Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts

Monday, October 23, 2017

Myeshia Johnson: Trump 'Made Me Cry Even Worse'

The widow of US Army Sgt. La David Johnson has finally broken her silence about the phone call she received from President Donald Trump. Reports that the president was disrespectful in the phone call set off a controversy about the treatment of Gold Star families last week.

Myeshia Johnson appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Monday morning to give her side of the story. The appearance is the first time that Mrs. Johnson has publicly spoken about the controversy although Sgt. Johnson’s mother had previously corroborated claims by Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fl.) that Trump’s comments during the call had upset the family.

Mrs. Johnson spoke with ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos in a recorded interview. Johnson said that the president called as they were arriving at Dover AFB to meet Sgt. Johnson’s body. She asked that the phone speaker be turned on so that other relatives could hear.

From the ABC News transcript, Mrs. Johnson tells what happened next:
“The President, said that he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway. And it made me cry ‘cause I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said he couldn’t remember my husband’s name. The only way he remembered my husband's name is because he told me he had my husband’s report in front of him and that’s when he actually said ‘La David.’ I heard him stumblin' on trying to remember my husband’s name and that’s what hurt me the most, because if my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risked his life for our country why can’t you remember his name. And that’s what made me upset and cry even more because my husband was an awesome soldier.”

Johnson said that after the call she was “very, very upset and hurt” and that “it made me cry even worse.” She added that Rep. Wilson was a longtime family friend and that her claims about the content of the phone call were “100 percent correct.”

Mrs. Johnson also said that she has questions about the circumstances of her husband’s death in Niger. “I want to know why it took them 48-hours to find my husband,” she said, adding that she was never allowed to view her husband’s body.

“They just told me that, um, it was a massive gunfire and my husband as of October 4th was missing, they didn't his whereabouts,” Johnson said. “They didn't know where he was or where to find him and a couple days later is when they told me that he went from missing to killed in action. I don’t know how he got killed, where he got killed or anything.”

Myeshia Johnson said that she intends to keep pushing for answers about her husband’s death and that she “want[s] the world to know how great of a soldier my husband was and [what] a loving and caring father and husband he was to our family.”


“He died as a hero,” she said.


Originally Published On The Resurgent

Saturday, December 24, 2016

'Happy Holidays' flap is a snowflake issue

Pixabay.com
I’m a fan of Christmas. I am a Christian and I celebrate the holiday as a commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ, who I believe is the Son of God. Even though I joyfully celebrate Christmas, I recognize that not everyone does. For that reason, I’m not concerned in the least about the “Happy Holidays” controversy that erupts every year.

Every year there is a wave of indignant posts on social media where people denounce the phrase “Happy Holidays” as an assault on the Christian message of Christmas. People often take the greeting, as well as many other trivial matters such as a redesign of the Starbucks holiday coffee cup, as attacks on the Christian religion and react with anger and hostility.

Christmas greetings even became a political issue when Donald Trump vowed last year, “If I become president, we're gonna [sic] be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ at every store ... You can leave happy holidays at the corner.”

I’m not offended when someone tells me “Happy Holidays.” Christmas is a holiday and is included in that greeting. The phrase doesn’t exclude Christmas. Rather it includes New Year’s Day, Hanukah, Kwanzaa and probably even Festivus. The phrase is simply a recognition that there are other holidays that occur within the December time frame and bundles them into one greeting. It also has the advantage of being easier to say than “Happy Merry Christmahanakwanzika.” Stores often use “Happy Holidays” because not all their customers celebrate Christmas and it is poor marketing to alienate and offend your customers.

More and more, the flap over saying “Happy Holidays” seems to be a snowflake issue. By that, I don’t mean a winter precipitation problem, but an issue similar to the liberal faux outrages by those sensitive souls derided as “snowflakes.” These universally offended types find something to be outraged about in everything and it seems that many conservatives are taking a cue from this behavior on several issues. Christmas is one example.

Why do conservative Christians feel offended when some people choose not to say “Merry Christmas?” Christianity is a voluntary religion. People have to choose to accept Christ. Belief in Christ and repentance cannot be forced. Isn’t it equally futile to try to force people to pay homage to Christ by saying “Merry Christmas” when they don’t want to?

The United States has freedom of religion. People should be free to celebrate and say, “Merry Christmas,” but they should also be equally free to say “Happy Holidays.” The government has no constitutional role in determining appropriate holiday greetings.

There is a real war on Christmas in some quarters. Bans on nativity scenes, Christmas trees and banning “Merry Christmas” are clearly wrong and, to use the liberal phrase, intolerant. There are attempts by some to turn Christmas into a “winter break.” These attempts should be resisted and haven’t been widespread for the most part. How many of us have personally been involved in such an attack on Christmas? Not me. I’ve only read of them in the outrage media.

Saying “Happy Holidays” should not be considered an attempt to excise religion from the public square. The word “holiday” is actually derived from the Old English word for “holy day.” When someone wishes you “Happy Holidays,” they are actually telling you to have a good holy day. Christmas, along with Easter Sunday, is one of the most holy of holy days for Christians.

To take the matter a step further, even the word “X-mas” is not an attack on Christmas. The “x” is not crossing “Christ” out of Christmas, according to students of the Greek language and theology. The “x” is actually shorthand for a Greek word meaning “Christ” that starts with the Greek letter “Chi,” which looks the same as our “x.” Far from being a modern invention, the shorthand has been in use for over a thousand years.

For snowflakes who do get hot and bothered when someone tells them “Happy Holidays,” there is a simple solution. My response when someone gives me the controversial phrase is to give them a big smile and say, “Merry Christmas” in a friendly way. Often they’ll respond back with “Merry Christmas” as well. This technique even worked before Trump won the election.

Don’t be a snowflake. Let’s focus on important issues and not trivialities.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Deal blocks Fox Five from bill signing

Nathan Deal
A Fox Five news crew with Justin Gray was banned from attending a public ceremony where Gov. Nathan Deal was to sign a new immigration bill into law yesterday.  In a video on myfoxatlanta.com, Georgia State Troopers can be seen barring the news crew from the press conference.

An unidentified man, presumably an aide to the governor, can be seen on the video telling Mr. Gray that Fox Five will not be allowed in “until someone apologizes for telling lies about us.”

The incident apparently stems from an earlier story run by Fox Five that investigated Deal’s campaign fund.  The story reported that $90,000 payment was made to a fundraising company with ties to the governor’s daughter-in-law, Denise Deal.  The story reported that Denise Deal’s name was not disclosed on any records relating to the company that they could find.

Rodney Ho of accessatlanta.com spoke with Brian Robinson, a spokesman for Nathan Deal.  Ho quotes Robinson as saying that the governor’s campaign never hid the fact that Denise Deal worked for the company, Southern Magnolia Capital.  Ho further says that when challenged by Robinson, he googled “Southern Magnolia Capital” and immediately found Mrs. Deal’s name in the second search result, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce website.
Advertisement

Robinson is quoted as saying that Fox Five was barred from the press conference because they did “a shoddy piece of journalism in which they should be embarrassed.”  The governor’s office is demanding an apology and felt that restricting Fox Five’s access would be a way to punish them.

So far no one is accusing Gov. Deal of breaking any laws, but the story implies that there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Deal, who was congressman before running for governor, has been accused of ethics violations in the past.  He was under investigation when he resigned from Congress to campaign for governor for allegedly steering state business to his company.  He is also accused of failing to report $2.85 million in business loans on state election disclosure forms.  The loans almost led him to declare a personal bankruptcy last year.

The immigration bill that Fox Five was to witness Deal signing was passed by the General Assembly in April and cracks down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants and gives local law enforcement the power to investigate immigration status.  Critics charge that it will hurt Georgia businesses and lead to a costly legal battle as a similar law did in Arizona.  At the moment though, the biggest controversy is not over what was in the bill, but over who was not at the signing.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Marriage can be antidote to poverty




Portman (Josh Jensen/Wikimedia Commons)
Many Atlantans probably heard Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, when he appeared on the Michael Medved Show on February 28.  Huckabee and Medved discussed the Oscars and Natalie Portman’s pregnancy.  Both men agreed that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of Portman, as well as other high profile stars, sent a “problematic message.”  Huckabee went on to say, “Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care.  And that’s the story that we’re not seeing.”  This week Huckabee, who won Georgia’s 2008 Republican presidential primary, has been taking heat for his comments. 

As it turns out, there is a lot of evidence to support Huckabee’s position.  The United States is a prosperous country by most standards, but there are always exceptions.  Consistently, just fewer than 15% of Americans are considered to live in poverty.  This number has remained relatively constant since the 1960s.  About 20% of Americans in poverty are under 18 years old.  .  Statistically, it is far more likely that members of single parent families will live in poverty than any other group.  This points to the breakdown of the family as a causative factor in child poverty.

Census data shows a dramatic increase in US divorce rates over the past half century.  The divorce rate rose sharply in the 1970s and remains high, although slightly lower than its highest point which was in 1979 and 1981.  Georgia has had a low divorce rate in the past, but it is rising because, even though the number of divorces is falling, the number of marriages is falling even more.  Three towns in Georgia (Dalton, Albany, and Warner Robins) are among the cities with the highest divorce rates in the nation.  The US divorce rate is one of the highest in the world.

The increase in divorce corresponds to the years following the implementation of President Johnson’s Great Society programs, specifically the expansion of welfare to include people who are not elderly or disabled.  Making welfare available to single parents removed a negative consequence of raising a child outside of marriage (although many other negative consequences remain).  The majority of teenage girls no longer believe that having a baby outside of marriage will cause problems in their life.

To be fair, statistics do show a decrease in the overall rate of poverty since the Great Society, at least until the current Great Recession.  This is largely due to a decrease in poverty in senior citizens.  This may be due to the implementation of Medicare, a health insurance program for the Americans age 65 and over.  By the standards of government social programs, Medicare is successful in that it did meet its goal of helping to reduce poverty of the elderly. 

On the other hand, Medicare is very expensive and getting more so.  In 2010, Medicare alone costs $452 billion, over 12% of the federal budget.  This figure alone does not reflect the true cost of Medicare because the program reimburses doctors at artificially low rates.  This means that doctors must make up those losses by charging other patients more.  More and more doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients at all.  Even charging below market rates for care, Medicare is projected to be insolvent by 2017, only six years from now.

Huckabee (David Ball/Wikimedia Commons)
Statistics show that marriage tends to be associated with lower rates of poverty.  The highest rates of poverty are in families headed by a single woman with children under eighteen.  Almost 40% of these families are under the poverty line.  One quarter of American kids are raised in single parent families and 84% of these families are headed by women.  Most of these women are divorced or separated (58%) or were never married at all (24%).  The idea that poverty is strongly linked to single parent families is borne out by statistics.

Intuitively this makes sense.  If you are a parent, you know how expensive it is to raise children.  In a two income family, both parents are working to pay for food, shelter, clothing, childcare, and other necessary expenditures.  When there are two parents but only one income, child care, a major expenditure is removed, as are costs associated with the second spouse’s job, such as transportation, business attire, and meals.  Additionally, the working spouse does not have to lose income or use sick days when a child is sick. 

On the other hand, a single parent family has only one income (although often multiple jobs) for all necessary expenditures.  This often includes childcare costs since the children cannot stay home alone while the parent earns an income.  When a child is sick, the parent often cannot work unless extended family members or friends can care for the child.  The difficulty and the costs are compounded when there is more than one child.  This is not to say that many or most single parents are not dedicated and loving parents, but they start at a tremendous disadvantage.

The societal costs of single parent families are not limited to the cost of government programs.  One of the most obvious costs involves the fact that children who are unsupervised are more likely to get into trouble.  Children from single parent families are more likely to act out and be aggressive.  They are also more likely to become unwed or divorced parents themselves, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

It should be in the government’s interest to reduce the number of failing marriages and out-of-wedlock births because this would reduce the number of Americans that are dependent on government entitlements.  Factors that are known to affect the chances of making marriage last include the age of a woman at the time of marriage, whether she was raised in an intact two-parent family, whether religion plays an important role, and whether she had a high income or lived in an area with a high median income, low male unemployment, and low poverty.  Additionally, people who divorce once are more likely to divorce if they marry again.  Unmarried cohabitation is more than twice as likely to result in a breakup as a marriage.

The government can act to reduce the divorce rate by repealing no fault divorce laws and requiring marriage counseling prior to divorce.  In Georgia, a divorce can be granted if only one spouse can establish that refusal to live with the other and that there is no hope of reconciliation.  In approximately 55% of divorces, only one spouse wants out of the marriage and there is no clearly defined cause.  Many of these marriages could be saved.  Further, the government could launch public awareness campaigns similar to anti-smoking and anti-drug campaigns to promote marriage and marriage counseling. 

(Joe Mabel / Wikimedia Commons)
Ultimately, it is up to the spouses to fight for their own marriage and family.  Love alone is not enough to make a successful marriage.  It takes work and communication.  A series at Peachtree Community Church in Villa Rica recently covered the four communication patterns that most threaten marriage from the book Fighting for Your Marriage.  Withdrawal occurs when one spouse is unwilling to engage in important conversations.  Escalation occurs when spouses raise the stakes, making an argument more and more hostile.  Invalidation is when a spouse puts down another, either intentionally or not.  Negative interpretation occurs when one spouse sees the other’s behavior more negatively than was intended.  These communication patterns are found in over 90% of distressed marriages.  (The two-sermon series for February 13 and 20, 2011 is available for download at peachtreecc.org.)

Peachtree Community Church pastor David Reid also recently authored the book Leading to the Bedroom, a couple’s guide to more satisfying sex.  In the book, Reid points out that when faced with conflict, the result for most people is to either get angry or go passive.  Neither is good for communication in a marriage.  To strengthen a marriage, spouses must overcome these natural tendencies.  The ultimate result will be both a stronger marriage and a more intimate and exciting sexual relationship between the spouses.

It is up to the men of Georgia and the United States to step up and work for their marriages and families.  Traditionally, men are the head of the household, but over past decades there has been a tendency for men to become withdrawn and delegate their family responsibilities to women.  This is probably partly due to the fact that welfare makes it more acceptable for them to run out on their kids.  Media focus on sex and portrayals of strong women and shiftless men may also be a factor.  The fact that many boys from broken families grow up without a positive male role model undoubtedly also contributes to the vicious cycle.  All of these factors (and more) combine to make negative changes in the way society views families and parenting. 

The stability of the family is a key to America’s future stability and prosperity.  It is one of the most important issues that we face as a country and one that we must address. 

The Michael Medved Show airs weekdays in Atlanta from 3-6 p.m. on WGKA AM920.  The show can also be downloaded as a podcast on MichaelMedved.com for a small fee.  Archives of the show, including the February 28 interview with Mike Huckabee, are also available on the website.

If you enjoyed this article, please click “FOLLOW” above to receive updates from the Captain Kudzu.


Friday, February 18, 2011

Chick-fil-a accused of anti-gay bias

J. Reed

Chick-fil-a probably did not expect that a donation of food to a marriage seminar would land the company in hot water with gay activists.  What could be offensive about the Georgia-based restaurant chain’s delicious chicken sandwiches?  Nevertheless, when a Silver Spring Township, Pennsylvania Chick-fil-a restaurant agreed to donate sandwiches and brownies for one hundred people attending a seminar titled “The Art of Marriage, Getting to the Heart of God’s Design” it caused quite a stir. 

The seminar is billed as an “event where couples have the opportunity to look at their relationship in a whole new way.”  It is a video series featuring “instruction from respected pastors and Bible teachers together with compelling stories, humorous vignettes, man-on-the street interviews and more.”  The seminars purpose is to strengthen existing marriages.

The seminar was not a political meeting, but a two-day event aimed at strengthening marriages.  Cathy does say, “While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees.”  Chick-fil-a does not have a political agenda according to Cathy.  Cathy says, “We're not anti-anybody.  Our mission is to create raving fans.”

Apparently, as gay rights activists see it, Chick-fil-a’s sin was not in making a donation to the marriage seminar, but in associating with the seminar’s sponsor, Pennsylvania Family Institute.  The Pennsylvania Family Institute is affiliated with Focus on the Family.  Both groups have worked to oppose the push to legalize homosexual marriage.  Currently Pennsylvania law defines marriage as “between a man and a woman.”  There have been attempts both to place a definition of marriage into the state’s constitution as well as to extend marriage to same-sex couples.  It seems that promoting marriage is, in their view, homophobic unless same-sex marriage is affirmed as well.

On one flyer for the seminar, Chick-fil-a was listed as a cosponsor of the event.  PFI President Michael Geer and Chick-fil-a President Dan Cathy both say that Chick-fil-a’s role was limited to a donation of food, and that claims that Chick-fil-a sponsored the event are in error.

Chick-fil-a is a company that is run on Christian principles, but Dan Cathy says it “is not a Christian company.”  The company is known for the fact that all of its restaurants are closed on Sunday.  It is also well known for donations and assistance to both local and national charities.  Our local Chick-fil-a in Villa Rica, Georgia often aids local churches, schools, and even hosts regular blood drives. 

Gay activists are encouraging their supporters to avoid patronizing the Atlanta-based company.  Chick-fil-a, which has stores in 39 states, is concentrated in the south, but has a number of restaurants in blue states as well.  Even though public opinion generally runs against gay marriage, many states are closely divided and a boycott could cost Chick-fil-a a lot of business.  For example, in Maryland where the state senate is preparing to vote on a gay marriage bill, a recent poll shows that 54% of the public supports keeping marriage between one man and one woman.  In contrast, Georgia’s marriage amendment passed with 76% in favor in 2004.

Marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.  Boycotts and referendums will never be able to change that immutable fact of life.  It isn’t a question of fairness or equality; it is a basic recognition of the fact that men and women are different and that they each have different but important roles to play in society and the family.  Two fathers or two mothers are not and never will be equal to one father and one mother.  That is not meant to be hurtful or hateful.  It is simply a statement of reality.

The Chick-fil-a controversy seems to be part of a wider pattern of attempts to silence opponents of gay marriage, particularly if those people happen to be religious.  Last year, Apple withdrew an iTunes app created by the Manhattan Declaration, a document that explains Christian positions on marriage, religious liberty, and the sanctity of life, on the grounds that it was offensive.  In Georgia, a counseling student was forced into re-education because she believed that homosexuality was immoral.  After California voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2008, backers of the amendment faced a campaign of intimidation by gay rights activists.

Most Americans will likely resist the calls to boycott Chick-fil-a, a company known for its great food and service.  Chick-fil-a is a true asset to the community, a corporation that believes in giving back.  Hopefully, gay rights activists will realize that opposition to same-sex marriage is not equivalent to hate and that they should have tolerance for other viewpoints, just as they expect others to have tolerance for their lifestyle.  Sadly, all too often tolerance to leftists means that others must not only accept their views, but affirm them as well.  If they come to realize that tolerance is a two way street, perhaps we can all sit back and enjoy a Chick-fil-a and waffle fries together.