Sunday, May 31, 2009

What is man?

I'm watching a National Geographic special on the size of the universe.

NatGeo showed a scale model of our solar system. With the sun at the very end of the end zone on a football field, and the size of our model sun being the size of a small ball (maybe, 4 inches across), the earth would be near the closest goal line (and would be so tiny that a million of them would fit into this small sun-ball) while Neptune would be about 160 yards away, out of the stadium, out in the parking lot.

The narrator said that if all the galaxies in the universe suddenly turned to peas, there would be enough of them to fill a sports stadium (like a professional football stadium).

On this scale, our entire solar system must be like a single atom on just one of those little peas (The narrator said that an atom is to an orange as the orange is to the entire earth).

All this gives new meaning to the question the writer of Hebrews asks of God, "what is man that you are mindful of him?" (Hebrews 2:6).

Indeed, considering the unbelievably violent, hateful and rebellious history of humankind, it is amazing that the creator doesn't just dispose of his rebellious human experiment with no more thought than a scientist might have in disposing of rotten elements over a Bunsen burner.

Ejecting Jews from Judea and Samaria

Recently, President Obama met with Palestinian leaders, Mahmood Abas. Now Abas is telling reporters that "he is convinced that US President Barack Obama is firmly committed to finally ejecting the Jews from Judea and Samaria."

American Christians and Jews should become firmly committed to ejecting this president from office in the next election.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Obama administration attacks free speech

According to the Washington Examiner:
A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus projects has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It's a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

The Examiner then cites a White House blog post by "Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform."

"First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

"Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

"Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact."

For the full blog post by Eisen, go here.

Another long range missile?

Fox News is reporting that satellite intelligence indicates that North Korea may be preparing to launch a long range missile. Secretary Gates threatened North Korea with strong words and it calling for sanctions.

Ooooh, I'm sure North Korea is shaking! This is what North Korea thinks of our "sanctions."
"It is a laughable delusion for the United States to think that it can get us to kneel with sanctions...We've been living under U.S. sanctions for decades, but have firmly safeguarded our ideology and systems while moving our achievements forward. The U.S. sanctions policy toward North Korea is like striking a rock with a rotten egg."
The Left seems to have an unshakable (naive) faith in the essential goodness of mankind and in the power of endless negotiation. The possibility that negotiations and sanctions might not work is apparently unthinkable to them. They are out of ideas.

Friday, May 29, 2009

School vouchers work!

Four experts in educational research say that studies show that school vouchers work!

Even if the studies proved to be valid, however, that would not be likely to make any difference. Democrats are much more concerned about what the powerful National Education Association thinks than they are about the quality of our kids' education.

Assassination threat

A Pennsylvania newspaper ran an ad calling for the assassination of Barack Obama. The ad read,

"May Obama follow in the steps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy!"

The editor said his advertising staff didn't make the historical connection! (Do they even teach American history in schools any more?)

I hope the Secret Service catches this nut. I may not like Barack Obama but anyone who threatens his safety deserves to spend some quality time in a nice federal prison!

Obama's connection to ACORN

The extent of Obama's connection with ACORN, "which receives 40 percent of its revenues from taxpayers," is slowly beginning to come out.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

The consequences of same-sex marriage

Five university law professors and the legal council for the American Jewish Conference have sent a letter to a New York Assemblyman warning of the potential consequences of a New York same-sex marriage bill. Below is a summary of the likely consequences:

* Religious colleges may be sued for not making their married student housing available to same-sex married couples.

* Religious colleges may be sued over their codes of conduct that prohibit same sex relationships.

* Religious owners of private businesses may be sued for refusing to provide services to same sex weddings (e.g. florists, photographers, etc.).

* “Religious camps, day cares, retreat centers, counseling centers, or adoption agencies can be sued…for refusing to offer their services to members of a same-sex marriage.”

* Religious organizations and even churches may be sued if they fire employees for marrying someone of the same sex.

* Religious organizations like colleges, hospitals or social service organizations may be denied government grants or contracts if they refuse to provided their employees with same-sex spousal benefits.

* Religious charities that oppose same-sex marriage may be denied access to government facilities.

* Religious “Doctors, psychologists, social workers, counselors and other professionals who conscientiously object to same-sex marriage can have their licenses revoked.”

* Religious non-profits that object to same-sex marriage may be denied licenses for food service, child care, etc.

* Religious colleges may have their accreditation revoked for refusing to recognize same-sex marriage.

* Religious organizations may have their tax-exempt status stripped for objecting to same-sex marriage.

The letter cites the legal reasons for all of this and also cites actual cases in which these things have already happened. The issue is that once same-sex marriage is legalized, the flood-gates of litigation are likely to burst wide-open.

Bear in mind that this is not the fear-mongering of some right-wing special interest group looking for money. Nor was this letter signed by a coalition of right-wing talk show hosts. The letter was sent by law professors from universities like the University of Missouri, Washington and Lee, Valparaiso University, and Notre Dame.

But these professors have a solution. They suggest a “marriage conscience protection” clause which would read something like this:

No individual, no religious or denominational institution or organization, and no organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, shall be penalized or denied benefits under the laws of this state or any subdivision of this state, including but not limited to laws regarding employment discrimination, housing, public accommodations, licensing, government grants or contracts, or tax-exempt status, for refusing to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges related to the solemnization of any marriage, for refusing to solemnize any marriage, or for refusing to treat as valid any marriage, where such providing, solemnizing, or treating as valid would cause that individual, corporation, association or organization to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, provided that

(a) a refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges related to the solemnization of any marriage shall not be protected under this section where (i) a party to the marriage is unable to obtain any similar services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges elsewhere and (ii) such inability to obtain similar services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges elsewhere constitutes a substantial hardship; and

(b) no government official may refuse to solemnize a marriage if another government official is not available and willing to do so.
This seems like an excellent compromise solution (though I have significant trouble with provisions a and b. Someone’s religious convictions cannot be compromised simply because someone else may be inconvenienced).

If gay rights activists were to latch on to this and push for it would show that they really are interested in compromise and tolerance after all. The benefit to gay-rights activists is that it would absolutely take the wind out of the sails of most opposition to gay marriage.

On the other hand, if gay rights activists oppose such a compromise it would show that all their vaunted talk about tolerance was really only just a smoke screen to hide their agenda, they really are every bit as anti-religion as they often appear, and they don’t give a rip about individual conscience or religious liberty.

Please read the entire letter. The link is on ADF.

Introducing Jesus

This is comedian Steve Harvey on how he would introduce Jesus. He is talking to a secular audience.

Americans United attack Liberty

Liberty University recently "revoked its recognition of a student-run Democrat club." That doesn't mean the students can't have the club, it just means that it cannot use official Liberty University logos, and will not receive university funding.

Liberty took this stand because the Democrat's support for abortion and homosexual sex is not compatible with the mission of the university.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has filed a complaint with the IRS to revoke Liberty's tax exempt status.

If "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" really believes in the separation of church and state, why are they asking the state to interfere in the internal matters of a private Christian university?

According to OneNewsNow,

Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University law school, calls the complaint "frivolous" and says Liberty will ask the IRS to review whether Americans United should lose its tax-exempt status for regularly supporting Democratic Party positions.
I agree with Liberty's position and applaud them for having the guts to stand up to the "Americans United" bullies.

If the IRS presses forward with this issue, Liberty's lawyers should then demand that the tax exempt status of probably 90% of American Universities be re-examined for their extraordinarily unbalanced support of pro-Democrat and anti-Republican issues and politicians.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

San Diego Bible Study forbidden

According to a report on OneNewsNow, Pastor David Jones in San Diego County got a visit from his county government. According to Pastor Jones:
Well, on Good Friday we had an employee of San Diego County come to our house and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly and in violation of the code in the county.
And all this time I though San Diego was part of America. I didn't realize it was part of the old Soviet Union.

Intimidation tactics

This is scary...and no, I don't mean Mr. Gingrich :-)

An offensive display

Debbie McLucas is a hospital supervisor in Texas. After she recently put up a display, another supervisor (originally from another country) and some patients complained because they found the display offensive. The other supervisor took Debbie's display down and the hospital will apparently require that it stay down.

What was this terrible, offensive display?

It was the American flag.

If this other supervisor finds our flag so offensive, perhaps she should return to the country from which she came.

The 57 state solution

Remember on the presidential campaign when candidate Obama said that he had traveled through all 57 states. Many of us wondered how it was possible for a presidential candidate to make such a mistake. Any grade-schooler knows better.

According to CNSNews, President Obama is interested in a "57 State" solution to the mid-east crisis. No, not 57 United States. The 57 states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

I find it intriguing that when candidate Obama tried to recall the number of states in the United States, the first number that came to his mind was the number of states in the Islamic conference.

Of course this doesn't mean anything, but it does explain what was otherwise a very puzzling gaff.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Racism on the Supreme Court

According to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Imagine, for a moment that someone like John McCain had said, "a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina (or black) woman who hasn't lived that life."

Everyone would immediately condemn him for outrageous racism. Just because Ms. Sotomayer is Hispanic does not make her comments any less racist.

Then, there was a case in Connecticut in which white firefighters were denied promotion for no other reason than the color of their skin. What happened was that when not enough African-Americans passed the fire department test, the department refused to promote anyone.

Can you imagine the response if a fire department refused to promote people of color because not enough white people passed the test? Everyone would be outraged by the blatant racism.

When this case came before the three-judge panel on which Sotomayer sat, her opinion was that it was perfectly OK to discriminate against white men.

Many on the Left don't seem to think discrimination against white men is racist. Just like many white people fifty years ago undoubtedly didn't think that discrimination against blacks was racist.

Another North Korean missile

Fox News is reporting that within the last few minutes, North Korea has fired yet another test missile.

Sonia Sotomayer and policy decisions

The Supreme Court debate is about justices who believe justices who believe in interpreting and applying the Constitution as it stands vs. justices who believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document that changes as the culture changes.

When the Constitution is interpreted as a living, breathing document that can change as culture changes, the Constitution becomes not much more than a worthless piece of paper in the hands of justices who see it as their duty to make policy decisions. In the hands of such justices, "freedom of religion" could easily be re-interpreted as "freedom from religion," just like freedom of speech and freedom of religion have been re-interpreted by the courts to mean that absolutely no religious speech or influence is to be allowed in public schools (except, in some cases, for Islam).

It is not the job of the courts to make "policy decisions." It is the people, through our elected representatives in Congress who make U.S. laws and policies.

In an interview, Obama Supreme Court appointee Sonia Sotomayer made it abundantly clear where she stands on this issue. When Ms. Sotomayer wins the nomination--which she will, thanks to all the Christians who voted for Obama--we will be one step closer to losing our freedom in America.

Sonia Sotomayor nominated to Supreme Court

This morning, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The New Republic has a good--fair and balanced--article on Ms. Sotomayor.

Thomas Sowell's random thoughts


I've never read anything by Thomas Sowell that I didn't like and learn from. This morning Dr. Sowell has an article entitled "Random Thoughts" that reads something like modern day Proverbs. A couple of my favorite were:
If increased government spending with borrowed or newly created money is a "stimulus," then the Weimar Republic should have been stimulated to unprecedented prosperity, instead of runaway inflation and widespread economic desperation that ultimately brought Adolf Hitler to power.

Much discussion of the interrogation of captured terrorists ignores the inescapable reality of trade-offs. The real question is: How many American lives are you prepared to sacrifice, in order to spare a terrorist from experiencing distress?
Read the whole article on Townhall.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Muslims, the Left and women

Ever wonder how it is that so many on the Left who champion the rights of women, also defend the Muslims who oppress women? Check out Ashley Herzog's excellent article on this topic.

Nancy Pelosi in China

On a day in which North Korea has just conducted underground nuclear tests and fired one or more missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, Nancy Pelosi is apparently in China trying to get them to change their position, not on North Korea, but...

on global warming!

Could the Democrats possibly be more out of touch?

Iran and North Korea

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that Iran has no cooperation with North Korea on nuclear or missile technology.

Are you relieved?

President Obama responds

President Obama just gave a short statement to the press about North Korea. He said that North Korea's actions are a blatant violation of international law and of U.N. resolutions. President Obama said that the actions of North Korea pose a great threat to world security and we will work with our friends and allies to stand up to this threat.

Pardon my skepticism, but if I were a betting man, I would bet that this response is not much more than threats of sanctions and more negotiation.

So far North Korea has thumbed its nose at the United States and the U.N. so I am very skeptical that further sanctions and negotiations will do any good, and yet, according to Obama's own admission, North Korea poses a great threat to world security.

Some pundits say that China holds the key and that they could put an immediate end to North Korea's nuclear weapons program--and even an end to the current regime.

As someone who knows little to nothing about foreign policy, my question is this: Why not began aggressively providing South Korea, Japan and Taiwan with anti-missile defense systems and threaten to provide them with nuclear response capability if North Korea's nuclear program is not dismantled?

There is no doubt that this would get China's undivided attention immediately. It might even convince them to do something about North Korea.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

The gospel of love and tolerance

Last Sunday while on vacation, I attended the church of a well known pastor, theologian and author for whom I have a great deal of respect. I even use one of his books as a textbook for one of my classes. But last Sunday, I was disappointed in what appeared to me to be a very one-sided sermon.

The pastor—whom I will not name—began by quoting from a passage in Matthew 25 in which Jesus says that when you help those who are hungry or in prison, you are helping Jesus. This was illustrated with a poem that brought home the point in a very powerful way. So far, so good!

Then the pastor made the point that we need to have radical, unconditional love—first, for ourselves. We need to believe all the things the Bible says about us—about how God loves us and gave himself for us and how he accepts us unconditionally.

And then, loving ourselves unconditionally, we need to love others with the same radical, unconditional love. The pastor talked about loving the unlovable; the homeless and addicts, etc. He talked about loving even the Taliban and very evil criminals—he gave a particularly heinous example. We need to see absolutely everyone as people for whom Christ died.

The pastor then argued that we need to stop the critical and judgmental voice in our heads which finds fault with others. We need to stop trying to “fix” their issues. This need to “fix it” has caused endless bloodshed down through the ages. It is God’s job to fix it and we need to stop trying to do it for him.

The sermon was powerful, even moving some to tears.

I agreed with the basic point the pastor was making: Christians need to see everyone as people for whom Christ loved so much he was willing to die. We need to reach out to these people in love and compassion regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference or sin. We need to be very careful about judgmentalism and self-righteousness. On this much, we agreed.

On the other hand, I had several significant disagreements with the sermon—and I take time to point these out only because this pastor’s sermon seems to be the emerging paradigm of modern Christianity. So I’m not just disagreeing with this one pastor. I’m disagreeing with the whole model presented by this emerging “Christian” paradigm.

First, the pastor seemed to be unwittingly replacing the God of the Bible with a modern politically correct, nonjudgmental god of unconditional love and tolerance. According to this pastor, following this god means putting to death the “demonic” critical, judgmental spirit that infects so many brains.

I’m sure the pastor was talking about the fault-finding and judgmental attitude of many people who feel the need to critique and condemn every little area of other people’s lives. Unfortunately, in the absolute, unqualified sense in which this pastor presented this point, I found myself thinking that the prophets, the apostles and even Jesus himself would have stood condemned under this pastor’s criticism.

Elijah, for example, mocked the prophets of Ba’al, saying that perhaps their god was in deep thought, sleeping, or “relieving himself” (1 Kings 18:27, ESV). Isaiah mocked those who cut down a tree and used part to cook their meal and worshiped the other part which they had crafted into an idol! Jude compared his opponents to “unreasoning animals” (Jude 10). In Second Peter the author calls his opponents “arrogant,” and likens them to dogs returning to their vomit and pigs wallowing in mud (2 Peter 2:10-22).

In Galatians Paul sarcastically comments that those who want to require circumcision for salvation should just go ahead and cut the whole thing off (Galatians 5;12). And according to the Book of Acts, Paul was “filled with the Holy Spirit” when he turned to a sorcerer and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10). Finally, Jesus called some of his opponents “blind guides,” “hypocrites,” “whitewashed tombs,” “snakes,” “vipers,” and sons of hell (Matt 23:13-36)

It is certainly true that, generally speaking—and probably the vast majority of the time—Christians should “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) but it is equally true that the Bible teaches there also a time for anger. There is a time for righteous indignation, the condemnation of evil and the exposing of false teaching; and this pastor’s sermon seemed to imply that all judgment and all criticism is demonic. That would make the prophets, the apostles and Jesus demonic!

Second, while it is certainly true that God loves people so much that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8), the pastor’s sermon left the impression that God is pleased with us regardless of our behavior. While many people may welcome this message, it flies in the face of the very Bible this pastor was purporting to proclaim. The Bible is clear that there are behaviors that please God, and there are behaviors that do not please, God.

Paul, for example, says that he speaks “not to please man, but to please God” (1 Thess.2:4). He urges the Colossians to live their lives “in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him” (Col.1:10). Paul reminds the Thessalonians that he taught them how they “ought to walk [conduct their lives] and to please God” (1 Thess.4:1). He tells the Philippians that their sacrificial gift was “pleasing to God” (Phil.4:18). He tells Timothy that living a peaceful, quiet, godly life “is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior” (1 Tim. 2:3, cf. 1 Tim.5:3-4). Similarly the author of Hebrews exhorts his readers, “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Heb.13:16). By contrast, Paul writes that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom.8:8).

If we truly love God we will want to live a life pleasing to him and will sincerely repent when we fail. In fact, those who really do not want to live a life pleasing to God and do not sincerely repent when they fall, need to follow Paul’s exhortation to examine themselves, to see whether they are really "in the faith" at all (2 Cor.3:15). The impression left by this sermon, however, was that God is perfectly pleased with us regardless of our behavior; and that idea is absolutely foreign to the Bible.

Third, we really need to be careful about throwing the word “love” around without defining it. Doing this allows every listener to fill that vague concept with any content they want. Many people probably associate love with some warm, fuzzy, sentimental feelings. Warm feelings may certainly accompany love, but love is not just warm feelings.

The re-defining of "love" is why so many people conclude that “a loving God” wouldn’t allow suffering; or, “a loving God” would let anyone go to hell. Rather than understanding love in its biblical context, they re-define “love” to fit their preferences, and try to impose their particular definition on the biblical writings.

Defining love requires a context. Biblically speaking, God’s love is defined in terms of statements like “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son” (John 3:16) or “but God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). That is the ultimate expression of God’s love.

Even today understanding the meaning of “love” requires a context. Imagine, for example, that you saw someone jump on a homeless man, violently throwing him to the ground and hitting him in the face so hard that it knocked the homeless man out. Would that be love? Most people would say, absolutely not!

But what if this homeless man were in the process of raping some little girl! If the use of violence was the only way to stop the attack, wouldn’t the use of violence be the loving thing to do?
Some will argue, of course, that this is a rather extreme example, but it illustrates a point. There is often no such thing as undiscriminating love. Sometimes loving one person means taking strong action against another. The police have to deal with this regularly when “love” for a victim may mean violently subduing or even shooting an attacker. Or when a judge shows mercy to some criminal, the judge is often (knowingly or not) demonstrating contempt for this criminal’s victims.

When people don’t think clearly about love, they often support such unloving actions as leniency or release for unrepentant criminals, or some people may even oppose war that is intended to stop genocide, imperialism or mass destruction because they think that war, by definition, is unloving.

The pastor often spoke in such broad generalities as to leave the impression that all Christians should always be loving (whatever that means) to all people regardless of the circumstances. The point is that when the idea of “love” is just flippantly thrown around and left undefined, the result is often worse than meaningless

Third—and this is just expanding on the previous point—the pastor seemed to be blurring (or erasing) the distinction between the responsibilities God gives to individuals as opposed to the responsibilities God gives to governments. You cannot just apply commands given to individuals directly to government, like for example, the command to “turn the other cheek.”

There were undoubtedly members of the police, the military, and the justice system in the pastor’s audience. Was he saying that the police should “turn the other cheek” when confronted with violent resistance? Was the pastor saying that all military conflict is evil and if so, what does that mean for Christians in the military? Should a Christian judge always show leniency and mercy to criminals? The pastor didn’t say this, but this was certainly the impression I got from the sermon.

Such teaching would fly in the face of the very Bible the pastor purports to proclaim. Paul talks about legitimate government authority saying that government is God’s “agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong doer” (Romans 13:4). Biblically speaking, as a private citizen I do not have the authority to punish a “wrong doer,” but the government does.

Similarly Peter writes about governors who are sent by God “to punish those who do wrong” (1 Peter 2:14). God has not given private citizens the authority to take the law into their own hands by “punishing wrong.” But God has given that authority to governments.

Finally, against all pacifists and anti-war radicals, the writer of Hebrews insists that there are times when some wars are “just.” He writes in glowing terms about Jewish heroes who “became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies,” and who, “through faith conquered kingdoms” and “administered justice” (Hebrews 11:33-34).

Of course that doesn’t mean all wars are just—the vast majority are undoubtedly just plain evil. But it does mean that a sermon which implies that love means never judging, never criticizing, never fighting and always being tolerant of everything, is very unbalanced, misleading and even unbiblical.

In all fairness, however, this sermon was just part of a series the pastor was preaching so he may have covered (or was planning to cover) some of these other aspects in another sermon in the series, which is why I have chosen not to give pastor’s name.

Homosexuality and taxes

A gay-activist group in California has filed a compliant with the IRS to challenge the tax-exempt status of the Roman Catholic Church in Maine for trying to overturn Maine's same sex law.

Taxes can be a very effective way of censoring speech with which the government disagrees. The tax exempt status of religions organizations is a way to protect the First Amendment rights of such organizations from Government censorship.

Gay-activists don't care about First Amendment rights for religious organizations and have no problem with attempts at censorship through taxation.

The gay-rights controversy is not about equal rights for Adam and Steve. It is about Freedom of Religion in America.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Gay-activist tolerance

Fox News is reporting that,
A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect, and acceptance--and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as five years old.
Five years old?! Are they kidding? Someone should file sexual abuse charges against the school district!

This is supposedly about teaching kids not to bully, but you can teach kids to be kind and not to bully without teaching five-year-olds about sexual preferences! Do the schools single out every possible group that might be subject to bullying: African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, the disabled, people who are too short, tall, or fat, Jews, Muslims or Evangelical Christians? Of course not! Why make this about homosexuals--unless the agenda is to promote homosexuality?

But it gets worse! What about parents who have religious convictions against homosexual behavior? What about their First Amendment rights?What about parents who just think five years old is just too young to teach children about homosexuality?

The school board has no tolerance for such people!

its attorneys say that if the curriculum is adopted, the parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class when the lessons are being taught.

"By not allowing kids to opt out," says David Kirwin, who has two children in the system, "the school district is violating a First Amendment right for those who have a religion that doesn't support homosexuality."

California is not the only state to refuse to let parents opt out of such state-brainwashing. Massachusetts did the same. You can expect more states to follow as "gay-rights" becomes accepted public policy.

This is the Left's version of tolerance. This is tolerance gay-activist style. The gay-rights debate is not about whether Adam and Steve should get the same benefits as a married couple. That is purely a smoke screen. This debate is about the future of freedom of speech and religion in America.

The sound you hear is your children's freedom being flushed down the toilet.

America sides with Iran over Israel

The Obama administration has apparently warned Israel not to take out Iran's nuclear capability.

It is a very sad day for America when we forbid one of our closest allies from defending itself from an enemy sworn to wipe them off the map, especially when Iran shows every intention of being serious about it.

I'm not ashamed to be an American, but I am ashamed of our government. We simply must elect a Congress in 2010 that will balance out this disgraceful administration.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Obama administration and union corruption

According to an op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao,
From 2001-2008, the Labor Department secured more than 1,000 union fraud-related indictments and 929 convictions.
Nevertheless, regardless of such egregious union criminal fraud,
Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues.
Not only that but the new Obama Labor department announced that it "would not enforce compliance with the conflict-of-interest disclosure form (the "LM-30" form) that was revised in 2007."

Then, in responce to declining union membership, the Democrats are pushing the Orwellian-titled "Employee Free Choice Act" which would take away the rights of union members to a secret ballot, putting union members in danger of intimidation and even violence if they don't vote the way union bosses want.

When will we just call corruption by its name? Maybe a better question is, when will union members realize that Democratic politicians are not their friends? Democratic politicians are much more interested in the financial and political benefits they can get from union bosses than they are in helping the average worker.

Read the entire excellent article in the Wall Street Journal.

Enhanced interrogation techniques

Today Dick Cheney called on Barack Obama to release the documents on the results produced by the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" techniques. President Obama has released--for all of our enemies to see--the methods used, but he refuses to release documents containing information about what we learned from these methods.

For years the Left has dogmatically asserted that enhanced interrogation techniques absolultely, positively do not work! Now is their chance to prove their point once and for all. So why don't we hear from the Left--politicians, Hollywood elites, the liberal media, the ACLU--demanding that the administration release the documents to prove once and for all that enhanced interrogation methods do not work?

The answer is that the Left knows that if the CIA releases the results of the enhanced interrogation metionds, the Left's dogmatic propoganda will be shown to be nothing but a pack of lies! According to people in a position to know, these methods have saved hundreds, if not thousands of American lives and the Left does not want that inconvenient truth out.

Democrats block investigation

According to the Associated Press,
House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects.

The House voted 252-172 to block the measure that would have created a bipartisan congressional panel. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, sponsored the resolution.

On the one hand, we have the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, charging the CIA with lying to Congress, and on the other hand, we have the CIA and others charging the third highest government official in the nation--Nancy Pelosi--of lying to the American people in her efforts to coverup her knowledge of waterboarding.

Wouldn't you think "the most ethical Congress in history" would want to know the truth, one way or the other?

The fact that Democrats defeated this resolution can only mean one thing: Democrats can't handle the truth, which appears to be that while Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were threatening to end people's careers and threatening to throw people in prison for their involvement in waterboarding, the Democrats knew about it all along and, by their silence, gave their approval!

The next Congressional election is coming up in about 18 months. If ever there was a time to throw the bums (Democrats) out of office, this is it!

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Abstinence education

According to OneNewsNow:
Irene Ericksen of the Institute for Research and Evaluation says that media reports continually claim that abstinence education is a failure and that comprehensive sex ed is the only way to reduce teen pregnancies and promote safe-sex practices. She adds that they continually site a federal study that is riddled with myths and did not find abstinence education effective.

"These same people aren't aware that there are 16 studies of comprehensive sex education programs in the schools," Ericksen points out. "Actually 64 percent of the studies that have been done of comprehensive sex ed in the schools have found that they have not been effective at increasing teen condom use."

Obama appointees

For all my Christian brothers and sisters who voted for Barack Obama, you really should know what it is that you voted for (Hat tip: Don B.)

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Gaza and the two-state solution

The Egyptian government has discovered a massive weapons stockpile headed for Gaza. The Jerusalem Times reports:
An Egyptian official assessed that the 266 rockets, 51 mortar shells, 21 grenades and 43 mines uncovered in northern Sinai were meant to be smuggled to Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip.
Robert Spencer comments,
...imagine if all of the money and effort that has been poured into waging jihad against Israel had been spent on developing Palestinian-controlled areas. Those areas could resemble Monaco or Dubai. But the Palestinian leadership and their allies have opted to seethe in hatred, squalor, and perpetual warfare.
How can Western governments in general, and the Obama administration in particular, be so blind as to not see this?

Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for "the two state solution" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is.

And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel!

How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Obama: our debt is "unsustainable"

According to Bloomberg:
President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

No kidding! After spending a trillion dollars of our children's money President Obama is just now coming to that conclusion?

APA and the "gay gene"

Has the APA revised its position on the "gay gene?"

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Angels and Demons

Angels and Demons opens this weekend. Learn more.

Government control of small banks too?

According to the AP, "The Obama administration will use bailout money repaid by large banks to provide additional capital infusions to smaller banks, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Wednesday."

This raises several questions.

1) Will the small banks be pressured--even coerced--to receive government money (with all the strings attached) like the large banks apparently were?

2) Will the government refuse to accept re-payment so they can keep their tentacles attached to the banks?

3) Is the Obama administration engaged in a step-by-step overthrow of American capitalism?

4) Where will it end and what will be left of our freedom?

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

More Acorn fraud comes to light

Recently the Wall Street Journal published an outstanding article on fraud in Acorn. This is another one of those, "if you only read one article today, read this one"!

Some excerpts appear below:
On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of Acorn's forms "are clearly fraudulent." On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election.

Fred Voight, deputy election commissioner in Philadelphia, protested after Acorn (according to the registrar of voters and his own investigation) submitted at least 1,500 fraudulent registrations last fall. "This has been going on for a number of years," he told CNN in October.

Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007.
According to Marcel Reid, one of seven Acorn whistleblowers, "Acorn has been hijacked by a power-hungry clique that has its own political and personal agendas". Anita MonCrief, another Acorn whistleblower warns that "the problems run deep."

President Obama's connection to Acorn is well known. What is not so well known is that in spite of all these, and other legal problems, "Acorn was selected in March to assist the U.S. Census in reaching out to minority communities and recruiting census enumerators for the count next year."

The census count, of course, is used to determine the number of U.S. congressional representatives for each state.

All of this really needs very serious and thorough investigation. It gives the appearance that future elections are about to be rigged and our country is in the process of being overthrown right before our eyes.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Obama apparently thinks torture is funny

Toby Harnden of the U.K. Telegraph was at the Washington correspondents dinner. Mr. Harnden commented on comedienne Wanda Sikes' "comedy routine,
There's not much room for differing interpretations of what Sykes said. She called Limbaugh a terrorist and a traitor, suggested that he be tortured and wished him dead.
President Obama apparently thought a joke about the torture and death of a political opponent was funny.

Can you imagine if President Bush had laughed about the torture and death of some left wing talk show host? It would have been the lead story on every news outlet in the country--probably for weeks!

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Pelosi knew about the interrogations

In defense of her knowledge of CIA interrogation techniques, Nancy Pelosi said,
I was briefed on interrogation techniques the (Bush) administration was considering using in the future. The administration advised that legal counsel for both the CIA and the Department of Justice had concluded that the techniques were legal
Just how does madam Speaker think this is supposed to excuse her or let her off the hook? I would be more sympathetic if she had said she "was briefed on techniques the administration had used." But by her own admission, Ms. Pelosi knew in advance of the CIA's interrogation techniques!

My problem is not with the fact that the CIA used "enhanced interrogation techniques" on known terrorist murderers or that Speaker Pelosi knew of these techniques and allowed them to go forward. My problem is that Ms. Pelosi knew of these methods beforehand, and then after the fact, engaged in, or allowed fellow Democrats to push for a witch hunt which threatened to destroy the careers of, and possibly imprision, those who thought they were obeying the law!

I honestly don't understand how anyone with half a conscience could do what Ms. Pelosi and other Democrats appear to have done.

Friday, May 08, 2009

Democrats knew about waterboarding

After all of the self-righteous fury by Democrats over "enhanced interrogation techniques" including waterboarding, it now comes out that some of them--including Speaker Pelosi--were repeatedly kept in the loop and specifically informed about these methods (Hot Air).

Excuse my own fury, but what kind of low-life, despicable skumbags must those Democrats be who sought to destroy and imprison people for doing the very thing for which they (some Democrats) were informed and gave tacit concent? How can they live with themselves?

The real mystery is why Americans continue to elect them.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Islam Day in Hawaii

UNBELIEVABLE!!! After virtually every trace of our Christian heritage has been removed from the public square, "Hawaii's state senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill to celebrate 'Islam Day."

It will come as no surprise to many of my readers that the Hawaii state senate is almost entirely Democrat!

Democratic corruption

For Republicans, corruption is a problem they often have to deal with--and usually do (corrupt Republicans usually get canned).

For Democrats, corruption seems be be more of a way of life; a political strategy. Corrupt Democrats--like those who don't pay their taxes--often get promoted to higher positions of responsibility!

If you read only one article today, please read Jonah Goldberg's outstanding (and short) article, "Trickle down corruption."

But what would you expect from those who tend to think morality and ethics are all "relative." The only real mystery is why so many Christians voted for them!

OK to pray to Allah, but not in Jesus' name

President Obama has chosen not to attend the National Day of Prayer gathering today, but, according to an NewsMax e-mail I just received, has nominated Judge David Hamilton to the 7th circuit court of appeals. In a decision regarding the opening prayers of the Indiana state legislature,
Judge Hamilton wrote: "The injunction orders the Speaker...that the prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal...If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic 'Allah'...the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others."
So President Obama will not attend the Judeo-Christian, National Day of Prayer rally, but he will nominate a judge who rules against prayer in Jesus' name and for prayer to Allah!

We are losing American right before our eyes!

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Teacher suspended

According to OneNewsNow, "A Christian teacher in England has been suspended after complaining about the use of classroom time to promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle."

That's "tolerance" gay-activist style.

Los Angeles pays people not to teach

According to the Los Angeles Times, "About 160 instructors and others get salaries for doing nothing while their job fitness is reviewed. The collect roughly $10 million a year, even as layoffs are considered because of a budget gap."

Please remember this the next time the teacher's unions beg and plead for more and more and more of your hard earned tax dollars for education.

No matter how much we gave, it would never, ever be enough in their eyes. It's about time they started putting some food on our plates, educationally speaking. That will never happen, of course, until there is school choice and competition.

Oklahoma declares sovereignty!

OK Oklahoma!!! I wish more state legislatures had guts like this!

National Day of Prayer

President Bush supported the National Day of Prayer. President Obama will apparently stay home
(hat tip: Professor ed.)

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Colin Powell on the GOP

Colin Powell seems to think the GOP needs to move farther to the center.

With all due respect to General Powell, many people think that the reason the GOP lost the last election is because we selected a candidate who, if he was any more "center," would have been Democrat!

A two-state solution?

I just saw a clip of Joe Biden arguing that Israel needed to adopt a two state solution.

Didn't they already try something like that? Israelis forced Jewish settlers out of Gaza and allowed the Palestinians to govern themselves. Palestinians responded by electing a terrorist government which has done precious little to help its own people, all the while spending money for unceasing rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

When are we going to ask Palestinians to make concessions before forcing Israel to move forward with peace talks? How can you move forward with peace talks when one side won't even recognize the existence of the other side? How can you move forward with peace talks when Palestinians brainwash their kids to hate Jews?

Obama administration--open and honest

The Obama administration has announced that it will not release the "$328,835 snapshots of an Air Force One backup plane buzzing lower Manhattan last week."

This fiasco was an embarrassment to the Obama administration so it is certainly understandable why they would not want the photos released.

On the other hand, Barack Obama promised a more open and honest administration. I guess that means his administration will be open and honest about matters that don't embarrass them--just like previous administrations.

Monday, May 04, 2009

Israel, Palestinians, Iran and WMD

"Thwarting Iran's nuclear program is conditional on progress in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel" (Jerusalem Post).

The sound you hear is the sound of the United States hanging Israel out to dry--which, of course, is exactly what candidate Obama promised not to do!

Israel has done everything possible to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. Palestinian leaders don't want peace they want Israel's destruction, and now, thanks to the Obama administration, Israel may soon have a nuclear sword leveled at their necks.

This is Obama saying, in effect, we will allow Iran to develop the technology to carry out their threats to wipe Israeli Jews off the face of the earth if you Jews don't do exactly what the Obama administration tells you. This administration is evil!

Israel shouldn't waste much time appeasing the Palestinians or Obama--its not like Obama was going to do anything about Iran anyway.

Sunday, May 03, 2009

The media, biased?

The media, biased? What are you talking about?


The trashing of Miss California

Kevin McCullough is upset at the way Miss California was treated. The only question is, why aren't there more who are upset? The verbal abuse spewed by her enemies tells us a lot about her enemies. Please read Kevin McCullough's article.

Friday, May 01, 2009

Swine Flu in perspective

For better or for worse, this article puts the Swine Flu in perspective.