In his "Breakpoint" program this morning, Chuck Colson provides an update on efforts by the Burmese government to wipe out Christianity throughout their nation. 

By way of historical background, Burma was the site of frequent, extensive missionary outreach in the 1800's and 1900's.  Great names in missionary history - people like William Carey, James O. Fraser, Adoniram Judson, and John and Isobel Kuhn - as well as perhaps hundreds of "unknown" servants of Christ, have worked primarily or exclusively in Burma.  As a result, certain Burmese tribes, including the Lisu, the Chin, the Kachin, and the Karen peoples, have been almost entirely won to Christ.

Unfortunately, the current leadership of Burma is adamantly opposed to Christianity, and for a number of years now has been viciously persecuting these tribes.  However, until recently, while privately condoning and encouraging the persecution, the Burmese government has publicly denied it.  But on January 21, the British Telegraph published an article providing information about a secret document "believed to have been leaked from a government ministry,” which spells out a specific, apparently officially-sanctioned effort to completely eradicate Christianity in Burma.

Colson elaborates,

The document, titled “Program to destroy the Christian religion in Burma,” begins with the line “there shall be no home where the Christian religion is practiced.”

        In furtherance of this goal, the document provides its 
        intended audience with “point by point instructions on 
        how to drive Christians out of the state.” These instructions 
        draw their demonic inspiration from the idea that “the 
        Christian religion is very gentle” and, thus, its would-be 
        eliminators should “identify and utilize its weakness.”

        While the ruling junta “has denied authorship of the document,” 
        it has “made no public attempt to refute or repudiate its contents.”

        Given its track record, the junta could hardly repudiate its 
        contents. Recently, reports have surfaced that, in one Chin 
        Christian area, “300 [Buddhist] monks” were sent “to forcibly 
        convert the populace.” In another area, another monk, working 
        on behalf of the regime, burned down a Christian church.

        This is all part of a pattern of persecution, which includes “ethnic 
        cleansing” of Christian minority groups, the destruction of villages, 
        forced conversions, and even rape and murder. It’s part of the 
        regime’s attempt “to create a uniform society in which the race 
        and language is Burmese and the only accepted religion is Buddhism.”

Colson recommends a number of steps American Christians can take to try to help the situation. 

        The first thing we need to do, of course, is to pray. And then we 
        need to educate ourselves about what is going on in Burma and 
        educate other Christians, including our pastors, who should speak 
        out from the pulpit, and, finally, our neighbors. Much of what is done 
        in places like Burma is made possible because the world’s 
        attention is diverted. Tyrants count on our being more interested in 
        American Idol than in genocide when they formulate things like the 
        Burmese “Program.”

        We must also hold our leaders and the leaders of other countries 
        accountable. While the United States has no influence over Rangoon, 
        China has plenty, and that influence, by all accounts, is not helpful. 
        We must make it clear that “doing business” with China doesn’t include 
        turning a blind eye to genocide. No amount of cheap goods at Wal-Mart 
        is worth that price.

If enough believers step up and protest the Burmese government's action, it may yet be possible to help these tribal peoples who also love the Lord.  Our prayers and our letters do make a difference, if only to provide spiritual support to persecuted believers.  Let's not allow the Burmese ruling junta to wipe out the work of two centuries of missionaries.

If you are like me, maybe you have been sitting on the sidelines feeling frustrated by the way the Republicans, especially in the Senate, are kowtowing to the new Democratic majority.  As if their betrayal in so many conservative causes last year were not enough, now there are a number of Senate Republicans who are actually toying with the idea of introducing a non-binding resolution criticizing the President's policies in Iraq and urging a quick withdrawal - essentially issuing a public request that the President surrender to the terrorists in Iraq.

I am amazed that any American would consider such an idea.  It seems rather obvious to me that America has every ability to win in Iraq - we in fact could easily wipe them off the map if we chose to do it.  For Americans to advocate surrender does not indicate strength; rather, in the eyes of our enemies, it communicates that we are weak, that we are losers, that we do not have the moral power to win.

General Petraeus' position on this is clear after his hearings in the Senate earlier this week:  Any resolution indicating disagreement with the President's policies in Iraq will provide encouragement to our enemies.  This must not be allowed to happen! 

If you are also frustrated, there is something you can do!  Take the NRSC Pledge, along with 26,200 people and climbing.  Advise the National Republican Senatorial Committee - one of the primary sources of funding for Republican candidates for Senate - that you draw the line when it comes to financially supporting Senators who vote for these resolutions that weaken us and aid and abet our enemies in a time of war.  The NRSC Pledge says this:

        If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or 
        otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to 
        Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president 
        has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General 
        Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encourage-
        ment to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who 
        voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes 
        for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not 
        contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless 
        the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing 
        that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election 
        of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Go to the website for the NRSC Pledge (http://www.thenrscpledge.com/index.php) and fill out the form, being sure to respond to the confirmation email they send you.  Then contact your Senators and the Senate Republican leadership, along with those Senators who are still waffling on this issue.  Finally, tell other people about the pledge and encourage them to fill out the pledge too.  It may seem like a small step, but the threat of losing financing is a serious one for most Senators, especially Republican ones, who get most of their money from small donors. 

Don't let the Senate get away with encouraging our enemies and projecting a weak image of America.  Fight back - and get as many people as you can to do the same!

Hugh Hewitt has posted his most recent Townhall.com article, "So Let Us Find Our Resolve, and Turn Events Toward Victory."  The title is taken from the President's State of the Union speech last night, and Hugh's column provides a brief review and an interesting parallel of this speech with speeches by a couple of other important presidential speeches.  Hugh's article is not very long, but it is encouraging and well worth reading.

Hugh points out the remoteness of the possibility that the Democratic Congress was actually able to hear the President's speech, or that they will take action, "as the Democrats have evidenced no interest in ending their effort to reverse the judgment on Bush which history will inevitably bestow. "  But he also points out President Bush's determination "to deliver the country to his successor much safer than the one that was delivered to him, a safety which flows from clear-eyed realism about threats and the courage to act upon them."

Let us keep praying that this President will in fact be able to accomplish what he has so firmly resolved - that in fact the Democrats will either be won over or be immobilized, so that in fact the country is much safer than it was when he took office.

In this morning's Washington Times, Donald Lambro has written a disturbing article summarizing several studies' findings regarding ultimate results of minimum-wage increases.  The one thing agreed on by most people who want a minimum-wage increase is that they want to help poor people.  Well, perhaps they should think again - studies on these increases indicate that in fact, the very people who should be helped end up being hurt.  Fr every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, unemployment among minorities increases 3.9 percent, and among low-skilled employees, it increases 8 percent.  And workers who earn near the minimum wage initially get wage increases, but their hours and employment decline, meaning they end up no better off, and sometimes considerably worse off, than they were before.

Mr. Lambro also cites studies supporting the fact that most minimum-wage earners are not from poor households, but rather are between the ages of 16 and 24, and work part-time. 

Paul at Powerline comments on this article, pointing out that the Democrats intend to raise the minimum wage by about 40 percent.  He also brings out another issue that has not been mentioned before:

        In the aftermath of welfare reform, I also wonder about the impact on welfare mothers. 
        As I understand it, eligibility for welfare is now connected to holding down a job. Presum-
        ably, many of the jobs welfare recipients are holding down pay at or near the current 
        minimum wage. A eduction in the number of these jobs could cause many welfare 
        mothers to lose not only their job but their welfare check. And even if the employer doesn't 
        slash minimum wage jobs, it will want more skill in exchange. To the extent that a 
        minimum wage hike encourages individuals with some skills (such as college students 
        looking to work part-time) to take jobs they previously thought paid too little, welfare 
        recipients would likely be pushed out of these positions. That's probably not the kind 
        of income redistribution the Democrats are hoping for.

Minimum-wage increases generally end up hurting the very people they are intended to help.  This is Economics 101, and it would seem our Senators and Representatives need a refresher course.

Matt Lewis has a very interesting post this evening entitled "Why John McCain's More Conservative Than You Think."  I don't generally agree as much with Lewis as I do with others on the Townhall blog, but I have to admit he has some valid points about how conservative John McCain is.

He basically believes that on the majority of issues conservatives care about, McCain is as conservative as they come.  Specifically, he mentions pro-life issues, where McCain draws a 0% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood; budget issues, where he draws a 91% grade from Citizens Against Government Waste; and the war on terror, where he has consistently supported the President and has a proven military record himself.

Matt suggests that the reason conservatives don't support McCain is that they dislike the man himself.  On this point I strongly disagree.  The reason I don't support McCain is that in far too many critical instances, he has sided against conservatives and in favor of liberals.  I simply don't trust him; too often when I have depended on him to join with fellow conservatives in the Senate - on campaign finances, but also on getting judges approved (the "nuclear option") and on Guantanamo - he has betrayed the conservative cause and allowed liberals to score in a big way.  I personally don't believe Senator McCain has intentionally created any of these problems; in fact, I believe he was duped by liberals who saw a chance to take advantage of areas in which he was weak.  I just don't think someone that easily duped is the best person to lead conservatives into the future. 

However, while I personally favor Mitt Romney, if Senator McCain is nominated by the Republican Party as our presidential candidate, I will absolutely vote in his favor.  In fact, I would vote for McCain over Giulani, whose social views radically disagree with mine; Brownback, whom I don't believe is well enough known to win; or Huckabee, who as Matt points out, is a tax-hiker.

I think Matt's post is well worth reading and considering for those of us who will be voting in the 2008 Republican primary election.  As frustrated as we may be with McCain, as betrayed as we may feel by him, it may still be in our best interest to support him; he is far more conservative than any Democrat he might face.

In a very interesting post today, Mary Katherine Ham discusses a recent episode of the TV show "7th Heaven."  I must admit I have watched "7th Heaven" only a couple of times, though I know my parents watch it often.  But this episode provided several interesting clips.  My favorite of Mary Katherine's transcriptions is this one, describing a conversation between two teenage characters, T-Bone and Ruthie, who are writing a paper on the genocide in Darfur:

T-Bone: "So, even though you have your own computer and access to the Internet, you get your research from Crazy Jane?"

Ruthie: "I got some research from her company, yes."

T-Bone: "Were you planning to share that with me?"

Ruthie: "Well, I was going to hold onto it to use as a rebuttal to whatever you were writing.”

T-Bone: "I don’t know what I’m writing. I haven’t gotten enough information yet."

Ruthie: "So, by the time you get enough information, there may be no one left in Darfur."

T-Bone: "You’re blaming Darfur on me? I actually suspect that you blame Darfur on our president. Although, you may be surprised to learn that the United States of America has contributed almost $ 2 billion in assistance to improve the situation in refugee camps."

Ruthie: "So?"

T-Bone: "So, the United States is the single largest international donor to the Sudan. And, we provide 50 percent of the food from the UN world food program to Darfur and 70 percent of the contributions to Sudan, overall. And, we’re contributing $16 million to humanitarian campaigns to prevent rape, treat vicims, and build crisis centers."

Ruthie: "And?"

T-Bone: "And, going back to the years 2003-2005. In those two years alone, the U.S. contributed $2 billion to refugee camps."

Ruthie: "Hmm. Let’s see. I’m not great with numbers, but I know that whatever we’re doing, it’s not enough."

T-Bone: "Why is it always, ‘What’s the US doing?’ Why isn’t it, ‘What’s the world doing?’"

Ruthie: "You mean, why not just pass the buck? Because people are starving, women are being raped, children are being enslaved and orphaned. Men and women are having their ears and lilps and limbs cut off. Someone has to do something. We’re supposed to be a superpower, so why don’t we use our super powers for good instead of evil."

T-Bone: "We’re doing everything we can possibly do.The very people who criticize us for policing the world are the same people who criticize us for not doing more in Darfur."

Ruthie: "So?"

T-Bone: "So, why can’t the UN send in more peacekeeping troops? Why can’t the UN even establish a no fly-over zone? Why are we supposed to do it? Why are we even supposed to pressure the UN to do it? Why don’t they just do it?"

In my opinion, it's about time someone in the national media started talking like this!  There are far too many, both in America and elsewhere in the world, who blame us for all the world's problems, ignoring the fact that often we do more to solve those problems than anyone else.  Kudos to the producers and writers of "7th Heaven" for having the guts to say what many Americans believe.

In spite of the fact that John McCain is running for President in 2008 - and presumably hoping to win the Republican nomination in order to accomplish that - he seems to have a death wish when it comes to talking in a civil way with conservative Republicans.

Hugh Hewitt had a post this morning discussing several comment McCain recently made to the press - comments that could be considered thumbing his nose at conservatives.  Most significant among these comments:

"I think the fence is the least effective.  But I'll build the g--- fence if they want it."

"I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that.  I don't have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman."
 
Be sure you read Hugh's post - it's not overly long, and it's very revealing as to the character of John McCain as well as the way the old media is going to portray him if he should win the nomination.

Yesterday I posted on the difference between America's approach to wartime in World War II and in our current war on terror.  A reader commented that perhaps part of the reason there was such a significant difference had to do with the state of readiness of our military. 

During the Depression, American money necessarily was diverted from the military and directed almost entirely toward domestic issues.  So when the war came, the military had tremendous needs.  Taxes increased dramatically during the war years, but even then there were very significant needs, including warm clothing, blankets, and bandages for our soldiers.  And because of the draft, there were far more soldiers to provide for during World War II. 

Today, on the other hand, our government collects literally billions of dollars for our military, which is all volunteer, and thus rather limited in size.  Equipment and supplies are clearly not in short supply, and essentially all the needs of the military are provided for, as long as we pay our taxes.

This got me thinking about - and researching - the subject of taxes.  In 1944, according to the Tax Freedom Foundation, Tax Freedom Day was March 30.  Total per capita income was $1,195 (!), and the total effective tax rate was 24.3%, meaning the average American paid $290 in taxes.  In 2006, Tax Freedom Day was April 26 (a significant improvement from 2000, when it was May 3, thanks to President Bush's tax cuts).  Total per capita income was $38,376, and the total effective tax rate was 31.6%, meaning the average American paid $12,127 in taxes. 

What is most intriguing to me is this statistic:  In 1944, military spending amounted to 37.8% of the Gross Domestic Product.  Today, it is around 4%.  Clearly the majority of the money Americans paid in taxes during World War II was going directly to the war (the tax rate increased from 16.7% in 1939 to 24.3% in 1944).  Today, most of our tax revenue is going elsewhere. 

Amazingly, America today is able to be "at war" while pouring the vast majority of our money toward peacetime activities.  As long as our leadership appears to believe the war is only one minor priority out of dozens or even hundreds, it will be hard for Americans to realize the severity of the threat.  If our leaders took this war more seriously, redirecting tax dollars from other projects and communicating clearly to the American people the real danger we face, as well as finding ways to get us involved, they would get far more support, and perhaps victory would become not only our hope, but our reality. 

All too often, we don't hear the whole story about what's happening in Iraq.  We are reminded over and over of the number of American soldiers killed or wounded there, often highlighted with front-page articles and pictures like the one our paper carried yesterday:  "3,000:  Grim Milestone for U.S. Troops in Iraq."  It is difficult, of course, for newspapers to tell the full story of each of these heroes, but the more they can tell, the better off America will be.

This morning, Mary Katherine Ham had an excellent post on the heroic death of PFC Ross McGinnis, killed on December 4 by a hand grenade tossed into the Humvee where he was traveling with several fellow soldiers.  The grenade landed near him, and rather than jump out of the truck, he fell on the grenade.  The grenade exploded, killing him, but his body shielded his companions and all of them were saved.

The Washington Post today published a statement from Ross McGinnis' parents.  It is moving, and revealing.  These were ordinary people who loved their son dearly.  They are grieving, but they recognize the reason why he died, and in my opinion, they too are heroes.  Here's the best part of their statement:

        The choice for Ross was simple, but simple does not mean easy. 
        His straightforward answer to a simple but difficult choice should 
        stand as a shining example for the rest of us. We all face simple 
        choices, but how often do we choose to make a sacrifice to get 
        the right answer? The right choice sometimes requires honor.

        Our Bible tells us that God gave up his only son to die for us 
        so that we may live. But Romayne and I are not gods. We can't 
        see the future, and we didn't give our son to die, knowing that he 
        will live again. We gave him to fight and win and come home to 
        us and marry and grow old and have children and grandchildren. 
        But die he did, and his mother, dad and sisters must face that fact 
        and go on without him, believing that someday we will meet again. 
        Heaven is beyond our imagination and so we must wait to see what 
        it's like.

        God bless everybody that has comforted us in our time of grief. But 
        we must not forget the men and women who are still putting their lives 
        on the line; we must keep them in our prayers and keep reminding 
        them with gifts and letters that they are loved and that we want them 
        to return safely to their families.

Our men and women in uniform deserve our encouragement and support, as do their families.  These are the kinds of heroes our children need - people who do what is right, because it's the right thing to do, and who do it so whole-heartedly that when the moment of crisis comes, their instant decision is to do the right thing.

For Christmas, my 10-year-old daughter got the American Girl movie, Molly:  An American Girl On the Home Front.  Over the past week, while we were kept inside by our second major snowstorm in ten days, she's watched it several times (meaning I've watched most of it several times too!).  It's a fun movie, full of the kid-level human drama and enjoyment you'd expect from an American Girl movie.  But one thing about it got me thinking on a deeper level. 

If you have a school-age daughter - or have had one in the last 20 years or so - you probably know that the Molly story is set in the early 1940's, right in the middle of World War II.  The difference between that war and the "War on Terror" we are currently engaged in is dramatic.  Democratic leaders like to bring up the issue of the draft, spurring us to indignation by proposing that an all-volunteer military is somehow unfair.  But the draft amounts to only a minor difference between the wars, and is probably the single most controversial difference that exists.  The biggest difference I see between World War II and the War on Terror is the attitude our government takes toward the war.

During World War II, one of the most common phrases heard was, "We are at war - everybody has to make sacrifices."  And in fact, everyone did.  Ordinary people encountered the war on a daily basis.  Air-raid and blackout drills were held regularly.  People were encouraged to grow their own food in "Victory Gardens" so that food could be shipped to the soldiers.  When you went to the theater to watch a movie, rather than watching 15 minutes of trailers at the beginning, you watched government-issued features about the war.  War bonds were sold, bandages rolled, blankets and old clothes collected "for the soldiers."  Everyone was expected to collect scrap metal for the making of weapons, and housewives were encouraged to turn in their used cooking fat for glycerin to make gunpowder.  Men volunteered for the military in record numbers, and their wives went to work.  Every day, throughout the day, ordinary citizens were faced with information about the war and ways they could be involved - most of this produced and distributed not by the media, but by the government.

Fast-forward to what Americans today are asked to do.  Do you even remember the last time the government asked us to participate in the war in any way?  I do.  The last time the President addressed us with any kind of request was shortly after 9/11.  And the request?  Essentially it amounted to:  Don't stop buying.  Go about your daily business and pretend the war isn't happening.

Do you sense a disconnect here?  Though we conservatives have a tendency to vilify the national news media, blaming them for the fact that Americans don't realize the seriousness of the war, we have got to face facts:  As long as our national government does not treat this like a "real war," neither will the majority of our citizens.  We MUST be faced regularly with the truth about what's happening, as our leaders see it developing - both victories and defeats must be in front of us regularly.  And we MUST be asked to participate, to get involved in the war effort.  Surely there is something constructive we can do beyond continue our self-centered materialism.  Our leaders must take the initiative, producing material telling the truth about what's happening (such as Presidential press conferences or short special features), and showing us ways we can get involved.  President Franklin Roosevelt, while he made many mistakes, did one thing right:  he understood that people will support much longer a cause in which they have a real investment. 

If we want the American people to realize the stakes of this war, and to deeply desire our victory, we have got to ask them to invest in it - emotionally and materially.  Asking people to simply pay their taxes and live their lives is not going to convince them we are at war; getting them actively involved will not only convince them, but will make them much more likely to support our ultimate victory.