Firm Foundation

The much anticipated/maligned Tim and Pam Tebow advertisement was revealed last night during Super Bowl XLIV.  It was even more unassuming than any pro-life or “pro-choice” activist could have expected.

Watch it here if you have not yet seen it:

Other than a reference to “so many times when I almost lost him,” Pam Tebow never explains the details of their story nor does she refer to the doctor’s recommendation of abortion that she rejected.  The ad takes a humorous turn when Tim enters the picture, playfully “tackling” his mom.  A link at the end of the ad sends you to Focus on the Family’s website for the full story.

We have NOW, Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortion extremists to thank for their knee-jerk, premature overreaction last week that both demonstrated their blind animus for anything promoting the choice of life and, at the same time, brought attention and anticipation to the ad that Focus on the Family could never have engendered itself.  This morning, most people—even those who were anticipating being offended—are scratching their heads thinking, What was all the fuss about?

I was rather underwhelmed by the Tebow ad, as sweet and playful as it was.  This is no doubt partially the fault of the pro-abortion’s reaction and the media attention the ad received before it had ever erred.  But not entirely.

I can’t help but wonder: What if Focus on the Family had run the Tebow ad that NOW & Co. thought Focus was going to run?

We have learned, at least, that pro-abortionists are going to throw a “Super” tantrum no matter what the content of an ad if they so much as suspect a pro-life inference, not to mention an overt message for life. We know their stance and their hypersensitivity to a true story whose telling might undermine their message.  They effectively communicated their counterpoints last week, but in pre-response to an ad that never made one anti-abortion point.

We have also learned that CBS, and presumably other networks, are willing to stand by the decision to run an ad in the face of intense pressure from the pro-abortionists.  Of course, CBS knew the benign nature of the real Tebow ad, and were probably counting on its banality to diffuse the controversy that has, indeed, evaporated.  The pre-airing kerfuffle only raised interest in a CBS ad (and probably other commercials, too), something any CBS executive is thanking the Tebows’ God for today.

Maybe we pro-lifers have also learned that we ought not pull punches in this debate, and that a forthright commercial celebrating the choice of life instead of abortion (even without saying the word), would have been more effective.  Maybe Pam Tebow should have explained a little more of the details of how she “almost lost” Tim and how she did not take his life. I applaud the Tebows for putting themselves and their powerful story out there like they did; I just wish we could have actually heard some of the story last night.

Focus on the Family is full of smart and godly people, so maybe this is just a strategic first shot to soften up the defenses for the next ad like this, maybe to air at the next Super Bowl or some other highly-watched TV event.  If so, it might just be a brilliant marketing strategy for life.  But it seems more likely that all this attention took Focus by surprise, too.

Perhaps next time Focus, the Tebows, or whichever person or organization has an opportunity to promote the cause of life will send a clearer, more direct message against abortion, while still being as wise as serpents and, of course, acceptable to the TV network.  (There is no ad if the network rejects it.)  We know how the opposition will react—so next time let’s give them an ad worthy of their wrath and, more importantly, worthy of the high cause of promoting the sanctity of life.

Hell hath no fury like pro-abortionists faced with the truth.

Pro-aborts like the National Organization for Women are throwing public tantrums over CBS’s decision to run an ad featuring Univ. of Florida quarterback and evangelical Christian Tim Tebow and his mom Pam during the Super Bowl this Sunday. Pam tells how, when she became ill in the Philippines while pregnant with Tim, she rejected a doctor’s recommendation that she abort her child. The Super Bowl ad, financed by Focus on the Family, tells this life-affirming story that, with good reason, has NOW and the like worried.

One of the best takes on this tempest-in-a-TV-spot comes from Sally Jenkins, a “pro-choice” staff writer at The Washington Post. In  Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are, Jenkins takes apart Tebow’s feminist critics and the “group-think, elitism and condescension of the ‘National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.’” Jenkins thinks the Tebows’ story is a good one, and notes that NOW & Co. are revealing themselves to be not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. After all, they’re trying to shut down a story of a women making a choice about abortion. Jenkins notes:

Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one.

Jenkins even praises Tebow for his chastity and self-control, a rarity even in college sports that has largely earned him unbelieving snickers. You really should read this entire column.

Jenkins should be applauded for standing up for Tebow’s message, even if she admits she disagrees with many of his beliefs. What she does not understand, however, is that radical, pro-aborts cannot afford to have the truth about life exposed in such a public forum (and the threat that the “choice” of abortion poses to lives like other future Tim Tebows of the world).

Even The New York Times editorial board opposes the censorship that NOW & Co. are calling for in this case:

The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices.

In the end, CBS is standing by its decision, and the opposition to the Tebow ad has only raised awareness and support for it nationwide.

Strategically, NOW & Co. might have been smarter to ignore the ad rather than try to abort it, but, you see, it’s not in the abortion industry’s DNA to allow truth or accurate information to see the light of day, especially a day like Super Bowl Sunday.

The Times’s suggestion of an opposing ad promoting “the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices” is more fair than censorship, but it also (necessarily) ignores the point of the Tebow ad: there would be no Tim Tebow if Pam had made a different choice. Tim’s life, from conception onward, is precious and sacred, no more and no less than Pam’s or any other unborn child’s. No thanks to NOW, women and pregnant mothers around the nation will get to see that message during the Super Bowl.

In the end, maybe NOW should run its own ad: one that shows what would have happened to Tim if his mother had made a different choice.

President Obama is making history again, this time with his record-breaking new budget of $3.8 trillion, which includes a record-breaking deficit of $1.3 trillion.

For those of you trying to squeeze that into your calculator, that’s spending beyond our means of $1,300,000,000,000.00!

In one year.

It’s no surprise that our big-spending President is asking our big-spending Congress to spend some more.  And there will be many specifics of this budget that will and should be subject to criticism.  One of particular concern, however, is the hidden penalty on charitable donations by American families.

Obama’s new budget will slash the tax deductions by families earning more than $250,000.  The government hopes to reap an additional $291 billion over the next decade with this change, while the estimated loss to charities will be $10 billion every year. In a time when the economy and charitable organizations particularly are suffering, this additional diversion of funds into Caesar’s coffers threatens to do more significant harm.

Non-profit groups like the Foundation for Moral Law rely on these charitable donations given by people who in turn hope to write some of it off on their taxes.  (Insider trade “secret”: those making over $250,000 are able to give more.) This is nothing more than a disincentive for charity.

We are an enormously charitable nation, as any domestic need or foreign disaster (like Haiti) will always demonstrate. And those among us that are “wealthy” are obviously able to give more, and do.  Obama continues to demonize and penalize the “wealthy” who in turn are less able to give to, hire on, invest in, and spend on others. Obama’s budget simply robs Peter to pay Caesar.

I have no doubt that Obama believes the government should be the one to dole out charitable donations in the form of wealth redistribution bureaucracies. In fact, he’s continually fighting for more and bigger welfare apparatuses. He may even believe this is the best way for a nation to be charitable toward the least of these, although the effect is simply to create more people in need of charity.

But the government or its many bureaucratic arms and employees can give handout after handout with our tax dollars but it will never be real “charity.” Noah Webster defined “charity” in 1828 as:

3. Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services to relieve them in distress.

4. Alms; whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the poor for their relief.

Webster also defined “gratuitously” as “Freely; voluntarily; without claim or merit; without an equivalent or compensation; as labor or services gratuitously bestowed.”

Tax dollars are not raised by direct mail solicitations or tele-thons; rather, they are coerced from the people by threat of fine or imprisonment. And to a certain extent, government has the legitimate power to raise taxes. But that money it has raised was not “bestowed gratuitously” upon the IRS, let alone the poor and needy.  The taxpayer is in the position of giving up that money but without the choice of giving it. And the recipient of that money will probably receive it not from a cheerful giver but from the cold, faceless agencies of government—probably by a check in the mail.

It is only when a gift or service is rendered freely that the giver can be acting out of charity, which is another word for “love.”  Webster’s first definition of charity read like so:

1. In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men.1 Cor. 8. Col. 3. 1 Tim 1.

If I earned $100 and the government takes $20 of it, then regardless of where that money ends up (and most will be siphoned off to pay the bureaucracy that is processing it), it will not be given or received in a spirit of charity. The government has robbed my ability to be freely charitable with that $20 and robbed a potential recipient of the joy and blessing of receiving a gift out of love.

It is no virtue for those in government to take someone else’s money and give it to a third party (although it’s a great way to buy votes and influence). So let’s stop pretending redistribution of wealth is in any sense “charitable.”

Obama has clearly rejected this truth, but this does not mean he needs to start chipping away at those voluntary charitable donations that Americans may still want to give.  And to divert such funds to the public coffers to fuel more reckless spending is the height of uncharitable hubris, not to mention deeper economic error.

When the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by asking Him whether they ought to pay tribute to Caesar, Jesus responded, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” While Caesar had jurisdiction and power over certain things, including even limited taxation, he did not have authority over that which is God’s alone.  Jesus endorsed separation of church and Caesar, as it were, and even endorsed paying taxes.

Obama’s charitable donation tax increase would necessarily divert more of what is, at least for religious organizations, God’s or God’s people’s and render it instead unto “Caesar.” Thankfully, Congress rejected this attempt by Obama last year and will hopefully brook no such anti-charity policy in this election year.

Like his obscenely bloated proposed budget and deficit, Obama’s tax on charity is yet another proposal that Americans cannot afford to bear.

In this week’s State of the Union Address, President Obama said:

“We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal….”

Wrong founding document, Mr. President.   The word “equal” did not enter the Constitution until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.    It is in our Declaration of Independence that we read:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And this is the same guy who used to teach constitutional law and who lectured the Supreme Court moments earlier in the same speech!

Anyone can make a mistake.   But the State of the Union Address is the President’s major speech of the year, the only speech expressly required by the Constitution (Article II § 3).  It is carefully crafted and carefully screened.  It says something about Obama’s advisers and speechwriters that none of them knew or cared enough about the Constitution to catch this error.

And how many in the media caught and reported the error?  Would it have been different if President Bush had made the mistake?  Or Dan Quayle?

Happy Birthday to Thomas Paine, born either today (Jan. 29) or. as some historians believe, on Feb. 9. It is fitting that he should bear “dual” birthdays, for he was a patriotic paradox all his own.

Paine’s passionate and powerful writings, most notably the pamphlet “Common Sense,” inflamed the hearts of liberty-loving American patriots and truly helped steel the resolve and determination of the Founding generation.  General George Washington even ordered Paine’s pamphlet “The American Crisis” to be read to the troops for some necessary inspiration.

But this same Paine would later be labeled by John Adams as an “insolent Blasphemer of things sacred.”  His fame turned to infamy when he embraced French enlightenment theory and aimed his sharp pen against Christianity in his infamous work “The Age of Reason.”

In an op-ed featured at WorldNetDaily today, Thomas Paine: Involuntary Christian witness?, John Eidsmoe and I explain how even the writings of the double-minded Paine demonstrate the Christian heritage of the Founders who first read his works.  Follow the link to see how this “Blasphemer” applied Biblical stories and principles to the American cause in “Common Sense,” probably with more skill than most Christians could do today.

Indeed, it is hard to read “Common Sense” and believe that a work so full of Biblical analysis and examples could be written by a staunch opponent of Biblical Christianity. Paine knew his audience, at least, and the common sense of appealing to a Christian people using Christian and Biblical reason to support the cause of liberty.

The laws of evidence recognize that a declaration against interest is entitled to heightened credibility, because people rarely make statements that are against their best interest unless they are certain the statement is true. An example might be a car salesman who stands to profit by selling a used car to you, but who tells you up front that the car has been in three accidents and has carburetor problems.

Abortion is a very lucrative business. A doctor or other health care professional who has performed abortions and profited from them is unlikely to say publicly that abortion is murder, unless he has become thoroughly convinced that the unborn child is a living human being. Therefore, under the laws of evidence statements by such medical professionals are entitled to great credibility.

Dr. Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship has compiled statements of medical personnel who have been involved in the abortion business, and who have concluded that abortion is murder. Consider some of these statements:

Carol Everett was involved in the abortion industry. Not only did she perform abortions, but she also had an abortion. When asked: “What is the governing force behind the abortion industry?” Carol answered: “Money. It is a very lucrative business. It is the largest unregulated industry…most of the clinics are run in chains because it is so profitable.”

Carol explained: “Every woman has two questions, ‘is it a baby?’ and ‘does it hurt?’ The abortionist must answer ‘No.’ He/she must try to secure the consent of the woman in the collection of the clinic’s fee. The women are told that they were dealing with a product of conception or a glob of tissue. They were told that there would be only slight cramping, whereas, in reality, an abortion is excruciatingly painful.”

When asked what type of counseling was offered at the clinic, Carol Everett answered: “We didn’t do any real counseling. We sold abortion.” In answer to how they disposed of the aborted babies, Carol explained: “We put them down the garbage disposal.”

A former abortion counselor, Debra Henry admitted: “We were told to find the woman’s weakness and work on it. The women were never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it was to have a baby.”

Former abortion counselor, Nita Whitten admitted: “It’s a lie when they tell you they are doing it to help women, because they are not. They are doing it for the money.”

Former abortion counselor, Kathy Sparks, said: “The counselor at our clinic would cry with the girls at the drop of a pin. She would find out what was driving them to want to abort the child and she would magnify it.”

Former abortionist, David Brewer, M.D., admitted: “My heart got calloused against the fact that I was murderer, but the baby lying in a cold bowl educated me to what abortion really was.”

Former abortionist, Antony Levatino, M.D., said: “I want the general public to know that the doctors know that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of glob of tissue…”

Former abortionist, Joseph Randall, M.D., said: “The picture of the baby on the ultrasound bothered me more than anything else. The staff couldn’t take it. Women who were having abortions were never allowed to see their ultrasounds.”

Former abortionist, MacArthur Hill, M.D., confessed: “I am a murderer. I have taken the lives of innocent babies and I have ripped them from their mothers wombs with a powerful vacuum machine.”

Former abortionist, Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., was once a pioneer and leader in the abortion industry. He led the campaign for the legalization of abortion in America and admitted that he and other abortion advocates blatantly lied to congress in order to get abortion legal. Dr. Nathanson presided over 60,000 abortions before being converted. Not only did Dr. Nathanson leave the abortion industry, but he has since been dedicated to fighting against abortion. Dr. Nathanson admits that abortion is murder. He has produced such documentaries as The Silent Scream, and written the book: The Hand of God – a journey from death to life by the abortion doctor who changed his mind.

I commend Dr. Hammond for compiling and publicizing this evidence, and I commend these health care professionals for having the courage and honesty to tell the truth. As to their past involvement in abortion, let us remember that by the blood of Jesus Christ, God forgives all of our sins if we truly believe and repent.

In January of 1984, President Ronald Reagan used part of his State of the Union Address to promote the freedom to acknowledge God in public schools:

[E]ach day your members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can’t freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every school room across this land?

America was founded by people who believed that God was their rock of safety. He is ours. I recognize we must be cautious in claiming that God is on our side, but I think it’s all right to keep asking if we’re on His side.

You can watch the video of the 1984 Address here.

What a difference 26 years makes. President Obama will give his first SOTU Address tonight, and the advance reports indicate he is going to try to “refocus” on education and creating jobs.

How likely are the deeply divided and struggling American people to hear that “God is our rock of safety” instead of the “almighty” federal bureaucracy? (Dear Mr. President: One actually IS eternal, while the other only aspires to be.) Or how likely is it that a plug for prayer in schools will sneak into Obama’s speech?

What we are likely to hear read from the TelePrompTer, however, are these words, neatly and conveniently arranged for your entertainment value:

Thanks to this handy BINGO style card, you can track the most anticipated phrases that usually make an appearance (or several) in any Obama speech.

Now you don’t have to agree with every phrase to enjoy tallying them up! You won’t win any money by playing this BINGO, but I can assure that there are trillions of your taxdollars at risk!

Last year, our outgoing President proclaimed January 18, 2009, as “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.” This year, however, we are more likely to get a White House proclamation (like this) celebrating the abomination that is Roe v. Wade.

Regardless of who is the chief executive—be it King George, President George, or President Barack—the right to life remains sacred and unalienable precisely because it is not a gift of government or our temporary leaders. Life is an endowment of Almighty God, Who defines its conception and numbers our days.  The laws of nature and of nature’s God unanimously proclaim that human life begins at conception; when will our laws catch up?

For 37 years from tomorrow, our country has presumed to shorten the days of 50 million unborn children to a life span of mere weeks, terminating with what is usually a violent and painful dismemberment.  A nation that dares not treat its animals as poorly as it treats its unborn children has its priorities exactly backwards.

A victory has been apparently gained (or rather, a defeat held back) in the failure of Congress to pass a health care takeover bill that includes taxpayer funding for abortions.  But what does it say of a republic whose representatives are not fighting over whether babies should be destroyed in the womb, but over whether taxpayer dollars should be appropriated to pay for such an act?  We cannot be satisfied with such stop-gaps. We must not.

For decades, pro-life advocates have successfully implemented certain regulatory hurdles to abortion (parental consent/notification, informed consent, etc.) or even a ban on a particular infanticide procedure (partial-birth abortion).  Yet abortion in all stages of pregnancy remains legal in every state of the union.   Every prevented abortion saves a life, but we have mostly succeeded in merely trimming the edges off of the monstrosity of legalized abortion. These restrictions on abortion, for the most part, still end with the result: “and then you can kill the baby.”

And from beginning to end, this is primarily because of Roe v. Wade and its judicial offspring. That judicial decision, though modified somewhat in later cases, not only causes judges to strike down any law that significantly burdens the ability of a mother to take her child’s life, but also strangles in its crib any aggressively pro-life laws or amendments because even would-be supporters are afraid of a lawsuit against it or worried about the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is still a crack in Roe’s armor, however, that has not even been thrust at.  As one prominent judge once wrote, in response to an argument that an unborn child was a “person” under the law,

“If this suggestion of [fetal] personhood is established, the [pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The author of that statement? Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote that in Roe v. Wade. You see, the opinion that legalized abortion nationwide may contain a clue to its own downfall.

Just within the past year or two, initiatives and petitions in support of “Personhood” laws have been gaining momentum.  These Personhood bills require that the definition of “person” under state law includes any human being from the moment of conception. Such a law would overtly raise the status of unborn children to their rightful place, and as Justice Blackmun acknowledged, pull the rug out from under the pro-abortion constitutional argument.

This Personhood strategy has the potential to be the fatal blow to Roe.  For more information about the status of Personhood bills in your state, or to get behind the effort, check out Personhood USA or Personhood.net.

This is not to say that we should not continue our other pro-life efforts.  Reversing Roe is only the first step, since it would send the issue of abortion back to the states, and not all the states would outlaw abortion if that happened. We still need to be winning hearts and minds for life, whether outside the abortion mills or inside the halls of Congress and the courts.

We can march, like many will do tomorrow at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.  If you can’t be at the Nation’s Capitol, sign yourself up as a virtual marcher at the Virtual March for Life. There are already 50,000 virtual marchers ready to go!

For those in the Montgomery, Alabama area, you can come out to a city-wide Sanctity of Life Prayer service at Evangel on Vaughn Road on Jan. 24 at 6:00 p.m.

The point is, do something for life, especially in this week of Sanctity of Human Life Week.  The daunting Goliath of legalized abortion can scare many pro-life people into thinking that they can’t do everything or that anything they do will accomplish nothing, so they do precisely that: nothing.  Each of us can do something to save a life.

Is not each unborn life worth some of our time and effort to save it? God thought you were worth saving. Regardless of who is in power, life is still sacred, and a person is still a person, no matter how small.

Pretty much everybody agrees that letting the fox guard the chicken house isn’t a very good idea.

Letting the fox train and license the chicken house guards isn’t a very good idea either — because of what he’d teach them, because of what he wouldn’t teach them, and because he might refuse or revoke the licenses of the most zealous and effective chicken-house guards.

The Obama Administration now proposes that all tax preparers must be trained and licensed by the IRS.

Does anyone see why I object to this proposal?

In their newly-released 90-minute film, The Mysterious Islands, Vision Forum and the Erwin Brothers have really hit a home run!

Filmed mostly on the Galapagos Islands off the coast of South America, Mysterious Islands was released on the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. It is more than a documentary; it is also a dramatic story of Institute for Creation Research President John Morris, Vision Forum President Doug Phillips and his son Joshua Phillips as they retrace Darwin’s ocean voyage to the Galapagos Islands and retrace Darwin’s footsteps as they explore these mysterious islands. But they come to very different conclusions from those of Darwin.

Even standing alone, the scenery is magnificent. The viewer is treated to breathtaking scenes of the ocean, the islands, the turtles, the seals, the iguanas, the finches, even underwater footage of stingrays and sharks—including an albino whale shark, said never before to be captured on film.

But the message is even better than the scenery. Dr. Morris, a geologist, clearly explains the fallacies of evolutionary thought, using examples on the Islands themselves. He and Phillips explain that the idea that the earth is old and that life developed from lower forms is not unique to Darwin, but Darwin used natural selection, the survival of the fittest, as the mechanism by which this evolutionary development takes place. Morris and Phillips (I almost wrote Phillips and Morris, but that sounds too much like the tobacco company!) explain that they do not deny that change takes place within a species (micro-evolution), but they do deny that species evolve into different species (macro-evolution). They suggest that God placed within each species the genetic capacity to adapt to changed circumstances in the environment. For example, iguanas found insufficient food on the Islands, so to survive they adapted by developing the capacity, unlike iguanas elsewhere, to feed in the ocean. The belief that an all-powerful, all-knowing God placed within the iguanas’ genetic structure the capacity to adapt in this manner, makes much more sense than natural selection.

Besides demonstrating the scientific fallacies of Darwinian evolution, Morris and Phillips focus on the moral and spiritual implications of the creation/evolution debate. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, influenced by Darwinian thought, believed the black race was inferior on the evolutionary scale and advocated birth control and abortion to keep inferior races and individuals from reproducing. Karl Marx wanted to dedicate the English version of Das Kapital to Darwin, because, he said, evolution provided a biological basis for the class struggle. Darwin’s legacy is the twentieth century, in which Nazism, Communism and other isms have run rampant, producing the most violent century in recorded history.

A highlight toward the end of the film is the London debate between Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and evolutionary philosopher Thomas Huxley. Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he traced his ancestry to apes through his mother or his father; Huxley replied that he was not ashamed to trace his ancestry to apes, but he would be ashamed to use his gift for eloquence to spread lies. In the midst of this heated exchange a tall figure, Admiral Robert FitzRoy, captain of the HMS Beagle, came forward and—well, I’m not going to spoil it by telling you what happened, except to say that this scene alone is worth the price of the entire movie.

Dr. Morris also tells of his adventures on Mt. Ararat, and he explains how the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest is incompatible with Christianity. Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ, the fittest Person of all, died for unfit sinners to fit them for salvation.

As an added bonus, the DVD comes with a second disc that contains extra footage, a balanced discussion of the whaling controversy, and the early explorers of the Galapagos Islands.

Mysterious Islands is great viewing for you and your children, and also for science classrooms, Sunday school classes, and other gatherings. You can purchase it by going online to www.visionforum.com or www.themysteriousislands.com. Tell them we sent you!