Internet Fairness Doctrine?

One would think that Attorneys at Law, people who have had legal training and are licensed to practice in these fifty states (not 57 as the current occupant of the Oval Office once said), would have a firm grasp of the intention of the Framers of the Constitution when they drafted the First Amendment.  Yet at the same time as they are contemplating a renewal of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for the public airways, aimed at shutting down any dissenting opinion on talk radio, the current administration in Washington is looking at doing the same thing to those of us who offer an opinion on the internet.  World Net Daily reports this morning:

 

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

    The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama's friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O'Leary, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

    Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

    "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

    Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory "electronic sidewalks" for the Net. These "sidewalks" would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as "The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet."

"Apparently in Sunstein's world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires," Thierer wrote.

    Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be "too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns." He also acknowledged that it was "almost certainly unconstitutional."

    Perhaps Sunstein's most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book "Nudge," written with Richard Thaler, for a "Civility Check" for e-mails and other online communications.

    "The modern world suffers from insufficient civility," they wrote. "Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don't send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven't learned the rule or don't always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month."

    That's where the "Civility Check" comes in.

    "We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you're about to send is angry and caution you, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'" they wrote. "(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.' With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather's birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!)."

    Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views:

 

-- In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.

 

-- In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."

 

-- In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ..."

 

-- In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."

    "As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team."

    O'Leary disagrees.

    "It's hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein," he says. "Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that 'limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.' If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online - right down to our personal e-mail communications - would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government."

Read that last once more.  Do you want the government routinely reading your e-mail, inspecting it for acceptable content, and then either passing or denying it's delivery to your intended reader?  I can't conceive a less palatable concept to anyone who loves liberty, yet this "leading constitutional scholar" (BHO's words) would deny the right of self expression to all Americans.  Can you imagine the size and scope of that bureaucracy?  Why is it that Democrats want to stop any dissenting opinion?  Is it because their own viewpoint is so weak that they find it difficult to defend?  I'm still searching for an honest liberal ...

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Government vs. Conscience

In his daily Breakpoint e-mail, Chuck Colson addresses the constitutional question of where Human Rights come from.  Quoted  below, you can find it on the BreakPoint Archives as well.

 

    As I've said before on BreakPoint, the Obama administration is planning to revoke the Bush-era "conscience clause" that protects health-care workers from having to perform procedures that violate their conscience - procedures like abortion.

    A leading postmodern scholar, Professor Stanley Fish, defended Obama's stance recently in the New York Times. Fish's reasoning should disturb anyone who believes that human rights come from a higher source than government.

    Fish's argument relies on 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. To Hobbes's, "the Law is the public Conscience" and must take precedence over the judgments of an individual's "private Conscience" so that government can maintain order.

    Fish points out that the U.S. Supreme Court "has ruled that when the personal imperatives of one's religion or morality lead to actions in violation of generally applicable laws - laws not promulgated that is, with the intention of affronting anyone's conscience - the violations will not be allowed and will certainly not be celebrated."

    Well, that's true to a point. But Fish is being disingenuous when he speaks of "laws not promulgated with the intention of affronting anyone's conscience." Of course laws aren't passed deliberately to offend people, unless the lawmakers are deranged. But there are undeniably cases in which the law attempts to force decent people to act against their conscience in matters of justice and human rights.

    Has Fish forgotten that this country used to have a law forcing the return of escaped slaves? Today, we rightly regard people who disobeyed that law as heroes. While the ownership and mistreatment of human beings may have been legal, it was immoral to the core.

    It is also immoral for human beings to be involved in the deliberate taking of innocent human lives. As Professor J. Budziszewski notes, that is one of those things "we can't not know." And we know it because there is an authority higher than human government from which we derive our rights, and that authority has written His law on every human heart.

    The principle is set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the cornerstone of American government: "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."

    When health-care professionals refuse to perform or assist in an abortion because it violates their conscience, they are obeying a Higher Authority and His laws - the laws to which He holds every human being.

    This is a principle articulated by great saints like Augustine and Aquinas and at modern times by Martin Luther King, who, in his famous letter from a Birmingham jail, echoed Augustine: "An unjust law is no law at all."

    To argue that human law must always supersede conscience is an invitation to tyranny. The Bill of Rights is an acknowledgement that certain rights - like freedom of religion - are simply, or should be, beyond government's reach.

    Let's hope - and pray - that the Obama administration will decide not to force medical professionals to choose between their consciences and their livelihood. For their sake, and for the sake of all of our own freedoms.

 

It appears that the current administration intends to continue leading the people of the United States away from the dictates of conscience, and the truths of Scripture, in order to further their extreme liberal agenda.  What will be next?  Read the Declaration of Independence, which includes this line at the second paragraph:  "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."

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

100 Days in Office, Obama coronated [sic] Messiah

This item from World Net Daily this morning (Sunday, April 27, 2009):

 

    On his 100th day in office, President Obama will be "crowned" in messianic imagery at New York City's Union Square.

    Artist Michael D'Antuono's painting "The Truth" -- featuring Obama with his arms outstretched and wearing a crown of thorns upon his head -- will be unveiled on April 29 at the Square's South Plaza.

    According to a statement released about the portrait, "The 30" x 54" acrylic painting on canvas depicts President Obama appearing much like Jesus Christ on the Cross: atop his head, a crown of thorns; behind him, the dark veil being lifted (or lowered) on the Presidential Seal. But is he revealing or concealing, and is he being crucified or glorified?"

    Even the title of the piece, "The Truth," suggests a play on biblical themes, as Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

    "More than a presidential portrait," writes D'Antuono on a website touting the painting, "'The Truth' is a politically, religiously and socially-charged statement on our nation's current political climate and deep partisan divide that is sure to create a dialogue."

    Like others in the news who have depicted Obama in Christ-like imagery, D'Antuono insists he isn't claiming the man is Messiah, but only inviting "individual interpretations."

    "'The Truth,' like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder," claims the exhibit's press release.

    D'Antuono even invites the public to email him with reactions to the piece, answering his posed question, "What's your truth?"

    As WND has reported, D'Antuono follows others who have cast Obama in messianic imagery.

    In January, artist Matthew J. Clark paraded a sculpture of Obama riding a donkey and preceded by waving palm fronds, reminiscent of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem in the 21st chapter of Matthew as foretold by the prophet Zechariah: "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass."

    Like D'Antuono, Clark was also unclear about whether his piece was proclaiming Obama to be the Christ or making some social commentary. Clark's website described the sculpture in vague terms:

    "This project was inspired by my thoughts about 'icons' and religious symbols and whether they represent truth or merely represent," Clark's website reads. "The sculpture poses a question that relates to social conventions, metaphysics, and the collective response of society in reaction to fearful and uncertain times, but doesn't impose an answer. For me, it has much more to do with the general public as followers than any leader granted power."

    Others, such as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, have been far clearer in their nearly religious adoration of Obama. As WND reported, Farrakhan declared last year that when Obama talks, "the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

    Addressing a large crowd behind a podium with a Nation of Islam Saviour's Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaimed, "You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

    Farrakhan pointed out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as "the Savior," Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.

    "A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he said. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

    WND previously reported a website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" capturing the wave of euphoria that followed the Democratic senator's remarkable rise.

    The site is topped by an Obama quote strategically ripped from a Jan. 7 speech at Dartmouth College just before the New Hampshire Primary in which he told students, "... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote" for Obama.

    WND also reported on near-religious experiences surrounding Obama on the campaign trail, as supporters who came to hear him speak on several occasions fainted in the middle of the candidate's speeches. As WND reported, some compared the fainting to fanatical swooning in the midst of a mesmerizing preacher; others, like radio host Michael Medved, thought the collapses were staged moments; and still others believed it was simply a matter of people standing in the crowds too long and growing dehydrated.

    P.J. Gladnick of NewsBusters, in an article about D'Antuono's painting on the eve of the Obama administration's 100-day-mark, notes that the messianic parallels begun early in the presidential campaign don't seem to be stopping:

    "The artist quite clearly portrays Obama as a latter day Christ-like figure, considering the outstretched arms and the crown of thorns. Obama worship, complete with halo images, has been noted before," writes Gladnick, "but it was nothing compared to current expressions in awe of 'The One' as we approach his hundredth day in office on Wednesday."

My friends, this just gets weirder and weirder.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

A Jobs-Killing Bill

From the Heritage Foundation this morning:

 

    Testifying on Capitol Hill yesterday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Transportation Secretary Roy LaHood, and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson all pitched the latest cap and trade bill in the House as a "jobs bill." Jackson told the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "This is a jobs bill, and it is a jobs bill that focuses our country's energy on the growth industry of the future." But when Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) asked Jackson how her agency was able to release a cost estimate of the bill after she admitted she had not even read it, Jackson replied: "We had to make assumptions." You know what happens when you make assumptions, don't you?

    The "preliminary analysis" released by Jackson's EPA found that cap and trade would cost the average American household an extra $98 to $140 a year. These numbers are far below most academic studies of cap and trade legislation. For example, a study done by MIT Professor John Reilly found that a scheme modeled after the far more lenient Warner-Lieberman cap and trade bill would cost the average American household a combined $3,900 every year in higher energy costs and taxes. Our own Center for Data Analysis shows Lieberman-Warner would have cost the U.S. economy $4.8 trillion by 2030.

    And then there are the Americans that will lose their jobs completely due to cap and trade. Affirming his belief that carbon taxes would create jobs, Secretary LaHood emphasized "especially green jobs." And what exactly are green jobs? No one knows.

    An academic study of eco-leftist rhetoric released earlier this year shows that there is no standard definition of what a green job is, and most studies that purport to show green job creation ignore the other jobs that are destroyed by energy taxes. When "green jobs" are well defined, studies show that alternative energy policies kill more jobs than they create. President Barack Obama loves to cite Spain as an example of his preferred green job future but a study released last month by researchers at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos shows that for each job created in Spain's renewable energy industry, 2.2 jobs were destroyed elsewhere in the economy.

    We live in a fiercely competitive global marketplace. If carbon taxes were a sound way of creating jobs and economic growth our global competitors would be jumping at the chance to adopt them. Instead we see the opposite: China has said they will never sacrifice their economic growth to reduce carbon emissions and India has called the trade off between carbon caps and economic growth "morally wrong." The smarter way to insure against the possible risks of global warming is to enact policies that will ensure robust economic growth. History shows that richer is greener.

Do you suppose those assumptions made by Jackson's underlings at the EPA are listed in the report?  I bet not, at least for public consumption.

 

Read more about the Myth of "Green Jobs" at the Heritage Foundation web site.  And be sure to read the comments, because many of them are as informative as the article itself  FWIW, I have a neighbor who works in the "Wind Energy Industry."  He tells me that all the parts of these giant windmills are built in SouthEast Asia...

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Beauty Pagaent 'Controversy'

Read the article and Watch the Video --

Question: Is there, or is there not, a radical homosexual agenda being played out here?  Would she have won the contest had she answered differently?

Are You an 'Extremist'?

Doctor Thomas Sowell writes today:

    While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanmo, the director of homeland security is worried about "right-wing extremists."

    Just who are these right-wing extremists?

    According to an official document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It also includes those "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority."

    If you fit into any of these categories, you may not have realized that you are considered a threat to national security. But apparently the Obama administration has its eye on you.

    According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security "has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." But somehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere, somehow.

    So-called "honor killings" by Muslims in the United States, including a recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security.

    When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN -- its members harassing the homes of bankers and even the home of Sen. Phil Gramm when he opposed things ACORN favored -- the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.

    Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing "extremists" who don't like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

    In one sense, the Department of Homeland Security paper is silly. In another sense, it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration -- and their willingness to witch hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them.

    Reportedly, the FBI and the Defense Department are cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security in investigations of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. That people who have put their lives on the line for this country are made the target of what is called the Vigilant Eagle program suggests that this administration might be more of a threat than the people they are investigating.

    All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.

    Why such an organization? For what purpose?

    Since there are state and local police forces all across the country, an FBI to investigate federal crimes and a Department of Justice to prosecute those who commit them, as well as a Defense Department with military forces, just what role would a federal police force play?

    Maybe it was just one of those bright ideas that gets floated during an election campaign. Yet there was no grass-roots demand for any such federal police nor any media clamor for it, so there was not even any political reason to suggest such a thing.

    What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared to existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration -- and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law enforcement traditions.

    In short, a federal police force could become President Obama's personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers.

    Perhaps there will never be such a federal police force. But the targeting of individuals and groups who believe in some of the fundamental values on which this country was founded, and people who have demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering for military service, suggests that this potential for political abuse is worth watching, as Obama tries to remake America to fit his vision.

This Country just gets scarier and scarier.  I keep wondering what kind of world our grandchildren will live in, once Barack Hussein Obama gets done with it.

 

This column is posted here -- http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042109.php3

An archive of Dr. Sowell's columns -- http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html

 

Good God, people!!  "What Were You Thinking?"

Sarah talks about Trig

Protesters or Terrorists? Update #2

In 2006, Hillary Clinton said the following:  "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration." 

 

But to listen to some of the Lefty Liberals today, you would think that Democrat politicians like Hillary Rodman Clinton are the only ones allowed to disagree with a sitting administration.  Au contraire, mon frere!  As long as BHO is conducting the business of the United States in a manner inconsistent with the principles laid down by the founding fathers, thinking people everywhere will continue to express their disagreement.  They will continue to carry the debate forward, trusting that as an increasingly bloated government bureaucracy intrudes even further into their lives, even those now supporting the Lefties will come to their senses.

 

"Ignorance" can be remedied by education, but "Stupidity" is the most expensive commodity in the country today.  "Willful Ignorance" is the most egregious component of Stupidity, and unfortunately seems to be a state of bliss for those who helped elect BHO..

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

President Obama's Foundation of Straw

This just in, from The Heritage Foundation this morning:

 

Stealing from the Sermon on the Mount to defend his administration's economic record this Tuesday, President Barack Obama urged Americans to "build our house upon a rock" instead of "the same pile of sand" it had been built on before. In Obama's hands, the teachings of Jesus become just another way to tell the story of the Three Little Pigs. And a close examination of Obama's new "five pillars that will grow our economy" shows that Obama is trying to build our new foundation with straw.

  The problems begin with the fact that Obama continues to link his pre-existing policy preferences to our current economic problems. The Washington Post editorial board writes: "The agenda focuses on education, renewable energy and health care. ... But as his admirable summation of recent history made clear, these pursuits have little to do with the economic crisis, and they are not the key to economic recovery." Worse, in all "five pillars" Obama cites, his administration already has, or is proposing, to make economic recovery more difficult.

  New Rules for Wall Street: Our financial sector is long overdue for regulatory consolidation and simplification, but so far all of Obama's actions have only increased market uncertainty by extending government's fumbling hand. Using the Treasury Department's TARP slush fund, the Obama administration has taken over major firms, set employment practices for entire industries, and laundered money to failing firms.

  New Investments in Education: No policy area has better exposed the administration's hypocrisy than education. Despite the administration's vow to support "what works" in education, mere days after a Department of Education study showed that students in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program out performed their peers, Education Secretary Arne Duncan took scholarship money away from low-income families. This brazen act makes it clear no real education reform has any hope in this administration.

  New Investments in Renewable Energy: President Obama admitted last year that his energy plan would cause electricity prices to "skyrocket." His cap and trade plan would amount to an economy-killing trillion-dollar energy tax. A new study from Spain shows it will generate a huge net job loss.

  New Investment in Health Care: Obama says the key to reducing future deficits is health care reform that contains costs. But his own budget admits his plan will require $634 billion more in new spending just as a down payment. How do you decrease trillion dollar deficits by spending trillions more?

  New Savings in Our Federal Budget: The most widely acknowledged untruth in Obama's budget is the phantom savings he claims by first making spending projections that no one else ever proposed and then cutting them. Remember this is the candidate who in October of last year was still promising the American people a "net spending cut" before enacting a purely deficit spending "economic stimulus" that was larger than the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

  As Charles Krauthammer points out today, Obama's "New Foundation" rhetoric is a mirror image of President Jimmy Carter's 1979 State of the Union speech and his energy and education policies are no different either. And we know how well that presidency worked out.

Read Dr. Krauthammer's The Sting in Four Parts at the Wasnhington Post.

Another view from the Post's editorial staff: Clarity in Need of Courage.

And Eugene Robinson describes The Bases Obama Didn't Cover.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Protesters or Terrorists? Update

Fox News interviewed Steven Robertson, Director of the National Legislative Commission at the American Legion, and got his opinion of the report issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

 

Then this morning, the Fox News team interviewed Janet Napolitano, who is in Mexico with the President for talks about the border.  She was asked about the DHS report.  After a lot of stammering and stuttering, she gets pushed to admit she had not even read it, but said she was briefed (although she wouldn't admit to having "signed off") on the report.

 

Steven Robertson interview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FixBaPxUFs

Janet Napolitano interview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78wulwAB5b0

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Protesters or Terrorists?

Does anyone else remember Hillary Clinton's speech when she railed against those who thought her criticism of George Bush was a bit "over the top"?  I know it was on YouTube, but a persistent search failed to find it this morning.  Hillary's speech came to mind yesterday as I read about the current administration's take on political dissent.  Apparently Obama doesn't feel the same way about those who would criticize him.

 

The Department of Homeland Security put out an Assessment document (dated 7 April 2009) titled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgance in Radicalization and Recruitment.  If you try to find the document on the DHS web site you will be directed to a press release (dated April 15, 2009) by Director Janet Napolitano about the document, but probably not the document itself.  We can, however, thank WorldNet Daily for publishing the entire PDF document -- http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf -- which should be read by anyone who values liberty and would like to see it remain for our grandchildren.

 

Roger Hedgecock reported on the DHS assessment Monday and Michelle Malkin did so the next day. Michelle also provides the document for your inspection.  Ed Morrissey provides more commentary, building on what Roger and Michelle reported.  Let me just add this:  I saw an interview this morning with Napolitano, who is in Mexico today with the current occupant of the Oval Office, and heard her use the word "terrorist" in the same sentence with the term "military veterans."  I sincerely hope that I misunderstood what she believes about those of us who have honorably served our country in uniform.

 

We reported here on 23 March that the current administration had chosen not to use the term "Terrorism" for the actions of those Islamo-fascists who pose a violent threat to the security of our country, instead choosing to call it "Man-Caused Disasters."  It is extremely discouraging that the Director of the Department of Homeland Security would now think it acceptable to use the term "terrorist" for members of our own honorable military services.

 

Intelligence Assessment Document, dated 7 April 2009 -- http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

Napolitano Statement dated April 15, 2009 "clarifying" -- http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1239817562001.shtm

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

To Exorcize or Not To Exorcize...

On the same day that Terry Mattingly writes an article titled "American Exorcist 2009," George Barna releases a report on a survey of 1871 Americans (all self-described Christians) titled "Most American Christians Do Not Believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit Exist."

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

22weeksthemovie

What actually goes on inside an abortion clinic?

 

Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship Ministries, talks about a film on abortion called 22 Weeks in today's BreakPoint article.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Rick Warren's Holy Week Crisis

Sandy Rios is host (hostess?) of a radio talk show in Chicago.  In an article posted Friday on Townhall.com she addresses a "flip-flop" made by well-known Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church regarding Proposition 8, a reforendum on marriage put before the voters in California in 2008. Read the article at Townhall.com (along with comments) or below:

    "Even if others do, I will never deny you," declared the Apostle Peter some 2000 years ago just hours before he did exactly that, three times, when the heat was on. Ten others boasted the same, but when the risk was more than theoretical, all deserted Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Only one was seen at the cross.

    A fascinating story - the "old story" as the secularists like to call it. Barack Obama alluded to this in his speech in France. We need a new story, a discovery of "new ways" of thinking. We must throw off the old and embrace a much more enlightened, intelligent point of view. By doing so, we remove inconvenient barriers, cumbersome moral values and achieve self-determination with our new understanding of the world guiding the way. Surely we cannot be bound in this advanced new age by the old moral codes or put plainly, by what Jesus taught. Certainly not if we are to curry favor with the world in which we live.

 

    This Holy Week, a key portion of the "old story" has been revisited in a very contemporary way. The last instruction Jesus gave as he left earth was Christ followers should tell His story of forgiveness and redemption not only in their communities, but to the "ends of the earth." And as His followers told the "old story" they should not leave out all the other things as well. In the second part of the Great Commission, Christ admonished his followers to teach others "to obey all the things I have commanded you." He wanted future generations to go beyond mere intellectual understanding and move to actually living out the principles ... walking the walk.

    One of those principles was marriage. "For this reason shall a man leave his parents and join with his wife and the two shall become one flesh," Jesus instructed. One man, one woman, for a lifetime, with no sex outside of that union.
    Fast forward to 2009: California voters of various religious persuasions, in a ballot measure called Proposition 8, held to the traditional view of marriage - a union between a man and a woman. Subsequently challenged in court, as the battle ensued, Pastor Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and pastor of Saddleback, one of the largest churches in the country, deeply influential, rightly told his congregation ..."if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear." Until this week ... Holy Week.

    On the first Holy Week Peter promised Jesus, "Though others may turn away, I will never deny you." But then in the chill of night in a courtyard just outside the place of Jesus' trial, as others around the fire began to probe his relationship to Jesus, he quietly denied even knowing him. No one was threatening his life, but the derision increased and with every barb, until Peter's denial escalated to a curse as he emphatically denied he had ever known Jesus.
    Peter was worried about his reputation. He didn't want to be the odd man out in the courtyard over the fire ... it wasn't a Roman soldier with a sword who challenged him, it was a mere servant girl.

    "On moral issues I come out very clear," declared Rick Warren when writing in the safety of his office. But when confronted by homosexual friends and Larry King this week, he folded just like Peter. Now, to be clear, he did not deny Christ, but he backpedaled so fast from where he previously stood and reinterpreted his previous statements in a way that strains credulity. He went on to describe how he has "apologized" to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of Proposition 8. He "never once gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment, he declared.

    And in one fell swoop, he not only separated himself from the biblical teaching on marriage, but distorted the past in the process. Seduced by the pressure of fame? Driven by the desire to please his friends? Afraid to be seen as bigoted to a national television audience? Whatever the motivation, the behavior is no less significant.

    Rick Warren did not deny Christ on Larry King. But every believer who was watching had to question whether Rick was being faithful to the commission Christ left him with: Teaching others to "obey all the things I have commanded you." And obedient biblical teaching on marriage is not a particularly difficult matter. Unpopular? Yes. Unclear? Hardly.

    After Peter executed his betrayal, he went out and wept bitterly. On Larry King, Rick Warren went on to tell about his profuse apologies to his gay friends. In the broad scheme of things, I don't think Rick Warren needed to apologize to them at all. An apology to Christ? Now that would be entirely in order.

    This Holy Week, let's pray America's Pastor Rick Warren will not let this story end here.

It's time for each of us to determine what will guide our life: popular cultural opinion or Biblical Truth.

"What Were You Thinking?"

Marriage as Stereotype

From the Heritage Foundation last Monday:

 

This past Friday the Iowa Supreme Court rewrote the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Justifying their rejection of the argument that "the optimal environment for children is to be raised within a marriage of both a father and a mother," Justice Mark Cady wrote: "The research ... suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else."

 

First of all, the court is just wrong on the facts. Children whose parents marry and stay married have been found to have better health and are less likely to be depressed, are less likely to repeat a grade in school, and have fewer developmental problems than other children. If poor women who have children out of wedlock were married to the actual fathers of their children, nearly two-thirds would be lifted out of poverty immediately.

 

But let's leave the social science aside for a moment. The real story here is the court's dismissal of the traditional family as a mere stereotype which unmasks the left's true agenda here: the rejection the nuclear family as the core of civil society. Heritage's Matthew Spalding explains:

 

What is happening is no minor adjustment... It does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose. Expanding marriage supposedly to make it more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement, necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the institution into something different: a mere contract between any two individuals.

 

And as the New York Times reported last week, the sanctity of contracts are under assault everywhere. Raising kids today is a challenge even for "stereotypical" mothers and fathers. As mother of three and syndicated columnist Rebecca Hagelin details in her new book, 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family, often it seems as though popular culture seems to want to turn your children against you. But Hagelin also offers a practical 30-day plan to help all busy moms and dads fight back. 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family is filled with simple steps that parents can take to help their children become healthy adjusted adults. Because it isn't just parents who are hurt by decisions like the one last week in Iowa, it is also our kids who are being bombarded by a contaminated culture. Lucky for America, Hagelin's book hits the stores today.

"What Were You Thinking?

What Causes Partisanship?

Some folks think that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Others ask, "What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?"  Whichever group you find yourself in, a new report by the Pew Research Center tells the informed observer that Barack H. Obama has the "most polarized early job approval rating of any president in the past four decades."  More than even George W. Bush, who was widely accused by Democrats of being a totally partisan president, totally divisive.

 

You can read the statistics for yourself; I must say I've often thought it interesting that when George W. Bush was in office, the Democrats were continually calling for "bipartisan" approaches to issues of national import.  Since the recent election and installation of the current occupant of the Oval Office, I've seen no such calls reported in the major media outlets.  What's up with that?

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Obama's Treasury Secretary

 Honest Mistake?

"What Were You Thinking?"

You Voted for Obama?

Our local fish-wrapper had this editorial cartoon in today's edition.  Thanks to Chuck Asay; you can find an archive of Chuck's work here.  You'll also find a link there where you can thank Chuck for his political acumen.

I think I'll go buy a car today ;-) 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Judicial Watch: Corruption at Fannie Mae

    Judicial Watch is a private government oversight organization dedicated to "Promoting Integrity, Transparency and Accountability in Government, Politics and the Law."  They do so, in the words on their masthead, "Because no one is above the law."  Anyone can sign up on their website for a weekly News Update.

    Today's update included information that should give pause to those who continue to blame the previous administration for the problems in the housing finance markets.  Here's the lead-in to the article:

    New Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Show Congress Ignored Corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for Years

    Barney Frank and his liberal allies in Congress have more explaining to do.

    According to new documents we uncovered this week, members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues even while liberals in Congress (led by Frank) continued to block attempts to regulate the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).

    We obtained these documents from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we submitted back on December 4, 2008. This is part of our comprehensive investigation of the government's role in the financial crisis, but our particular concern in this case was the policy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase lending to individuals with poor credit risk, as well as correspondence and records about contacts between FHFA and Fannie and Freddie.

You should read the entire article, and also read and evaluate the original documents.  If this isn't enough evidence to convince you that voting for this current bunch was the wrong thing to do, I don't know what will.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"

Veritas ... on Campus?

A lot of you will already be aware of The Veritas Forum.  If not the forum, you probably remember the founder, Kelly Monroe Kullberg, who wrote Finding God At Harvard (1996). A brief review:  "She presents the compelling testimonies of forty-two faculty members, former students, and distinguished orators at Harvard. Their candid reflections explode the myth that Christian faith cannot survive a rigourous intellectual atmosphere."  Today's To The Source column has an interview with this interesting lady, who also wrote a book titled Finding God Beyond Harvard (2006).

 

This article at To The Source begins with the destructive riots we've all seen yesterday and today in London, protests against the meeting of the G-20 powers.  Then this paragraph:

When Kelly Monroe Kullberg arrived at Harvard Divinity School in 1992, she saw that many of her fellow students felt isolated in their search for meaning and truth. She found that, despite a great hunger, the university had jettisoned such deep and essential topics. There was a yawning chasm facing the sincere seekers yearning to know more about ultimate truth and goodness. Ironically, at Harvard, whose motto is Veritas, there was a longing for truth. So Kullberg founded the Veritas Forum. The inaugural event in Cambridge drew 700 participants for a weekend of lectures and discussions about how the pursuit of knowledge in the university relates to the truth claims of Jesus Christ. The momentum has only grown since then.

 

Read the To The Source article.  Check out The Veritas Forum.  Remind yourself what Veritas means.  Then consider what "True Truth" is.  How about a couple more quotes?

    Academicians tend to reduce "knowing" to data analysis and lab results. They often feel the need to do this     because most grants require quantified results. So we see a growing surplus of information but a scarcity of wisdom.

    Harvard was founded in 1636 For Christ's Glory (In Christi Gloriam) and later Veritas (Truth) in Christ and the Church, and yet today we see a rise in depression, disease and even suicide. Ironically, the earth-shattering life and brilliant mind of Jesus Christ are rarely explored in the classrooms.

    Our presenters include Dallas Willard, William Lane Craig, John Stott, Tim Keller and many humble scholars who explore questions and connect them to the person and story of Jesus Christ. The world's story is too small to live in. We want to help one another consider the reality of a larger and more wonderful story, the Gospel, which provides an ample place to live.

 

God Bless,

Ron

Texas Forges Compromise Over Creationism

WorldNet Daily yesterday reported that public schools in Texas will no longer be able to teach only that science coursework that supports evolution, but must now also provide their students with arguments critical of the Darwinian theory.

    Public school students in Texas will be called on to "analyze, evaluate and critique" evidence that undermines Darwin's theory of evolution as well as evidence that supports the belief man and all other modern life has developed from primordial sludge, following a vote by state officials.

    "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which had argued before the Texas Board of Education for students to have the right to review all of the evidence, not just what evolutionists want presented.

    The decision initially was praised by pro-evolution factions for the board's decision to remove the guidance that students should study the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific evidence. However, West told WND the replacement policy now includes requirements for students to "analyze, evaluate and critique" all such provisions in evolution, such as the concept of common ancestry and natural selection.

It seems to me that an honest and open discussion is the best way to approach any such issue, with both sides clearly presented for critical evaluation.

 

"What Were You Thinking?"