best and most precise statements about the nature of language and meaning. Both Lewis and Tolkien wrote separately about language, communication, and meaning, but they published nothing collaboratively.”

The article Beebe wrote documenting his discovery, “Language and Human Nature Manuscript Fragment Found: C. S. Lewis On Language and Meaning,” will be published next year in the Journal Seven: An Anglo-American Literary Review. The journal Seven publishes scholarship that focuses on the work of seven prominent 20th Century British authors including both Lewis and Tolkien.

Previous posts on this issue can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

PRINCIPLES OF EDUCATION
1. Who has the responsibility for education? The responsibility for educating children lies with the parents. Children are seen as belonging to God and not Caesar (the state/government). In the Bible the state is primarily a ministry of justice (Romans 13:1-4) and not a provider of education. God has entrusted the children’s care to the parents. At Genesis 33:5, Jacob referred to his children as, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.” Psalm 127:3 says, “Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb is His reward.” Even though parents are given children, the children still belong to God. We are stewards who are entrusted with a stewardship. We possess, but God owns.

With this entrusting of children to parents, comes great responsibility. The parents are seen by the Bible as being responsible for the education of their children. Note Deuteronomy 6:6-9: “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”

Ephesians 6:4 exhorts the fathers to “not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.”

Does this mean that it is never right for a parent to rely on someone else to educate their child, even in one small area of their life? Certainly not. But the principle is that it is the parent’s responsibility to see to their child’s education. If the parent chooses to delegate the duty of education or the authority to educate to someone else they may do so. However, the ultimate responsibility does not transfer. A CEO of a company is ultimately responsible for what takes place in the company but he cannot do everything which needs to be done. He may delegate, even delegating some responsibility. However, he is ultimately responsible for what takes place in the company. If a person wishes to delegate the education of their child to someone else they may do so. However, they still bear ultimate responsibility before God. It is also interesting that the primary responsibility for the development of a child falls upon the father as the head of the household.

There is no evidence of an institution of schooling among the Israelites. There are exceptions, such as tutors for the children of kings (2 Kings 10:1,5), the schools of the prophets, and Samuel. In New Testament times there were rabbinical schools and training. However, exceptions do not make the rule. The normal process of education was done by the family. Some students of the Bible point out that Moses was educated in Egypt and therefore got the best of both worlds. However, God used Moses despite his upbringing in Egypt and the Bible doesn’t commend the Egyptian education of Moses, but instead, he is commended for his devotion to God (Hebrews 11:24-27).

What all of this means is that parents are not free to raise their children any way they want. God’s conditions must be met.

The home is the basic center of a biblical education for children. The basic center for educating children is not found in the school, government, or even the church. It is found in the home. Note the language of Deuteronomy 11:18-21: “Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied in the land…”

There may be times and areas outside of the home where education takes place without violating this principle. Not all “secular” education is evil. For instance, a person learning how to work on an automobile at a “secular” institution is not necessarily learning something evil. But to be a truly Christian education he should be learning this in order to do this for the glory of God.

To be continued…

chart

“I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish humble tasks as though they were great and noble. The world is moved along not by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker.” –Helen Keller

HT: George Grant

“We’re not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.” –C.S. Lewis

HT: George Grant

Next Page »