Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Conflict? What conflict? The charter school blitzkrieg

Posted in BESE, Charters, Education, Ethics, Politics, Transparency, Vouchers on April 17, 2011| 6 Comments »

Chas Roemer could be in violation of state ethics laws governing conflicts of interest every time he votes on any matter coming before the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) pertaining to any of the state’s charter schools.

Roemer, the son of former Gov. Buddy Roemer, represents BESE District 8 which includes all or parts of the parishes of Avoyelles, Evangeline, Lafayette, St. Landry, Pointe Coupee, East and West Feliciana, East and West Baton Rouge, Iberville, Ascension, St. James, and St. John the Baptist parishes.

He is the former co-chair of the School Innovation & Turnaround Committee which addresses charter school performance and oversight and which also manages the Recovery School District (RSD) in New Orleans.

Louisiana’s Charter School Law was enacted as Act 192 of 1995 as a pilot program to allow up to eight school districts to participate on a voluntary basis. The law was expanded in 1997 by Act 477 to establish BESE and local school board as charter authorizers. Act 477 defined four types of charter schools: Type 1, a charter with local school boards (new start-up); Type 2, charter with BESE (new start-up or conversion:; Type 3, charter with local school board (conversion); Type 4, school board charter with BESE (new start-up or conversion), and Type 5, charter with BESE (pre-existing public school under the jurisdiction of RSD).

In 2003, ACT 9 created a new type of charter for the operation of pre-existing schools that were transferred to the jurisdiction of RSD.

RSD was charged to take underperforming schools and transform them into charter schools. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the number of public schools in New Orleans has dropped from 123 to four while the number of charter schools has ballooned from seven to 31.

Charter schools operate as independent public schools under five-year contracts granted by BESE or a local school board.

Caroline Roemer Shirley, Chas Roemer’s sister is executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools and therein lies the potential for a conflict of interest and possible ethics violations.

Almost a year ago, on April 21, 2010, the Louisiana Board of Ethics issued an opinion at the request of attorney Richard Easterling of the law firm Adams and Reese of Baton Rouge that said Shirley was prohibited from appearing before BESE and from representing the associations in matters before BESE.

A partial text of the opinion reads as follows:

The Louisiana Board of Ethics, at its April 16, 2010 meeting, considered your request concerning Caroline Roemer Shirley’s employment with the Louisiana Charter School Association while her brother Charles Roemer, IV serves as an elected member of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE). Caroline Roemer Shirley is the Executive Director of the Association.

In 2000, the board concluded that Section 1113A of the code would prohibit Ms. Shirley from discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association and that the Code would prohibit Ms. Shirley from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

With respect to the following specific questions raised, the Board concluded and instructed me to inform you of the following:

• If the Association and the Louisiana State Director of Charter Schools partner to host a meeting pertaining to the future of the Recovery School District, may the director and Ms. Shirley speak to one another to discuss the date, time, location, invitees, agenda, etc. for this event? May Ms. Shirley speak at such a meeting?

The Code prohibits Ms. Shirley from 1) appearing before BESE; 2) representing the Association in matters before BESE; 3) discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association, and; 4) from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE. However, Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from discussing with individual members of BESE or the staff of the Department of Education issues that do not involve matters or positions of the Association on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE such as those items involving the incidentals of a planned event.

• When legislation is pending that will have an impact on charter schools, may Ms. Shirley bring charter school leaders together for discussions with BESE and/or the Louisiana Department of Education (LDE) on these matters?

Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from contacting charter school leaders for discussions with BESE and/or LDE on pending legislation. However, she is prohibited from discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association involving the proposed legislation and from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on issues involving legislation on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

• May Ms. Shirley be a member of and participate in a Charter Advisory Board created to work with and provide the Superintendent of Education, the Louisiana Recovery School District Superintendent and/or the Louisiana State Director of Charter Schools information on matters involving charter schools? This Advisory Board would be a volunteer group of charter leaders representing all five types of charter schools that would meet every other month.

Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from being a member of a Charter Advisory Board created to work with and provide the Superintendent of Education, the RSD Superintendent and/or the Louisiana State Director of Charter Schools information on matters involving charter schools. However, she is prohibited from discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association involving those matters and from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on issues involving matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

• As Executive Director, may Ms. Shirley organize and participate in charter school meetings, bringing together the principals and board members of the charter schools to hear from the Superintendent of Education, the Louisiana Recovery School District Superintendent and the Louisiana State Director of Charter Schools? Such meetings would serve as a means for the charter schools to be both better informed about policies and regulations, as well as having the opportunity to discuss other related issues.

Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from organizing and participating in charter school meetings as long as she does not discuss with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association and does not interact with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

• If Ms. Shirley is invited by the LDE, BESE or the RSD to attend workshops, meetings, discussions, etc. that pertain to charter schools, may she attend and participate in these meetings, such as a meeting with the RSD hosted for principals and board members of the charter schools and the staff from BESE to discuss Bulletins that outline policies regulating charter schools.

Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from attending workshops, meetings, discussions, etc. that pertain to charter schools. However, she is prohibited from participating in the discussion and her participation in those events are restricted by the Board’s conclusions in BD 2008-122 prohibiting her from 1) appearing before BESE 2) representing the Association in matters before BESE 3) discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association, and 4) from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

• As one of the leading advocates for charter schools in the state, Ms. Shirley is often called by the Superintendent of Education, the Louisiana Recovery School District Superintendent, BESE members, BESE staff, and LDE staff to provide information about charter schools, contact information for national charter leaders, best practices of other states, etc. May she respond to these requests?

Ms. Shirley is prohibited from discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association and from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE. It is the conclusion of the Board that Ms. Shirley is prohibited from handling these type of requests for information.

While that opinion addressed only Caroline Shirley’s interaction with BESE members, there have been numerous opinions by the Ethics Board that cite Section 1112B(1) which specifically addresses the participation of a public service or elected official in a vote on any matter “in which a member of his immediate family has a substantial economic interest. Section 1120 of the code provides that an elected official shall recuse himself when the vote would be a violation of Section 112 of the code.

A review of minutes of BESE meetings over the past year reveal that Chas Roemer consistently made motions on agenda items dealing with charter schools and then voted on each one.

In December of 2010 alone, he made motions to approve charter school contracts of $50,000 and under, made motions to approve Crescent City School, the NET Charter High School, the Collegiate Academy Charter School, the Sarah T. Reed Charter Middle School, the ReNEW K-8 Charter School, the ReNEW Alternative High School, and in one case, made the motion to deny an application to commence operation of Joseph A. Craig charter school in New Orleans.

Read Full Post »

Foundation a novel twist on fundraising methods

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, Politics, Supriya Jinda Foundation on April 7, 2011| 3 Comments »

Federal income tax returns show that the Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana’s Children had receipts of more than $278,000 in 2009 but spent less than $67,000 on 60 interactive whiteboards donated to public school classrooms across Louisiana.

Returns for two other years, 2008 and 2010 were not immediately available but apparently reflect much larger donations to the foundation, according to other sources.

The foundation, headed by Gov. Bobby Jindal’s wife generated considerable controversy last month when it was learned that several corporate contributors had profited either through lucrative state contracts, favorable legislation, or lax enforcement of penalties against polluters.

The foundation was founded in mid-2008, six months after Jindal took office. Capitol News Service requested complete tax returns from the foundation but received only the return for 2009. No returns for 2008 or 2010 were provided.

Charter members pledged $250,000, according to the foundation’s web page which contains a photo of Gov. Jindal and his wife. Platinum members pledge $100,000, Gold members $50,000, Silver members $25,000, and bronze members $10,000. Circle of Friends members give a one-time gift of up to $10,000, the web page says.

Individuals and corporate donors are limited to maximum political contributions of $5,000 during each election cycle, but there is no limit on the amount that can be given a foundation run by either a candidate or a spouse.

Depending on the news source quoted, Mrs. Jindal’s foundation has received $1 million overall and has spent that same amount on the installation of about 170 interactive whiteboards that enable teachers to download multimedia lesson plans to aid them in teaching math or science.

A report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said nine companies that collectively contributed $100,000 to Jindal’s campaign over several election cycles donated at least $790,000 to the foundation.

The foundation received $250,000 from Marathon Oil. Marathon subsidiaries have received $5.2 million in state funds, according to a report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

BlueCross/BlueShield contributed $100,000 and won a questionable $400 million contract to provide health insurance for state employees and retirees and their dependants. A state court judge later ordered the state to re-bid the contract after Humana challenged the contract in a lawsuit that said the plan bid on by BlueCross/BlueShield was not what the state request for proposals (RFP) specified.

Northrop Grumman contributed $10,000 and was awarded a consulting contract of $11.4 million.

Dow Chemical pledged $100,000 and efforts by the administration to fine Dow’s Union Carbide subsidiary for allowing the release of a toxic pollutant and failing to notify state authorities of the leak in a timely manner were apparently dropped.

AT&T may have been the big winner, though.

The corporation contributed $10,000 to Jindal’s campaign since 2007 but gave $250,000 to the Jindal Foundation after Gov. Jindal signed SB- 807 into law (Act 433) in 2008 over the objections of the Louisiana Municipal and the State Police Jury associations. The bill, the Consumer Choice for Television Act removed from local and parish governments their authority and responsibility to negotiate cable franchise agreements with companies that relied largely on locally-owned public infrastructure such as utility poles. The bill also allows AT&T to sell cable television service without the necessity of obtaining local franchises.

In addition to benefitting from the newly enacted cable television law, Capitol News Service found that AT&T also had a minimum of 17 separate contracts with the state totaling $32.2 million.

In addition to contracts, lax enforcement, and favorable legislation, the foundation’s tax return shows that the foundation’s treasurer is Alexandra Bautsch who also is Gov. Jindal’s chief fundraiser, an association that is a little too close for CREW Director Melanie Sloan, who called it “an awfully close relationship between the charity and the governor.”

Sloan, a former prosecutor, said, “Donations that come in to charities like this are almost always from folks who want something from a politician. The donations are made not because of the great work of the charity, but because of connections.

“Foundations tied to politicians see their donations dry up when the politician is no longer in power,” she said. “That demonstrates the real reason the charities get the donations is their political position, not because of the good works they do.”

“If it is not an actual conflict, it is an appearance of conflict,” she said.

Claude “Buddy” Leach, Jr., chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party, said it was “the perception that you can have influence with the governor’s office through this foundation.”

Jindal press secretary Kyle Plotkin said Jindal has never solicited donations for his wife’s foundation. But Jindal does appear with his wife in a photograph pasted on the foundation’s web page which could be interpreted by some as a subtle come-on by the governor aimed at potential donors.

Another spokesperson for Gov. Jindal said anything other than the reality that the charity is a “completely nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization created by the first lady….has plainly been dreamed up by partisan hacks living in a fantasy land.”

Pot, kettle.

Gov. Jindal simply said allegations of influence peddling through his wife’s foundation were “silly.”

Kettle, pot.

Read Full Post »

Barry Seal murder in Baton Rouge 25 years ago helped expose Iran-Contra debacle

Posted in Politics on February 14, 2011| 27 Comments »

By Tom Aswell

Saturday, February 19, will mark the 25th anniversary of one of the most sensational high-profile killings to rock Baton Rouge since the 1935 assassination of U.S. Sen. Huey Long.

The brutal murder of Barry Seal, 46, at a Baton Rouge halfway house in 1986 would send shock waves up and down the political spectrum. It would focus the glare of the media spotlight on not only the Colombian Medellin Cartel, but also on the FBI and CIA as well as such political icons as then-Vice President George H.W. Bush and Oliver North.

Most of all, Seal’s murder would lay bare for all the world to see the seamy underbelly of America’s duplicitous war on drugs, and how drug smuggling was in fact sanctioned by powerful men in order to advance a hidden agenda. That agenda would turn up in the sordid details of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Seal’s life—and death—would seem a perfect fit for Hollywood. In fact, there was a made-for-cable movie, Double Crossed, that starred Dennis Hopper as Seal.

Seal, who began flying at age of 15, flew weapons to Fidel Castro in 1958 when Castro was fighting to overthrow Fulgencio Batista. It was only after Castro succeeded in overthrowing Batista in 1959 and declared himself a Marxist that other forces then began their efforts to overthrow Castro.

In 1964, Seal went to work for TWA and became their youngest 707 captain and later their youngest 747 captain. He was fired by TWA after his 1972 arrest in New Orleans on charges of flying explosives to anti-Castro Cubans in Mexico. The buyer, it turned out, was a federal agent. Soon after that, Seal turned to drug smuggling and subsequently was arrested in Honduras with 40 kilos of cocaine worth a reported $25 million.

He spent nine months in a Honduran prison and while there, met William Roger Reeves, a fellow prisoner who worked for the Ochoa family of Medellin, Colombia. Reeves, Ochoa’s New Orleans business manager, brought Seal into what in 1982 officially became the Medellin Cartel after Jorge Ochoa and Pablo Escobar joined forces to form a 2,000-man army to destroy M-19, the Marxist revolutionary group that was causing problems for the Colombian drug barons.

By 1982, Seal was making regular runs on behalf of the Medellin Cartel, bringing tons of cocaine into the U.S. It was at this time that he moved his operations from Baton Rouge to Mena, Arkansas. Whether known or not at the time by Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, the use of the Mena airport by Seal and others would be used by detractors in efforts to tie Clinton to drug smuggling conspiracies, especially during his first four years as President.

In 1984, Seal was indicted in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on charges of smuggling Quaaludes and money laundering. Facing a 10-year prison sentence, he decided to flip but federal prosecutors were not interested in a deal so he simply went over their heads. He flew to Washington and met with two members of Vice President George Bush’s Task Force on Drugs.

In secret testimony before the task force, Seal said the Medellin Cartel had cut a deal with the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The agreement, Seal said, called for the cartel to give a cut of drug profits to the Sandinistas in exchange for use of an airfield in Managua as a trans-shipment point for narcotics.

That news proved too enticing for President Reagan who was eager to wage an all-out war on the Sandinistas. Because Reagan feared another communist regime in the Western Hemisphere, Seal was enlisted as an undercover informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

By this time, Seal had purchased a C-123. The larger transport plane, which he affectionately referred to as The Fat Lady, was needed to haul tons of cocaine for the cartel. As part of his agreement with DEA, he rigged the C-123 with a hidden camera and was able to photograph Pablo Escobar helping Nicaraguan soldiers load 1,200 kilos of cocaine at the Managua airport. Reagan was ecstatic and went on national television shortly afterwards, waving the photograph given to him by Col. Oliver North and denouncing the Sandinistas as “drug smugglers corrupting American youth.”

As a result of Seal’s cooperation, the judge in his Florida case praised Seal and reduced his sentence to six months probation.

North, meanwhile, was busy orchestrating a complicated arms deal with Iran in negotiations to obtain Iran’s help in freeing seven American hostages held by pro-Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. The U.S. would conceal the transactions by selling the weapons first to Israel and then re-selling them at significant “off the books” markups to Iran’s Islamist government for use in its war with Iraq. Despite several such transactions, it would take years to obtain freedom for all the prisoners.

Part of the $48 million paid by Iran to the U.S. for the Hawk and TOW missiles was in turn used to fund the Contras in their fight against the Marxist Sandinistas. This was in direct violation of a 1984 law banning such aid.

In December of 1984, Seal was arrested in Louisiana for flying a cargo of marijuana into the state. U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola was bound by the Florida plea agreement and was furious at being powerless to put Seal away.

Polozola on December 20, 1985, invoked the sentence handed down by the Florida judge and sentenced Seal to six months supervised probation, taking the occasion to say that people like Seal were “the lowest, most despicable people I can think of.” A condition of the sentence was that he had to spend every night, from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., at the Salvation Army halfway house on Airline Highway in Baton Rouge. Polozola further stipulated that Seal could not carry a gun or hire armed bodyguards.

Seal’s attorney, Lewis Unglesby, told Polozola his ruling amounted to a death sentence for his client. Seal told friends that the judge “made me a clay pigeon.”

At 6 p.m. on February 19, 1986, Seal promptly drove up to the Salvation Army in his white Cadillac. As he parked his car, he was approached by a man carrying an assault weapon. Two quick bursts riddled Seal’s head and chest, killing him instantly.

On March 27, a state grand jury in Baton Rouge indicted Miguel Velez, Bemardo Antonio Vasquez, Luis Quintero, and Jose Renteria-Campo for the murder. In May of 1987, a jury found Vasquez, Velez, and Quintero guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced all three to life in prison without parole. Renteria-Campo was extradited to Miami to be tried on federal weapons charges.

Unglesby said the Medellin Cartel killed Seal to prevent the extradition of Medellin Cartel co-leader Jorge Ochoa from Spain, where he was hiding. U.S. authorities wanted to put him on trial for drug smuggling. “It worked,” Unglesby said. “Ochoa wasn’t extradited.”

But even in death, Seal would not go away easily.

On March 3, 1986, only two weeks after Seal was murdered, Louisiana Attorney General William Guste hand-delivered a five-page letter to U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese. In his letter, Guste made a formal request for a complete investigation with respect to the government’s relationship with and handling of Seal.

“In October, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Narcotics and Drug Interdiction of the President’s Commission on Organized Crime, I had presided over a seminar at which Barry Seal had testified,” Guste continued.

“His purpose there was to inform the commission and top United States officials of the methods and equipment used by drug smugglers….and (he) was scheduled to be a key witness in the government’s case against Jorge Ochoa-Vasques, the head of one of the largest drug cartels in the world. WHY WAS SUCH AN IMPORTANT WITNESS NOT GIVEN PROTECTIOIN WHETHER HE WANTED IT OR NOT?” Guste asked, using all capital letters.

There was no word as to whether or not Meese ever responded to Guste’s letter.

Seven months after Guste delivered his letter to Meese, on October 5, 1986, a Sandinista patrol shot down a C-123 cargo plane that was supplying the Contras. Eugene Hasenfus, who was on board the plane, survived the crash and told his captors that he thought the CIA was behind the operation to supply the Contras.

It proved to be the singular event that blew the Iran-Contra scandal wide open. The C-123 that had been shot down was The Fat Lady, Seal’s beloved cargo plane. Somehow, the plane had fallen into the hands of Oliver North and his covert operation.

Hasenfus said that was by sheer coincidence.

That’s not likely. Seal’s offshore bank accounts disappeared and the IRS filed a multi-million dollar lien against his assets. His property, including his home and all his airplanes, were seized. Seal’s wife was said to have found George Bush’s private phone number in Seal’s wallet. The C-123 was ultimately sold to a company with connections to the CIA and was shot down soon afterwards.

In 1993, Colombian and U.S. authorities cornered Pablo Escobar at a house in Medellin and killed the drug kingpin in a shootout.

The CIA, DEA, and State Department have each been implicated in various drug trafficking enterprises that were used to fund illegal covert operations in nations all over the globe.

A quarter-century later, America’s war on drugs continues at a cost of $52 billion per year, or $1600 for every second of every day. That investment includes not only the cost of preventative measures, but also the cost of housing fully 20 percent of all federal and state prison inmates (more than 400,000) for drug-related offenses.

Read Full Post »

Praline and Jambalaya Economics

Posted in Politics on December 31, 2010| Leave a Comment »

By John Sachs

From everything we are hearing, Louisiana faces a terrific budget deficit in the upcoming 2011 fiscal year. The number heard most often is $1.6 billion. It makes a bigger impression when you see it numerically. So here it is. $1,600,000,000. Whew! Kinda takes your breath away, doesn’t it?

A $1.6 billion shortfall would pose quite a dilemma for most states. Most states would 1) quit spending multi-millions on state-owned golf courses, 2) reduce the number of football and basketball coaches at the junior high school through university level to something less than one coach for every player, 3) stop imprisoning for life people caught with so much as a whiff of marijuana residue in their pockets, 4) quit providing legislators with luxury housing for a pittance in rent while at the same time paying them a luxurious per diem, 5) and the list goes on ad nauseum.

Most states would look for reductions by addressing the list above before saying perfunctorily that education and health care will have to shoulder almost all of the cuts. They might, just might, even consider—are you ready for this?—restoring taxes that when cut were the primary cause for the deficit. No new taxes mind you, but just going back to tax rates previously in place that resulted in balanced, deficit-free budgets. Makes one wonder about the validity of supply side, trickle down, Reaganomics.

Cutting education and health care are the fiscal management tactics espoused by our governor. Makes me wonder if rather than majoring in some real world discipline at Oxford, he didn’t study pre-Renaissance fables and lore. I guess that explains why most legislation that he proposes begins “Once upon a time…” and ends with “… lived happily ever after.”

The time has now arrived for me to share with you some serious ciphering that I’ve done regarding this problem. Hang in there now. It ain’t too difficult.

The population of Louisiana, per the 2010 census, was 4,533,372 give or take an illegal Mexican or two rebuilding New Orleans or processing chickens in Farmerville. Therefore, the $1.6 billion deficit equates to $353 per every man, woman and child. And since the governor and legislature won’t dare even consider raising taxes or reducing expenditures on such voter-important matters as football and golf courses, the only way for us to protect our school and medical care programs is to do what we always do in Louisiana when times get rough. Have a bake sale. That’s right, a statewide bake sale. This time we will be selling Pralines and Jambalaya. And once again, Ruston will take the lead in this important endeavor.

Let me explain.

No one makes pralines better than Erma Hudson, and no one prepares better jambalaya than Bill Cox. So it will be these two “saviors” to whom the entire state will turn to bring us over our economic Rubicon. We will give Erma and Bill each a sales goal of $800 million. For Bill, this will equate to 160 million servings at $5 each. When those 160 million servings are divided among all 4,533,000 citizens, it works out to 35 servings per year each. That’s doable. It’s even doable if we exclude babies and Yankees. With them out of the mix, we can still sell enough to reach our goal if everyone will buy just one serving per week all year long.

Now, as to Erma and her goal. If Erma sells her pralines for $1 each, she will need to sell 800 million. However, we already have a problem with a large percentage—say 20%– of our population who suffer with type 2 diabetes and/or morbid obesity. We will excuse them from buying pralines. That leaves about 3,625,000 of us to buy the 800 million pralines. So if each of those folks buys 220 pralines per year, Erma can reach her goal.

I figure that both Bill and Erma will incur a cost for the ingredients of about $50 million each. But in the tradition of all bake sales, the providers of the goodies pay for the ingredients. I know these two folks. $50 million each for Erma and Bill is certainly doable. They are old school and have saved for just such rainy days.

Now I know there will be those who will want to exempt everyone making over $250 thousand per year and the top 2% making over $1 million per year from having to buy their fair share of pralines and jambalaya as they are the ones to whom the rest of us poor schmucks owe our very existence. The typical Louisiana voter will likely be duped into believing this is the case. Our recently elected moral high road U.S. Senator will see to that. But even if we exempt the wealthiest of the wealthy from purchasing their fair share of pralines and jambalaya, I think the rest of us can cover for them.

So, relax. Thanks to my sophisticated grasp of economic realities and my advanced ciphering skills, I, along with Erma and Bill, have this deficit mess pretty much covered.

You’re welcome. I do what I can.

Read Full Post »

A Christmas Story with a different perspective

Posted in Politics on December 22, 2010| Leave a Comment »

By John Sachs

Oh golly. What to write about? It seems unfair to ask a novice writer to come up with a commentary for publication on Christmas Eve. All the good, not so good, and just plain awful Christmas theme stories have, for the most part, already been written. At least those that any publication would dare to run. Hopefully Louisiana Voice will tolerate one more kinda off-the-wall version. Mine.

As some of you have gleaned by now, I often think about and view subjects from a somewhat different perspective than many. And the Christmas story for me is no different. I wonder why God chose when, where, how, and yes, even why He sent his son to Earth. This is my take on the matter.

First, I think God is alive in heaven seated on the 50 yard line in the plush seats reserved for college presidents, politicians, or franchise owners which gives Him a really grand view of the game being played on Earth. And He is frustrated. No, actually He is ticked-off. Things are just not going according to plan.

God is watching us on Earth playing the game and darned few of us appear to understand the rules that He gave us to play by, and even fewer are following those rules. And God mutters:

Just look at ‘em. How can they make such a mess of the few simple rules I gave them to play by? Not only that, but I told them what the rules were in every way I knew how to do it. I told them the rules in their native language—and they didn’t pay attention.

Then I got Moses to tell them in spectacular fashion what I wanted them to do. No, not just spectacular fashion, but in miraculous ways. I spoke to Moses through a burning bush that was not consumed by the fire. When Moses told folks that and used a few miracles I gave him to use for emphasis, even that didn’t seem to impress them.

Then again through Moses I gave them 10 important rules to follow that I etched in rock tablets with my own finger—and they didn’t pay attention. By this time I was getting really frustrated, even angry at them. I thought what a bunch of insensitive dolts I’ve created. Maybe the word dumb better describes them.

Then I pulled out all the stops. I went for what I just knew would get their attention. I miraculously sent my own Son to tell them what I expected of them. I named Him Jesus. His name means Salvation and I named Him that so that everyone would understand that to gain salvation they had to do as my boy Jesus instructed. I made His birth itself a miracle.

I raised Him among the very people that He was to teach so that they would feel that He really understood them and could relate to them. I told Him what to say. I taught Him to speak directly and firmly like when He confronted the money changers in the temple. I taught Him to use parables to try and get Our message across. I gave Him some really neat miracles to perform that were sure to give Him credibility at best and at least help Him draw a good crowd at His next show. Maybe I should say … at His next appearance. Whatever.

And I admit that Jesus did a pretty good job of getting My message and rules out there. He made much more progress than Moses did. Of course, I helped Jesus even more than I did Moses so I’m not faulting Moses and his efforts. But still, even to this day, too many folks on Earth either haven’t heard My rules, learned My rules, and certainly aren’t playing by My rules. And I don’t like that, not one bit.

I’m gonna give them a little while longer to hear, learn, and follow My rules. But if they don’t shape up, I’m going to send Jesus back, but not to praise and congratulate them like they think He is going to do. He is going to kick some—well, He is going to get their attention like never before.

All I’m asking is that they love Me with all their heart, soul, and mind and also love their neighbor as much as they love themselves. It’s that simple. Love one another. Quit killing each other. Take care of one another. Don’t be greedy. Smile. And from time-to-time thank Me for what I’ve done for you.

To me, that’s the real Christmas story. And I’m sticking to it!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »