Category Archives: TV

Christmas film favorites


Nov. 27-Dec. 1
Christmas Film Favorites
by Todd Kappelman, read by Dr. Ray Bohlin
Nov. 27 A Christmas Carol Listen Online
Nov. 28 Miracle on 34th Street Listen Online
Nov. 29 How the Grinch Stole Christmas Listen Online
Nov. 30 It’s a Wonderful Life Listen Online
Dec. 1 A Charlie Brown Christmas Listen Online
Right-click to download the whole week as a single mp3 Podcast

The Point: A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving



Charlie Brown didn’t get much right, but Charles Schulz did. For the Colson Center, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

We’ve all seen “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” in which Charlie Brown messes up the Christmas play and Linus reminds everyone what Christmas is all about.

Another of my favorites is “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving.” Poor Chuck’s friends show up expecting a feast, but he and Snoopy serve them jelly beans and popcorn.

Thankfully, Linus is there again to tell the true story of Thanksgiving.

But it’s Marcie who reminds Charlie Brown that the Pilgrims at Plymouth didn’t come to dinner expecting to receive something. They were there to commemorate what they’d already received—life, provision, and friendship with the Wampanoags.

We’re better off today than they were, yet many of us will sit around the Thanksgiving table grumbling and fighting about politics. If Linus and Marcie were thankful for Charlie Brown’s leftover Halloween candy, can’t we take one day to thank God for our blessings?

Hopefully you won’t have jelly beans and popcorn for dinner, but I do hope you enjoy some Peanuts this Thanksgiving.

BreakPoint: Costly Views on “The View” Don’t Crack Under Cocktail Party Pressure



You’re in the spotlight and you’ve just been asked about a controversial issue. What do you do?

Martin Luther, the Christian reformer who challenged the sale of indulgences five hundred years ago, is often credited with this stirring quotation:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him.”

Okay, well maybe Martin Luther didn’t actually say that. Nor did Abraham Lincoln say, “You can’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” But just because a quotation is mis-attributed doesn’t mean it’s an inaccurate summary of what the purported author believed. As a matter of fact, this passage not only closely mirrors something Luther wrote in a personal letter, but it’s consistent with the life he lived.

More importantly, this quote is true. The temptation is strong to faithfully proclaim every aspect of God’s Word except the one most controversial in our time.

We saw that recently when well-known pastor Carl Lentz appeared on ABC’s “The View.” Lentz spoke boldly and in no uncertain moral terms about the issue of racism. As well he should. Christians should condemn racism whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head.

But when asked directly about abortion, and whether or not he considers it a sin, Lentz couldn’t give a straight answer. Instead, he spoke of having a “conversation,” of finding out a person’s “story,” where they’re from and what they believe. “I mean, God’s the judge,” he concluded. “People have to live by their own convictions.”

Predictably, the progressive studio audience heard this as an affirmation of the so-called “right to choose,” and rewarded Lentz with thunderous applause.

This upset a lot of pro-lifers who felt that this highly visible pastor had squandered a chance to speak up for the unborn. Lentz quickly took to social media to defend his word, but the damage was done. A watching world had heard a famous Christian pastor buckle on a crucial issue of our time, right after taking principled stands on other issues—issues, and this is key, that wouldn’t cost him anything with the ladies or audience of “The View.”

Now Lentz is not unique. He’s just the latest victim of what my friend Michael Miller calls “cocktail party pressure,” the urge to tone down or disavow Christian beliefs found to be distasteful in our culture. Typically, these are the so-called “culture war” issues like life, marriage, or religious liberty.

Watching Lentz on “The View” reminded me of the doctor-assisted suicide vote in Colorado last year. I was heartbroken when pastors of Colorado churches told me they didn’t want to take up the issue from the pulpit, because it was “too political.” But many of these same pastors have no hesitation whatsoever when addressing issues that are also so-called political ones, like racism or refugees.

Contrast this with someone like Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation. Although not a pastor, Ryan is among the most articulate defenders of natural marriage even in the face of blistering ridicule. I’ll never forget the image of him on Piers Morgan’s show, banned from the stage, seated in a hostile crowd, graciously explaining the Christian view while the liberal hosts hurled abuse at him.

Folks, it’s so very easy to be courageous on issues where our Christian convictions are in agreement with talk show hosts and the larger cultural ethos. But we’re not just called to proclaim the truth when it’s easy. Faithfulness means standing up for what’s right precisely and especially when it’s unpopular—even when it will cost us, socially, financially, maybe even mortally.

And it’s all of us, including those of us not on television, who face this kind of pressure ourselves—the pressure to tone down or abandon what we believe. That’s why it’s crucial to decide ahead of time—before the talk show or the cocktail party—where we stand, and to always be ready to give an answer when we’re asked.


Costly Views on “The View”: Don’t Crack Under Cocktail Party Pressure

Check out the links in our Resources section for great materials that will help you be equipped to stand for truth, remembering the Apostle Peter’s words: “But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. and do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence. . . 1 Peter 3: 14-15 NASB



The Faith: Given Once for All

  • Charles Colson, Harold Fickett | Zondervan Publishing Company
How Now Shall We Live?

  • Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcey | Tyndale House Publishers | September 1999

The Good Dr.

Brilliant doctor, bad bedside manners. If you think you’ve seen that TV show already, think again. I’ve got a great recommendation for you.

Thirteen years ago, producer David Shore introduced TV viewers to one of recent television’s most memorable characters, Dr. Gregory House, a medical genius with, to put it mildly, poor bedside manners.

Last month, in “The Good Doctor,” Shore introduced viewers to yet another doctor with almost other-worldly powers and questionable beside manners. Yet the characters could not be more different.

Gregory House was described as, among other things, a “misanthrope,” “cynic,” “narcissist,” and “curmudgeon,” to which I would add “nihilist” and “drug addict.” Shore’s new creation, Dr. Shaun Murphy, the “good doctor” of the show’s title, is none of these things. His questionable bedside manner stems from the fact that he is autistic. To be specific, he’s an autistic “savant.”

For those unfamiliar with the term, “savant” refers to people who demonstrate “one or more profound and prodigious capacities or abilities far in excess of what would be considered normal, while also having significant deficits in other areas of brain processing.”

Murphy’s “prodigious” abilities include near-perfect recall and the ability to make connections that other people cannot. This makes him, like Gregory House, an extraordinary diagnostician. His deficits lie in the areas of interpersonal communication. He does not make eye contact, and is largely oblivious to the non-verbal cues that most of us take for granted.

If this were all there were to the character, who is brilliantly portrayed by Freddie Highmore, “The Good Doctor” would be an uplifting “fish-out-of-water” story, which, given most of what’s on TV, would be a welcome change of pace.

But it’s more than that. In many ways, Shaun Murphy is a kind of “holy fool.” In Russian Orthodoxy, “Holy fools pose the question: Are we keeping heaven at a distance by clinging to the good regard of others, prudence, and what those around us regard as ‘sanity’?”

A classic example of the holy fool is Dostoyevsky’s novel, “The Idiot.” In it, a kind, guileless, and compassionate Prince Myshkin is taken by his cynical, egotistical, and worldly acquaintances to be, well, an idiot. But he’s nothing of the sort. He is, as Dostoevsky puts it, the embodiment of “the positively good and beautiful man.”

As in Dostoyevsky’s novel, the presence of Murphy’s holy fool causes some people to do some long-overdue self-examination.

As we learn in flashbacks, Murphy cannot lie, even if lying means the difference between eating and going hungry. He may say inappropriate things, but his sincerity and honesty are never in doubt.

In contrast, his colleagues have no problems with dishonesty. They take credit for his accomplishments or fail to report those who do because it will further their careers.

While Murphy has no discernible ego, they are driven by little else. When one character, who had initially dismissed him as weird and threw him out of the hospital, acts friendly towards him after seeing his skills in practice, he points out the differences and asks her “Which is the real you?”

It turns out that the “good” in the show’s title refers to much more than Murphy’s medical abilities. The most important differences between him and his colleagues have nothing to do with his autism.

And that makes “The Good Doctor,” which is pulling in “terrific numbers,” despite some negative critics’ reviews, well worth checking out.


Editor’s note: As with any present-day network TV show, some situations depicted in “The Good Doctor” do not comport with Biblical values. Parental discretion is therefore advised.

An American news show honors a nation for ending Down syndrome by killing

One Scandinavian country’s treatment of the vulnerable is a barometer for where the rest of the world is headed.

While the nation was cringing last week and every media outlet buzzing about the neo-Nazi imagery from Charlottesville, another story reminiscent of the Third Reich emerged from, of all places, Iceland.

CBS tweeted out the story with the tagline: “Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion.”

“With the rise of prenatal screening tests across Europe and the United States,” read the report, “the number of babies born with Down syndrome has significantly decreased, but few countries have come as close to eradicating Down syndrome births as Iceland.”

More than a few people found the tone of the article and its headline…celebratory. Among them was actress Patricia Heaton, whom you may remember as Deborah from “Everybody Loves Raymond.” Heaton blasted CBS for the headline and the story, pointing out that “Iceland isn’t actually eliminating Down syndrome. They’re just killing everybody that has it. Big difference.”

Amen. Of course, as CBS goes on to admit, “Many people born with Down syndrome can live full, healthy lives, with an average lifespan of around 60 years.”

That’s not the half of it, actually. Research published in 2011 in the American Journal of Medical Genetics found that 99 percent of individuals with Down syndrome report being happy, 94 percent of their siblings express pride in their brother or sister with Down syndrome, and just 4 percent of parents regretted their decision to keep their child.

This is important for one simple reason: The entire argument for aborting children diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome is based on quality of life. It’s not a medical concern.

Such children, goes the argument, are an unwelcome burden on their parents or on society, and in the end, will live unhappy lives. So, “it will be better for them,” we are told.

But if you or a friend has someone with Down syndrome in the family, you know nothing could be further from the truth! Those with “Downs” are often the most joyful and loving people you meet.

Even more horrifying, Iceland is a small country, but other larger nations aren’t lagging far behind in this eugenics experiment. In Denmark, 98 percent of children diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb are killed. In France, it’s 77 percent. And in the U. S. it’s a shameful 67 percent.

When asked why such high percentages of babies with Down syndrome are aborted, Icelandic geneticist Kari Stefansson admitted it wasn’t for medical reasons. Rather, it’s due to “heavy-handed genetic counseling,” or pressure by authority figures to abort.

One pregnancy counselor in Iceland told CBS, “We don’t look at abortion as a murder…We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication…preventing suffering for the child and for the family.” Or in other words, trust us, “it’s for your own good…”

Tell that to Thordis Ingadottir and her beautiful seven-year-old daughter, Augusta, one of the few people in Iceland with Down syndrome who hasn’t been killed. The pair have become crusaders for those with disabilities, so that they will be “fully integrated on [their] own terms” into society. After all, asks her mom, “What kind of society do you want to live in?”

That’s a good question, as prenatal screening becomes more widely available, and much of the world grapples with this new breed of eugenics. Make no mistake—what we’re witnessing here is the systematic extermination of children who are, by society’s standards, less than perfect. It’s worth remembering that the first groups killed by the Nazis in their quest for perfection by eugenics were those with disabilities.

Will ours be a similar society, in which we claim to eliminate disabilities by eliminating those who have them? It’s up to you and me to decide.

This proves the ESPN sport’s TV channel is off her rocker, and part of the political left

Read the story.

Tucker tries to debate someone who calls those on the other side of the transgender-military debate names


Hot sauce along with spraying kids with water as punishment

In this video the mother acts mean. If done the right way I believe hot sauce can be a good punishment.I know not all of you will agree. The little boy also is a good actor. What do you think.
Also what do you think about spraying your kids with water as punishment. Do you think it is good, or would work. Again if it is done right way perhaps it is a good idea. Watch this video.
Post your thoughts to these two videos. Tell me if you have done these punishments, had them done to you, or would use them on your kids.

San Fran Paying $190,000 to ILLEGAL Immigrant?!’ Tucker Can’t Believe


Don’t think TV impacts the way we behave