Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Democrats defeat abortion proposals

According to the Washington Times,

The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday defeated two proposals to limit abortion coverage in the emerging health care reform plan.

The proposals from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, would have restricted public or private health plans that include abortion coverage and would have strengthened protections for health care providers from discrimination if they refuse to provide an abortion.

Without these protections, Christian and Jewish medical professionals who cannot in good conscience assist with abortions stand to be sued and lose their jobs. The Catholic Church has threatened to shut down every Catholic hospital in the country if they are forced to do abortions.

It is very important to note that our Constitution does not say we have "freedom of worship." It says we have freedom of religion. There is a huge difference.

This country was founded by people who risked everything to flee England where they were being forced to violate their deeply held religious convictions. When the government forces people to violate their conscience and religious convictions, they do not have freedom of religion, even if they have freedom of worship.

While Democrats expend a lot of hot air talking about bi-partisanship and "freedom of choice" they apparently don't care about our actual constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

The defense of Roman Palanski

I think we are beginning to see the depths of depravity to which some in Hollywood and the Left have descended when they actually defend Roman Polanski:
His victim, Samantha Gailey, told a grand jury that the director had plied her with champagne and drugs and taken nude pictures of her in a hot tub during a fashion shoot. Polanski then had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance and requests to be taken home, she said.
She was 13 at the time!
The director originally faced charges including rape and sodomy but they were dismissed following plea bargaining and he admitted unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
Read the story in the

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Obama's safe-school Czar

A fifteen year old boy comes to his teacher and tells the teacher that he is having sex with an older man. Needless to say, sex with an underage kid is illegal and the teacher was obligated by law to report the fact.

Not only did the teacher NOT report the incident, the teacher encouraged the relationship, cautioning only that the boy be sure to use a condom.

So what is to become of such a perverted teacher?

Barack Obama appointed him as his safe-school Czar!

You just couldn't make this stuff up! Read the entire story at the Washington Times. Then go here and read about the media's appalling double-standard.

Countrywide destroyed records

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The discovery that Countrywide Financial Corp. recorded phone conversations with borrowers in a controversial mortgage program that included public officials -- and that those recordings have been destroyed -- has prompted new congressional calls for more information about the program.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is trying to subpoena the remaining records of Countrywide's VIP loan program. So far, the committee's chairman, New York Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns, has turned down that request.

What's that? The Republicans want to subpoena the records but the Democrats want to block this? Isn't this called a cover up? I have this sneaking suspicion that if the truth came out we might find some Congresspeople who need a "time out" in prison.

So what about the Justice Department? Are they going to investigate this, or are they too busy investigating already-cleared CIA agents who were just doing what their government demanded?

Monday, September 28, 2009

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

I recently heard of someone who asked, "Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons since Israel has them?"

That's a little like asking, "Why shouldn't criminals have guns if law abiding citizens have them."

Iran is criminal nation. It has a long record of exporting violence and terror. It has repeatedly threatened the West with violence and Israel with extinction. Iran's proxies have continuously bombed Israel's innocent citizens and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Israel, on the other hand, just want's to live in peace. If Muslim nations would recognize Israel's right to exist and stop all terrorist threats and attacks against Israel tomorrow, we would have peace in the Middle East. It is as simple as that.

Oh, wait. No, it is really not quite that simple. Muslim nations would still go to war against other Muslim nations and Muslim groups would still slaughter the "infidels" and blow up other Muslims in mosques. They've been doing it since Muhammad died.

John Bolton on Iran's missile tests

According to the Washington Times:

The apparent escalation of Iran's nuclear-weapon program is the result of President Obama readily following the Bush administration's failed foreign policies while focusing on health-care reform, former United Nations Ambassador John R. Bolton said Monday.

"While we've been fiddling around, Iran has been making progress," Mr. Bolton said hours after Iran reported the successful launching of longer-range missiles -- the third round of missile tests in two days.

I couldn't agree more. Iran is not just a problem of the Obama administration. President Bush negligently left this one for Obama to clean up--and he is clearly not up to the task.

Something potentially far worse than Nazi Germany is on the rise and like Neville Chamberlain before World War II, the West's response is rhetoric, appeasement and wishful thinking.

Iran: Missile capable of hitting Israel

According to the Associated Press, Iran is claiming to have test-fired Shahab-3 missile this morning. The Shahab-3 is capable of carrying a warhead far enough to hit Israel and "U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and parts of Europe."

While Iran get closer and closer to developing nuclear warheads to put on top of these missiles, President Obama does what he does best--give speeches. "Bad Iran. Shame on you!" Iran is no doubt trembling at the sound of our rhetoric.

Actually, that's not fair. President Obama has actually taken action. He canceled our missile defense contracts with our allies in Eastern Europe!

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Super bunker-buster bombs

According to DEBKAfile:

The Pentagon has brought forward to December 2009 the target-date for producing the first 15-ton super bunker-buster bomb (GBU-57A/B) Massive Ordinance Penetrator, which can reach a depth of 60.09 meters underground before exploding. DEBKAfile's military sources report that top defense agencies and air force units were also working against the clock to adapt the bay of a B2a Stealth bomber for carrying and delivering the bomb.

The Pentagon has ordered the number of bombs rolling off the production line increased from four to ten - a rush job triggered in May by the discovery that Iran was hiding a second uranium enrichment plant under a mountain near Qom - a discovery which prompted this week's international outcry.

Congress has since quietly inserted the necessary funding in the 2009 budget.

Read the entire story at DEBKAfile.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Osama bin Laden's latest tape

A new tape has been released in which Osama bin Laden calls the politicians in Washington a "gang of criminals."

What? Hasn't he heard that the evil George Bush is now gone?

Hasn't he heard that Barack Obama is now President?

Hasn't he heard how Mr. Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia?

Hasn't he heard how President Obama has apologized for all the evil we've done in the world?

Hasn't he heard how the President has snubbed our allies and appeased Muslim nations?

Hasn't he heard how we are distancing America from Israel?

Hasn't he heard President Obama's extended hand and unclenched fist speech?

Wasn't this supposed to make the world love us? Wasn't this supposed to help bring peace?

Naw, it was all a Leftist dream. Let's just hope they wake up before its too late.

G-20 protests and the anti-war movement

This morning on Fox and Friends, Mike Huckabee made an accusation I had never heard before but had suspected. He said the violent Leftist protesters at the G-20 summit at Pittsburgh were paid protesters who travel all over the world to protest for hire.

I would think this accusation should be investigated. I'm sure Pelosi's "most ethical Congress in history" will get right on it!

I always thought it was strange that all of the anti-war protests during the Bush administration have have not recurred during the Obama administration--especially in light of the facts that 1) American soldiers are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) we are not pulling out of Iraq as Obama promised, and 3) we may even be expanding our war in Afghanistan!

It was also pointed out on the show that although the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up for the Tea Parties all over America have been peaceful, many on the Left charged them with the potential for violence, while at the same time pretty much ignoring the actual violence by the Leftist thugs in Pittsburgh.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Islamic human rights

According to Andrew Bossom of the Center for Security Policy,
The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam", was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Now a 57 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth, the OIC, currently headed by Turkey's Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations (UN).
Bossom's article cites this document and concludes,
These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Shari'a -- the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on "divine revelation," which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions the gross inequalities inherent in the Shari'a, and its Western human rights counterparts (the US Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, and stress the absolute equality of all human beings.
The emphasis is mine. Notice that this is not the belief of a tiny fringe group of radicals. This declaration represents the views of "a 57 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth."

Why can't the Left understand this? What is it that makes them so absolutely blinded to the facts?

Regulation and the financial crisis in CA

Does anyone still wonder why California is in such a terrible financial mess? Ed Morrissey quotes a recent study that "finds that the total cost of regulation to the State of California is $492.994 billion which is almost five times the State's general fund budget, and almost a third of the States gross product."

And now Barack Obama and the Democrats want to spread this kind of massive government regulation--and much, much more--to the entire country!

School praise of Obama investigated

According to OneNewsNow, "An investigation is underway into why an elementary school teacher decided to teach a group of students a song that praises Barach Obama."

According to school superintendent Christopher Manno, "There was no intention to indoctrinate children."

Really? One of the songs "was set to 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic,' ["mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord] and included the refrain, "Hooray, Mr. President."

"Another song took a Christian song that talks about Jesus love for all children of all skin colors," but substituted Barack Obama for Jesus.

I'm wondering, just how far over the top one has to go before this superintendent would consider the worship of Obama "indoctrination." I have no doubt that if the kids had been signing the same praises to George W. Bush most on the Left would consider that to be indoctrination.

Read the story at OneNewsNow.

Banned Books Week and censorship

There is an excellent (short) article on the American Library Association's "Banned Books Week" on the Safe Libraries blog.

Senator drops out of investigation

The Washington Times just reported that:

The top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee has pulled out of the panel's bipartisan review of Bush-era terrorist interrogation techniques, saying Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s criminal investigation into the CIA undermines the committee's ability to interview witnesses.

"Had Mr. Holder honored the pledge made by the president to look forward, not backwards, we would still be active participants in the committee's review," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the panel's vice chairman. "Instead, DOJ sent a loud and clear message that previous decisions to decline prosecution mean nothing and old criminal charges can be brought anytime against anyone — against these odds, what current or former CIA employee would be willing to gamble his freedom by answering the committee's questions?"

Read the entire article.

A woman is "used" by the fetus

According to WND, Obama Cass Sunstein, one of Obama's many czars once wrote, "A restriction on access to abortion turns women's reproductive capacities into something to be used by fetuses. .."

Used by fetuses? If a fetus is just a blob of tissue, how can it "use" anything? Would we say that a wart on my hand is "using me"? (I don't have any warts, by the way :-)

On the other hand, if the fetus is a human being, Sunstein may have a point. For example the fetus does use the mother for nourishment .

But if the fetus is a human being, wouldn't the pre-meditated termination of his or her life be murder?

I know these musings are a bit absurd--but so is Sunstien's statement!

Iran's secret nuclear plant

The Obama administration is planning to formally accuse Iran of building a secret nuclear plant.

A secret nuclear plant. That means we didnt' know they were building it. And yet, the Obama administration has proposed eliminating all of the world's nuclear arsenal and President Obama is planning to lead the way.

How can the Left be so sure that once the United States eliminates our nuclear arsenal, other secret nuclear plants and weapons won't be found. By then, of course, it will be too late for America.

Can the Left possibly be any more out of touch?

American genocide against Indians

I recently started reading The 10 Big Lies about America by Michael Medved. Medved graduated with a degree in American history from Yale with departmental honors. In the first chapter he discusses the accusation by some on the Left that America engaged in genocide against the Indians.

It is a lie.

You would think that evidence for such genocide would come from Presidential proclamations or Congressional legislation. No such evidence exists. What historians do have is some letters written seventy-four years apart by from individual soldiers on the field. Medved writes,
"By far the most famous example involves the ferocious 1763 war known as Pontiac's Rebellion, in which Great Lakes tribes came together to destroy British forts and settlements after the English had defeated the Indians' allies the French in the recently concluded French and Indian War. On May 1, the Ottowa leader Pontiac told and assembled council of various tribes' warriors (according to a French commander): "It is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which seeks only to destroy us" (italics added).

Ultimately, the natives succeeded in wiping out eight forts and murdering hundreds of troops and settlers, including women and children. Victims were variously tortured, scalped, cannibalized, dismembered, and burned at the stake.

In the midst of the wide-ranging butchery, some 550 white farmers and townspeople (including 200 women and children) jammed into the region's most formidable military garrison, Fort Pitt (on the site of present-day Pittsburgh). On June 22, 1763, the Indians began a siege of the fort. Desperate to prevent the enemy from overrunning his mos sugnificant outpost, the British commander, Field Marshal Lord Jeffery Amherst, ordered Colonel henry Bouquet to organize and expedition to relieve Fort Pitt. In a brief postscript to a lenthy June 29 letter full of command details, Amherst reportedly wrote to Bouquet: "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Posx among the disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every strategem in ur power to reduce them" (Medved 17-18).
Amherst responded with approval. Amherst also sent a letter to another British official expressing his desire to "Bring about the Total Extirpation of those indian nations." His reason for this desire comes out in another letter written to Lord Jeffery in which Amherst
cited the monstrous cruelty he had observed from his adversaries (scalping alive for souvenirs, branding, cutting out and occasionally devouring hearts, torture through slow skinning, piercing bodies with as many as a hundred arrows)..." (Medved, 19).
Medved doesn't excuse U.S. soldiers when they committed atrocities but he makes to case that the atrocities took place on both sides and that at no time did America as a nation ever engage in genocide. Medved writes about the Indian Wars,
In most cases the actions represented not one-sided horrors perpetuated by bloodthirsty white militia against peaceful natives but rather fierce battle with casualties on both sides. Only one instance clearly involved rampaging white militia, and the U.S govenment unequivocally condemned this isolated incident (Medved, 23).
So far the book is outstanding. You can buy it here.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Using artists to promote Obama agenda

Apparently the White House conference call with artists was not an isolated incident:

The White House convened a meeting of 60 artists to help push the president's domestic agenda in May, months before a controversial conference call with artists in August led to the reassignment and, on Thursday, the resignation of the communications director of the National Endowment for the Arts.

In what some critics are calling a "troubling" early effort by the Obama administration to politicize the NEA, rappers, dancers, writers and other activists from around the country were invited to a May 12 session next door to the White House, where they were "challenged to come up with promising and attractive ideas about how artists can work for the administration's agenda," according to a report written by organizers of the meeting.

Read the rest at Fox News.

Netanyahu's speech at the U.N.

I just finished reading the speech Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's gave before the United Nations. It is outstanding! If you have time, you can read the entire speech at at Haaretz. Until then, I've pasted some excerpts below:
Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews.

Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler?s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father?s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing ? absolutely nothing ? from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians ? Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?


Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples ? a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.


Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong.
I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come

Breaking: Car bomb suspect arrested.

Fox New just reported that a Jordanian man has been arrested by the FBI for attempting to car bomb a high rise building in Dallas.

Kudos to the FBI!

UPDATE: See Jihad Watch

Four billion bailout for the Post Office?

According to Politico:
As adopted, the postal agency, which now faces a liability of $5.4 billion due Sept. 30, would have to pay only $1.4 billion and would be allowed to effectively defer the remaining $4 billion until after 2017.

“That’s good news” said a Postal Service spokesman, who argued the arrangement posed no risk for the taxpayer since the retirement fund holds $32 billion at this time. Nonetheless, critics argued the $4 billion will now be added as a potential cost on the government’s books given the fragile state of the Postal Service, and the whole handling of the issue is seen by many as a parliamentary sleight-of-hand.

In other words, while the Democrats argue that the government can run health care less expensively and more efficiently than the private sector, they are essentially proposing a four billion dollar bailout for the Post Office!

Banned Books Week at Cornerstone University

Cornerstone University celebrates "Banned Books Week"

Indoctrinating the children

Unbelievable! Like something right out of Nazi Germany or any of the numerous fascist dictatorships around the world today.

ACORN sues film makers

The Washington Times is reporting that "ACORN on Wednesday sued the duo who shot hidden-camera videos that are damaging the organization's reputation and the Web site that aired them..."

It was ultimately not the film makers who damaged ACORN's reputation. It was ACORN employees who damaged ACORN's reputation!

An appropriate response by ACORN may have been to say, "We thank the film makers for bringing this terrible problem to light and will take every action to ensure that all such corruption is rooted out of our organization."

Instead, what ACORN has done is to say, in effect, "Your tax dollars have made us a very rich organization and we are going to demonstrate that we have the power to make those who cross us pay dearly!"

I think this lawsuit says more about ACORN than all four videos put together because it demonstrates that the problem is not just with a few employees. The problem reaches to the highest levels of ACORN.

And remember, this is the organization for which Barack Obama worked and was so proud.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Government investigation of Humana

According to Fox News:

The federal government resorted to bullying tactics when it ordered an investigation of Humana -- one of the country's biggest private insurers -- for its decision to send customers a letter alerting them about pending health reform legislation, a leading Republican charged Wednesday.

U.S. health officials launched the probe after the Louisville-based company mailed a letter to patients enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans -- private options that replace standard Medicare -- warning that President Obama's health overhaul could eliminate important benefits of the program.

I have to disagree with Fox News. This is not just "bullying tactics." These are fascist tactics and it is really scary! I sometimes feel like America is the Titanic. We've hit an iceberg and are taking on water fast, but most passengers are still unaware of how serious the problem is because, after all, they don't see any water on their floor (Hat tip: Professor ed.)

Be afraid seniors, be very afraid

From Ed Morrissey this morning:
What happens when a mythbuster gets exposed as a mythmaker? Barack Obama has insisted that people who claim that $500 billion in “savings” from Medicare won’t mean any reduction in benefits. Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, says that simply isn’t true. The cuts to Medicare Advantage, which comprise one-fifth of those savings, means reduced benefits for the 25% of seniors using the program.
Be afraid seniors. Be very afraid.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Democrats, relativism and raw power

In 2004 when Massachusetts Senator John Kerry (D) was running for President, the Democcrat controlled Massachusetts Senate became concerned that if Kerry became President, Republican Governor Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican Senator to finish out Kerry's term. The Democrat controlled Senate, therefore, changed the law to prohibit Romney from appointing a replacement.

How quickly things change.

Now Massachusetts has a Democrat governor so the Senate approved a bill that would change the law back again to allow their Democrat governor to appoint a Senator to finish out the late Senator Edward Kennedy's term.

This is relativism at work. For all the Democrats' rhetoric about fairness and ethics, these Democrats were not concerned about what is fair or ethical or even which is the best policy. They were only concerned about maintaining their power.

ACORN: It was the fault of Fox News!

ACORN recently sent out a fund raising letter which says,
"We're used to attacks from Fox News and the Right Wing. They will stop at nothing--certainly not the truth--to take us down. Why? Because when the poor and powerless stay poor and powerless the rich and powerful get more rich and powerful."
Rich and powerful? Is she talking about those "rich and powerful" little girls that the ACORN worker thought she was helping some pimp to smuggle into the United States for prostitution? Is that how ACORN helps the poor?

The same mailing in which ACORN attacks the "rich and powerful"announces that someone has come forward who will match donations to ACORN dollar for dollar up to $20,000! Just to be clear, that's not a $20,000 donation. That is up to $20,000 for every person who donates up to $20,000. Potentially millions! ACORN apparently doesn't consider this rich and powerful.

I like what Ed Morrissey says about all this:
Yes, it was that dastardly Fox News that made Congress - including most of the Democrats on Capitol Hill — stop funding for ACORN. It had nothing to do with the fact that multiple ACORN offices felt comfortable in instructing self-described purveyors of child prostitution in how to evade taxes and detection. No, Fox News snaps its fingers, and Democrats do their bidding. Uh … sure. It’s not for nothing that I call Bertha Lewis the Baghdad Bob of ACORN.
If the videos didn't convince you that ACORN is evil and rotten to the core, this should. Please see Ed Morrissey's post for the full story.

White House pulls artists' strings?

Did the White House use your tax dollars in the form of grants to fund artists' projects that would be favorable to the White House?

Here is the transcript of a conference call orchestrated by the White House get "independent" artists to promote Obama's agendas. As I understand it, some (all?) of the organizations they represent received grant money from the National Endowment for the Arts around the time of the phone call. He is a brief excerpt:
And so I'm hoping that through this group and the goal of all this and the goal of this phone call, is through this group that we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things that we're passionate about as we did during the campaign but to continue to get involved in those things to support some of the President's initiatives but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the President and to push his administration.
Remember, it was the NEA that once funded an "art" project that consisted of a jar of urnie that contained a figure of Jesus on the cross and another one that consisted of elephant dung splattered over a painting that was supposed to be the virgin Mary!

More recently, according to the Free Republic, "The NEA may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco..."

We're finally talking about de-funding ACORN. Perhaps its time to talk about de-funding the National Endowment for the Arts.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Chrisians on trial in England

Many on the American Left want America to be more "enlightened" like European countries. Well, in enlightened England, a couple is going on trial for having the audacity of suggesting that Muhammad was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress is "bondage" (Daily Mail).

A Muslim woman thought this was offensive so they have been charged with violating the law.

This is political correctness taken to its next step and yes, it can happen here if we are not careful. Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution in light of society's current norms rather than considering original intent, can make the Constitution mean just about anything.

Christians burned alive in Pakistan

In Pakistan recently seven Christians were burned alive over false allegations of Qur'an desecration. A Muslim columnist in Pakistan responded to the atrocity in a Pakistani paper:
"If Muslims in the West were treated as we treat non-Muslim citizens of Pakistan, there would be loud accusations of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination. And despite this widespread and rampant discrimination against our minorities, we have the gall to lecture the world about our peaceful values.

"One recurring theme in the media commentary about the Gojra tragedy is how Zia's blasphemy laws have encouraged the persecution of the minorities. Anybody with a grudge to settle or some property [he wants] to grab can swear he saw a non-Muslim desecrate the Koran. Inflaming a mob of bigots is an easy matter for the local mullah [cleric], who is often in on the scam."
You can read the entire article at MEMRI.

Keith Ellision mees with CAIR

According to Jihad Watch,
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Honest Ibe Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements.
But Minnesota's Muslim Congressman Keith Ellision lended legitimacy to this group by speaking at one of their gatherings in Arizona. Read the full story at Jihad Watch.

Deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal

At a time when Iran may now have the ability to create nuclear weapons and when North Korea continues to work on long range missiles to deliver them to the U.S., the U.K. Gurdian is reporting that:
Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.
The Left seems to believe that if they cancel our anti-missile programs and disarm our nuclear arsenal the rest of the world will see our wonderful example and lay down their arms so we can all sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya!

Can they possibly be any more out of touch?

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Obama will not stop the investigation

Even though the CIA has already been investigated and even though seven former CIA directors sent a letter to President Obama pleading with him to stop the current investigation because of the grave damage it will do to U.S. security, President Obama said he would not stop the investigation.

Whose side is he on? The Democrats will do far more damage to America than our enemies have ever done. It is a good thing for President Obama that Republicans do not engage in such vindictive, political witch hunts. If we did, perhaps Barack Obama should be investigated for treason after he is out of office.

Kucinich accuses the FBI

The FBI has arrested a terrorist suspect who was involved in plans to blow up targets in New York.

Moments ago Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich suggested that the FBI may have deliberately timed the release this story to influence the upcoming Congressional debates on the Patriot Act.

Congressman Kucinich did not have a shred of evidence to support his accusation. Congressman Kucinich should be told to "put up or shut up." If he can't produce evidence for his accusation, he needs to issue a public apology for his disgraceful accusations against the men and women of the FBI who are trying to keep us safe.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Research on Spanking

This morning the hosts of Fox and Friends were discussing a new study on spanking that just came out. This particular study only examined the effects of spanking on children under a year old.

The study concluded that children who were spanked before they were one year old, were more aggressive and did not do as well on cognitive tests as children who were not spanked. The study was based on what parents said about their spanking practices and their children’s behavior as well as “home visits by trained observers.”

I’m not an advocate of spanking kids who are younger than a couple years old (though a mild swat on the bottom may sometimes be appropriate), but I must say I am very skeptical of all the studies which supposedly show that all spanking is bad for children. How could such studies control for all the possible variables?

For example, in order to design a valid test that would determine the effects of spanking on children, the researcher would have to design a test that did the following.

1) The test would have to include only children who came from roughly the same kind of families—and no, I do not mean the same race or ethnic background! For example, in these studies on spanking, did the children all come from loving, two-parent families, or did some come from abusive family arrangements? Did some come from divorced or single parent backgrounds? Regardless of how good and loving many single mothers and fathers are, divorce or the lack of a father/mother can have a significant effect on some children’s behavior. A study of the effects of spanking that does not control for family background must be suspect.

2) The test would have to include only children who came from similar religious or non-religious backgrounds. Religion—or lack thereof—can have a profound effect on the behavior even of children. Any study of the effects of spanking that does not control for religion or lack thereof must be suspect.

3) The test would have to include only children who came from families in which the children had pretty much the same school experiences. For example, it would simply not be valid to compare children who enjoy their school experience in good schools, with children who attend schools where intimidation, bullying and even violence are common.

4) The test would have to include only children who came from families in which the children had pretty much the same relationship with their siblings. It would not be valid to compare children who come from families in which the siblings have normal sibling rivalry, with children whose siblings are exceptionally mean, bullying and uncontrolled.

5) The test would have to include children who have similar personalities as well as similar emotional and mental IQ’s—unless of course the researcher wants to assume that DNA and heredity have nothing to do with behavior! There is a kind of “chicken and egg” factor here. Without these controls, the researcher may conclude that spanking caused the rebellious or aggressive behavior when in fact the child’s poor behavior was the reason for which he got spanked in the first place. Those of us who have had children know that some children just seem to be more compliant while others seem to rebel at every turn—and it may have absolutely nothing to do with spanking.

6) The test would have to include only children who came from families which, generally speaking, consistently applied the same basic philosophy of spanking. James Dobson, for example, advocated spanking—but he emphasized that parents should never spank out of anger and that spanking should only be used as a last resort in the case of blatantly rebellious behavior, never, for example, just because the child spilled her milk. There is a world of difference between Dobson’s philosophy of spanking as opposed, for example, to the practice of parents who impulsively spank their children out of anger for all kinds of misbehaviors. We have to realize that when the discussion is simplistically framed in terms of spanking vs. not spanking, the deck has already been stacked. Studies on spanking that do not control for the actual philosophy and method used are meaningless.

If a study did not control for these factors, it would be impossible to know whether the difference in behavior was due to spanking rather than to other factors. I will stick my neck out here and say that no study on spanking has ever been done which controls for even half of these factors!

In an interview on Fox and Friends this morning a child psychologist who opposed spanking was asked, as an example, about spanking to keep kids from running in the street. The child psychologist responded that showing a child the squashed, dead body of an animal run over by a car would be more effective.

I was amazed at the naiveté of this psychologist! Did it not occur to her that forcing a little child to view the squashed and probably bloody guts of a dead animal may be more psychologically traumatic than the spanking?! But even aside from such psychological abuse, the psychologist responded as if all children were the same, or as if all children can be reasoned with.

Both assumptions are ridiculous. For some children, seeing a squashed animal may very well be effective. Other kids would think, “Yeah, so what, I’m smarter than a dumb squirrel. It won’t happen to me.” For many kids (and adults too) what they want to do overrides all reasoned arguments. Sometimes you simply cannot reason with children (nor, apparently with some psychologists)!

In these cases, if legitimate non-corporal punishments work, by all means use them first! But don’t remove from the parents tool-kit the option of appropriate spanking for rebellious behavior when nothing else works (As an aside, I must say at I am puzzled by my grandchildren at this point because in my totally objective and unbiased grandfathers’ opinion, they are always adorable and never have bad behavior)!

If someone really wants to do a meaningful study on spanking, try comparing a group of loving, stable, two-parent families that are serious about their faith and who consistently adopt James Dobson’s philosophy of spanking, with groups of any other alternative family arrangements and non-spanking philosophies, and compare the results.

Until such a study is produced, I think a better indication of the value of spanking may indicated by society as a whole. Since the days of Benjamin Spock and his permissive parenting philosophy (which he later renounced), American society has generally become less civil and much more selfish, mean, rude, and violent (I’ve seen it in education. My wife has seen it in retail. We have all seen it on the highways and in the news). There are many reasons for this, of course, but permissive parenting philosophies which rule out spanking under any circumstances may well be a significant factor.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Federal marriage benefits for gays

In an interesting turn of events, According to Reuters, "on Friday urged a U.S. court to dismiss a lawsuit by gay married couples from Massachusetts who say they were unlawfully denied federal marriage benefits."

Do you know where your money is going?

Nine TRILLION--yes, trillion with a T--dollars and no one seems to know where its going! This is breathtaking!

If someone a couple of years ago had produced a fictional movie script with a story line similar to what has transpired in our government over the past year, no one would have produced it. They would have said the story line is way too far-fetched to be believable. Consider this as a script:

Just before leaving office, the previous administration suddenly discovers that the entire country is on the verge of economic collapse, so the Congress quickly approves a massive trillion-dollar spending bill--without even reading it--to save the economy. A virtually unknown candidate becomes President with the help of a criminal organization and the support of the media who do virtually no investigative reporting. While two hostile nations arm themselves with nuclear weapons, the new president drops our missile defense shields and then starts moving to take over banks, housing, insurance giants, auto-makers, health care, and education funding--and then we discover that no one can account for nine trillion dollars!

No one would believe such a script, but for reasons beyond comprehension, most Americans seem to think this is all just politics as usual! Please watch the video.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

The environment and Evangelicals

Nearly everyone these days is pro-environment. Even Evangelical Christians have even jumped on the bandwagon desperately canvasing the Bible to find support for their new environmental theology so they can be politically correct and fit in with the rest of the world. Lack of concern for the environment is a new-found Christian sin in some circles.

There is nothing wrong with concern for the environment, of course. The problem is that when voters support "environmentalists" they are often unwittingly supporting rabid mother-earth-above-all else radicals!

As a case in point, I'm watching a heart-breaking story on Hannity tonight that almost makes me physically ill. It is about thousands of people in the San Joaquin Valley in California (a place that used to be a fertile bread-basket) whose farms have been turned into a dust-bowl and whose livelihood has been literally stripped away from them by Environmentalists!

Environmentalists went to court and managed to get these farmers' irrigation cut off just to save some tiny fish which were getting into the irrigation lines! The unemployment in this area is now up to 40%! Just like in the Great Depression, people are standing daily in food lines just to get food for their families. All for the sake of some stupid little fish!

The problem is that so many people--even many self-professed Evangelical Christians--vote Democrat because they think Democrats are more environment friendly--but these voters don't seem to realize that they are really often lending their support to rabid earth-first radicals who would rather see human beings starve than to have their earth-first agendas hindered in any way.

Sometimes putting the environment first IS putting people first, for example when Erin Brokovich fought a big corporation that was killing people with ground water poisoning. But make no mistake about it. To put "earth-first" above the welfare of human beings is not Christian. It is anti-Christian and it is wicked. And many Evangelicals are supporting it when they vote Democrat.

Student loans at risk?

In yet another socialist government takeover bid, the House of Representatives has passed a bill in which the government would take over student loans.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

The furor over President Obama's trillion-dollar restructuring of American health care has left his other trillion-dollar plan starved for attention. That's how much the federal balance sheet will expand over the next decade if Mr. Obama can convince Congress to approve his pending takeover of the student-loan market.

The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year.
If this plan ever becomes law my prediction is that the next step will be a lawsuit by the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church, and others declaring direct government student loans to Christian College students to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.

If they succeed, this may well kill many Christian Colleges which, I'm sure, would suit many on the Left just fine.

If these takeovers keep up, we'll have to find a new name for the Democratic Party--maybe something like, the National Socialist Party.

Congressional supporters of ACORN

According to BigGovernment.Com, the following U.S. Representatives voted to continue funding ACORN. Of particular interst to me is that Minnesota's Muslim Keith Ellision was one of the ones who thought ACORN worthy to continue receiving your tax dollars. Other notable ACORN supporters include Dennis Kucinish, Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, and Henry Waxman.

If any of these people are in your district, please, stand up for America and vote them out in 2010.

Baldwin, Becerra, Brady (PA), Brown, Corrine, Butterfield, Capuano, Carson (IN), Castor (FL), Cleaver, Clyburn, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeGette, Delahunt, Doyle, Edwards (MD), Ellison, Engel, Fattah, Filner, Fudge, Green, AlGrijalva, Hinchey, Hirono, Holt, Honda, Jackson, (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson, E. B.Kilpatrick (MI), Kucinich, Larsen (WA), Lee (CA), Lewis (GA)Lynch, Markey (MA), McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Meeks (NY), Mollohan, Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Nadler (NY), Neal (MA), Olver, Pallone, Pascrell, PaynePolis (CO), Price (NC), Rahall , Rangel, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Sánchez, Linda T., Schakowsky, Scott (GA), Scott (VA), Serrano, Sherman, Sires, Slaughter, Stark, Thompson (MS)Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Waxman, Wexler, Woolsey

The Senators who voted to support ACORN are:

Dick Durbin (D-IL), Roland Burris (D-IL), Robert Casey (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY),
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Seniors be afraid, be very afraid

If you are a senior citizen, or if you have parents or grandparents who are senior citizens, or if you ever plan to be a senior citizen, you need to read this. This is what Senator John Kyle said about the Democrats health care proposals in a recent interview with Hugh Hewitt:
Senior citizens ought to be extraordinarily fearful of all three of these bills. They all cut Medicare by four or five hundred billion dollars. The two key way in which they cut Medicare will directly harm seniors’ care. About two hundred billion dollars is taken out of a Medicare insurance plan for seniors called Medicare Advantage. The CBO, according to one estimate, said that once the Medicare Advantage plans are dealt with as they are in these bills, there would be seven million seniors that even though they like their plans, wouldn’t be able to keep them. And that’s especially true in states with a lot of seniors like my state of Arizona. The second way it hurts seniors is that it allegedly cuts physician and hospital practices that cost too much money, and therefore effect savings. Well, the two things wrong with that are first of all, the savings don’t go back in Medicare, which as everybody knows, is a broke program financially. It goes to buy insurance for other people. But more important than that for seniors, what exactly are these services that are not needed that we’re paying for, for seniors, that they’re not going to get anymore? Seniors should be deathly afraid, and I use that phrase advisedly.

House cuts ACORN funding

The House of Representatives has joined the Senate in voting to cut off ACORN funding.

Seventy-five Democrats voted in favor of ACORN! How could anyone with a conscience possibly vote to continue funding an organization like this? Even if you thought the criminal activity caught on tape in five cites, and the widespread voter fraud convictions by ACORN members were all just isolated cases, wouldn't you at least vote to withhold funding pending an investigation?

Nancy Pelosi clueless about ACORN

According to the New York Post,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday she is clueless about an amendment to prohibit government funds for embattled ACORN, although it overwhelmingly passed the Senate Monday and the White House is calling for the group to be held accountable.

"I don't even know what they passed," Pelosi told The Post yesterday. "What did they do? They defunded it?"

Let's see, ACORN has only been the biggest story in the country for the past week, so much so that the Census Bureau cut off their connection with ACORN and ACORN has been de-funded by the U.S. Senate--but, like ABC's Charles Gibson, the Democratic Speaker of the House hasn't even heard the story!

Can they possibly be any more out of touch?!

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

New planet discovered

A new planet has been discovered. Scientists believe it is very similar to earth. If we could travel at the speed of light we could get there in only 500 years.

Fifth ACORN tape: San Diego

Here is the fifth ACORN tape, this one from San Diego:

Stephen Boissoin: Free speech on trial

According to LifeSiteNews,
Last year Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin was ordered by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to desist from expressing his views on homosexuality in any sort of public forum, and to pay complainant and homosexual activist Dr. Darren Lund $7,000 in damages. Today, however, he is in Alberta Court of the Queen's Bench, appealing the conviction of hate speech that resulted in the above penalties. That conviction was based upon a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which Boissoin expressed his opinion that homosexuality is immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curricula permeating the province's educational system.
Pastor Boissoin has interacted with me on this blog before. Please pray for him and his defense attorney from the Alliance Defense Fund.

If you think it can't happen here, think again. This is exactly where Barack Obama is taking us, especially in light of the recent appointment of Chai Feldblum Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Ms. Feldblum is a law professor who once said that "When religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win"--this inspite of the fact that our Constitution specifically lists Freedom of Religion as one of our fundamental rights!

ACORN and President Obama

Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs finally responded to the ACORN tapes saying, "Obviously the conduct you see on those tapes is completely unacceptable,"

Ya think?!

But it is not just the tapes of heinous ACORN crimes in Baltimore, Washington, New York, San Bernadino and now San Diego, there have been past reports of ACORN thugs using intimidation tactics and even of ACORN members breaking into homes! And don't forget that ACORN officials in Nevada, Philadelphia and Washington State were charged with widespread voter fraud.

The corruption seems to be woven into the very fabric of ACORN, and yet isn't this the very community organizing group which Barack Obama worked and is so proud? According to Stanley Kurtz, "Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America."

Maybe its time to ask, How much does President Obama know about ACORN and when did he know it?

Jon Stewart on ACORN

ACORN! Even Jon Stewart gets it!!! I could do without the language but otherwise this is ROTFLOL funny!

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

A hate crime in southwest Illinois?

According to OneNewsNow, "A southwestern Illinois school superintendent says two black students who viciously attacked a white 17-year-old schoolmate on a school bus- which was caught on videotape- have been suspended."

I wonder why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aren't using this case to preach about the evil of racism in America. My guess is that they--like one of my professors at the University of Missouri--think that racism only goes one way.

I also wonder if this will be charged as a hate crime? I doubt it. One of the problems with hate crimes laws is that they are very selectively applied.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

ACORN and Charles Gibson

I heard a phenomenal radio clip on the way home from work today.

We've now seen the third undercover video on ACORN (more will soon be released) in which their employees are caught red-handed promoting tax fraud, prostitution, and child-sex trafficking. This from an organization that has received millions of tax dollars and is scheduled to receive billions in stimulus money! The scandal is so great that the U.S. Senate has voted to de-fund ACORN!

Today I heard a clip of a radio host asking ABC's Charles Gibson why this story hasn't been covered in the media. Gibson laughed and frankly admitted that this was the first time he had heard of the story!

I was blown away! This may turn out to be one of the biggest stories since Watergate (hmmm, what does Barack Obama know about ACORN and when did he know it?) and Charles Gibson has never even heard of the story? How can a world news organization possibly be so isolated?

Call for RICO investigation of ACORN

Does the recent information about ACORN fraud warrant a RICO investigation?

Youbetcha! Read the story here.

Will the Obama justice department begin the investigation? I'm not holding my breath.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Freedom of Religon in danger

Recliner Commentaries once posted an article which quoted Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum as saying, "When religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win"

Today, Barack Obama announced his intention to appoint Chai Feldblum Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Read the story at ADF.

When we start seeing pastors, churches, Christian schools and colleges being sued and run out of business for not hiring openly practicing homosexuals, I wonder if Christians will finally wake up to what it happening to our country.

Anyone who thinks this could never happen is just uninformed. It has already happened to numerous Christians and Christian organizations. If our President has his way, the trickle will become a tsunami and we might just as well write RIP over our Constitution

Undermining U.S. security

On Sunday former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration, and President Obama himself, for their decision to re-open the investigations on CIA personnel. Cheney pointed out that before the election Barack Obama promised this would not happen [yet another broken promise] and that "the Justice Department already investigated all case in question...and decided to prosecute only one contractor, who received a jail sentence."

Cheney added, "A review is never going to be final anymore now. We can have somebody, some future administration, come along 10 years from now, 15 years from now, and go back and rehash all of these decisions by an earlier administration.

Why would CIA, FBI or other intelligence interogators ever do their job fully again when they know that even if government lawyers assure them they are acting within the law, future administrations may prosecute them for crimes? This purely partisan political pandering to the radical Left may well do more to damage America in the long run than al Qaeda has ever done!

Even more ACORN fraud

Even more ACORN fraud tapes are being released. Check out the latest ones from one of their New York offices on Hugh Hewitt's blog on which Duane Patterson comments:
Once is bad. Twice is a growing trend. Three times in three business days? Who are these ACORN people? Why are they getting millions of dollars from HUD, and scheduled to receive up to $8.5 billion in Stimulus money? And will the mainstream media finally report the news?
I suggest that the following actions be taken:

1. All government funding of ACORN needs to stop immediately.

2. All government ties with ACORN needs to stop immediately.

3. Congressional and justice department investigations of ACORN should be initiated.

4. If the fraud is confirmed, criminal charges should be filed and ACORN should have to pay back all tax money they have received.

5. President Obama--given his past ties with ACORN--needs to issue an unconditional condemnation of the group.

My guess is that if ACORN was a right-wing organization which had been associated with President Bush, the media and Pelosi's "most ethical Congress in history" would be all over this like flies on cowpies.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Morbid obesity and ObamaCare

When I was in the U.S.A.F. we had to weigh in every year to ensure that we were within government guidelines for obesity. I had been a football player and weightlifter, so when I was in the air force I struggled to make weight every year even though I was in much better physical condition than an air force friend of mine who had a beer belly but who easily made weight.

I even went to a base doctor who admitted that I was not overweight but he wouldn't go to bat for me. I was at the mercy of government regulations.

According a government chart from the National Institute of Health, this guy, who weighs in at almost 300 pounds, is not only obese, he is very close to meeting the government definition of morbid obesity for his height.

If ObamaCare passes I suspect that your health care will be regulated from Washington by a bureaucrat who doesn't even know you.

DC Tea Party threatened

Today thousands of people have converged on Washington today to peacefully protest out-of-control government spending. Ed Morrissey reports, however, that:
The Washington DC Tea Party appears to be a big success, but it’s not for lack of trying among the movement’s more lunatic opponents. Yesterday, the DC Metro police evacuated the offices of Freedomworks after several threats, including a bomb-threat phone call that police considered credible enough to investigate
I guess this is how some on the Left define "tolerance."

Disabled man raped

In Philadelphia, a homosexual man "raped a wheelchair-bound man in a supermarket bathroom." After his arrest the perpetrator told reporters " "Find yourself some real crime to deal with" (CBS 3).

If this was a case about a disabled gay man being assaulted by a straight man, it would likely be on every TV news program in the country but since this is a story about a homosexual perpetrator, I predict that the media reaction will likely be a collective yawn.

Removing Christmas from the curriculum

According to the Associated Press, "A proposal for new social studies curriculum in Texas public schools removes a mention of Christmas in a sixth-grade lesson, replacing it with a Hindu religious festival..."

Many Christians are "turn-the-other-cheek" kind of people who are much more interested in the the Gospel of Jesus Christ than they are in social controversies and politics. This is commendable and as it should be.

Unfortunately, if these Christians don't wake up, the America their children and grand children will inherit will look far more like the former Soviet Union than the America we grew up in (Obama, Pelosi and Reid are certainly pushing us in that directly).

The politically correct and bigoted attempts to remove all vestiges of Christianity from education and the public square are always promoted by Democrats and so-called "progressives" (if there is an exception, I've never heard of it).

And yet so many Christians keep voting for them in large part because many Christians misguidedly think Democrats are the ones who help people.

Hamas helps people too. If you lived in Gaza would you vote for Hamas?

ACORN exposers to be prosecuted?

Recently ACORN employees were caught on an undercover video giving advice on how to defraud the government of taxes for illegal businesses like prostitution and "the use of 13-year old sex slaves from San Salvador."

You would think the ones who exposed these heinous ACORN crimes would be given a Pulitzer Prize or something. Not in Democrat-land. As it turns out, the "Baltimore City State's Attorney" who is a staunch Democrat and Obama supporter, is planning to prosecute those who exposed the crime!

The charge? Undercover videoing is illegal in Maryland. The problem with this is that apparently "two Baltimore media outlets used the same hidden camera technique to [go] after stories that ultimately won professional plaudits from journalism colleagues" and this same prosecutor did nothing. Apparently the prosecutor is selective in who she wants to prosecute.

Please read the entire story here and here.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Anti-abortion protester killed

An anti-abortion protester was shot dead today in Michigan. It is tempting to rant and rave about how pro-abortion activists are all terrorists who are no longer content to kill babies and are now moving to adults as well....but that would be just as much nonsense as when the Left slanders the entire pro-Life movement based on the crimes of a few radicals.

President Obama's speech to Congress

This is another one of those "if you only have time to read one article today, please, please, take time to read this one" by Thomas Sowell. In the mean time, here are a couple of excerpts:
"Hubris-laden charlatans" was the way a recent e-mail from a reader characterized the Obama administration. That phrase seems especially appropriate for the Charlatan-in-Chief, Barack Obama, whose speech to a joint session of Congress was both a masterpiece of rhetoric and a shameless fraud.

To tell us, with a straight face, that he can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone's intelligence. To do so after an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office has already showed this to be impossible reveals the depths of moral bankruptcy behind the glittering words.
A little farther down in the article Sowell adds,
Obama can deny it in words, but what matters are deeds -- and no one's words have been more repeatedly the direct opposite of his deeds -- whether talking about how his election campaign would be financed, how he would not rush legislation through Congress, or how his administration was not going to go after CIA agents for their past efforts to extract information from captured terrorists.

President Obama has also declared emphatically that he will not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations -- while telling the Israelis where they can and cannot build settlements and telling the Hondurans whom they should and should not choose to be their president.
Please read the entire article.

Oops, he does it again!

According to the GOP's "Policy News":

President Obama promised in his address to Congress that, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false-the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." However, the facts indicate that actions by Democrats in Congress do not comport with the President's own pledge:

  • While Republicans offered common-sense amendments at both the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees requiring applicants for taxpayer-subsidized benefits to verify their citizenship and identity-thus allowing the bill to meet President Obama's pledge-Democrats rejected these proposals on a party-line 26-15 vote at Ways and Means, and a 29-28 vote at Energy and Commerce.
Is this another Obama lie or is President Obama just clueless about the Democratic legislation he is promoting?

More ACORN crime

After learning that ACORN employees were encouraging tax evasion, fraud, and child prostitution we now learn that "11 ACORN officials in Miami were fired after faking voter registration cards, and they're awaiting indictments."

Duane Patterson asks,
"Again, ask yourself by ACORN is getting $8.1 billion dollars of taxpayers' stimulus money, and what in the world they are doing even being remotely connected to the Census in 2010. Will media pick up on round two outside of Fox and talk radio? We'll see. Will the White House press corps, all of whom know full well the President's past association with ACORN, and his fondness for them, ask a question or two yet?
Great questions! Read about it at Hugh Hewitt's blog on Townhall.

ObamaCare and unions

According to the Wall Street Journal:

In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry.

Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state employees—and forcing them to pay union dues.

Please read the entire article (hat tip: Professor ed)

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Joe Wilson: Rude but right

Representative Joe Wilson received a lot of flack when he called President Obama a liar during Obama's speech last night. One of my readers forwarded this article to me and made the following comment:
It appears that Joe Wilson might be rude but he was in some sense right. The bill Obama is supporting would allow for illegal immigrants to receive coverage. Now the politicians are scrambling to fix it. Seems either Obama lied or didn't know what was in the bill. Terrifying considering we're talking about Trillions of dollars in American tax dollars.
Hat tip: Kevin.

Acorn rep promotes prostitution and fraud

Ed Morrissey writes, "ACORN offered an undercover investigator for BigGovernment extensive advice on how to evade federal taxes. Not just tax evasion, but also welfare fraud and advice on how to cover a conspiracy to traffic in underage hookers...."

Read the story and watch the videos on Hot Air.

ACORN has received literally millions and millions of taxpayer dollars.

5,000 Hindus flee Muslim persecution

5,000 Pakistani Hindus flee to India to avoid rape and forced conversions at the hands of Muslims who--if the voices of Western political correctness are to be believed--don't understand their own religion.

In another story, members of "the Religion of Peace" (Islam) shot three Buddhist men and set one of them on fire in Thailand.

In Nigeria, 12 Christians, including 3 pastors, were recently beheaded by members of "the Religion of Peace."

While not always the case, whenever you find persecution of one religion against another, the chances are very high that "the Religion of Peace" is the perpetrator.

Isn't it interesting that when a small group of radical abortion activists committed violence against a few abortionists, many on the left vilify all of Evangelical Christianity--even equating Christians with terrorists--but when members of the Religion of peace rape, rob, imprison, enslave, torture and murder literally hundreds-of-thousands of people, the Left defends Islam!

Can the Left possibly be any more blind?

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

President Obama's health care speech

If you listen to President Obama's speech on health care tonight, please remember the wisdom of Thomas Sowell (emphasis mine):

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

If Thomas Sowell doesn't do it for you, perhaps you'll listen to Jesus:
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:15-16).

1.3 million signatures

I heard that CNN reported that a conservative rally in Washington DC failed today.

In reality it was rather hard for the rally to fail because it was not a rally at all! It was only a press conference!

Another little fact that CNN missed was that at this event, radio talk show hosts Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and others delivered the largest petition ever delivered to Congress! They had 1.3 million signatures (mine was one of them) opposing the government takeover of health care by Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Somehow CNN missed that.

Obama: The strategy failed

According to the Washington Times:
President Obama acknowledged Wednesday that his strategy to pass health-care reform has not been effective, saying he deferred to Congress too much and should have been more specific earlier in the process about what he wanted to do.
No, Mr. President. It is not so much that your strategy failed. It is that people do not want what you are selling. We do not want to go down the road to socialized health care. We do not want government bureaucrats--who are accountable to no one--making life and death decisions for us.

There are ways to fix the system without fundamentally changing America. For some reason Democrats don't seem to understand this.

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Thomas Sowell on health care

Thomas Sowell has written an excellent article entitled, "Listening to a Liar."

Sowell points out that Barack Obama is trying to rush through a massive government takeover of health care, supposedly because it is so urgently needed, and yet, the program is not scheduled to take effect until 2013, after the next Presidential election!

If the program is so urgent, why wait until after the next election? Sowell suggests that Obama wants to "get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it."

And he wants "to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be."

If you have time to read only one article today, please read this one by Thomas Sowell.

Monday, September 07, 2009

National Geographic: Who Really Killed Jesus?

National Geographic has been airing a documentary entitled, “Who Really Killed Jesus.” According to this documentary, for the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate the execution of Jesus “was just another day at the office.” He would probably have soon forgotten who Jesus was.

Nat Geo says the Gospels present Pilate as weak, cowardly and indecisive, rather than the ruthless and brutal man he really was. The NatGeo documentary repeatedly makes the point that the Gospels are historically unreliable and the writers changed the truth of what happened: “The Christian story acquits Pontius Pilate and blames the Jews instead.”This, according to NatGeo, is the reason for centuries of anti-Semitism.

Is this true? Did the Gospel writers really change the truth of history to blame the Jews?

It may be helpful to begin by pointing out those elements of Jesus’ trial and execution on which I would agree with the National Geographic documentary (by the way, while the NatGeo documentary presents the views of multiple scholars, they all advocate the same basic view. No one is included who defends the historical reliability of the Gospel story).

First, I agree with NatGeo that Pontius Pilate was pragmatic, brutal, and ruthless.

Second, I agree with NatGeo that according to the very earliest sources (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Jesus was handed over by Jewish leaders to Pontius Pilate, who examined Jesus and tried to release him but eventually gave in to Jewish demands for Jesus’ execution.

These are the facts and they are undisputed.

So what is the problem? I mean, after all, NatGeo admits that the execution of Jesus was because Jewish leaders, including the High Priest, wanted Jesus dead. So the idea that the Gospel writers changed the story to blame the Jews is at least to some extent sensationalist nonsense right from the beginning. Unfortunately, the idea that the Gospel writers were anti-Semites who changed the Gospel story to blame Jews is a popular misconception so it warrants further exploration.

First, the ideas presented in the NatGeo documentary that 1) the execution of Jesus was just “another day at the office for Pilate,” or 2) that Pilate wouldn’t hesitate to execute a prisoner during Passover or 3) that Pilate would have been more inclined to convict than acquit, all seem like reasonable assumptions until you dig deeper.

For example, even NatGeo admits that Jesus was being charged with sedition, i.e. as being a “king of the Jews.” Even if this fact all by itself did not make this case important for Pilate, the fact that Jesus was a popular Jewish prophet with a good-sized following would have made this case—though not unique—far from ordinary.

The facts that this popular Jewish prophet who was being charged with being a “king of the Jews,” had only days before been hailed by a Jerusalem crowd saying “hosanna!” (Save us!), during the largest and most potentially volatile feast of the year, made this case anything but ordinary. This was hardly just another day at the office.

Second, the idea that the Gospels present Pilate as weak, cowardly and indecisive is actually reading ideas into the text that really are not there. For example, as evidence of Pilate’s weak, cowardly and indecisive nature, NatGeo cites the question Pilate asked when Jesus was first presented before him. Pilate asked, “Why? What has he done?”

Regardless of how brutal Pilate may have been, this sounds like a pretty reasonable question. Are we really to imagine that—even given Pilate’s brutal nature—Pilate’s knee jerk reaction to everyone brought before him for death would have been, “crucify him”? Such a notion is silly.

The question, “Why? What has he done?” sounds like a perfectly natural and historical question which in no way presents Pilate as indecisive or weak.

Another piece of evidence NatGeo uses to say the Gospels present Pilate as weak, cowardly and indecisive is the Gospel account of how Pilate’s wife had a dream and told her husband to have nothing to do with Jesus. What is being suggested is that this entire dream story was made up to make Pilate look weak and indecisive.

This assumes, of course that powerful and decisive men never pay attention to their wives, which is sexist nonsense both today and in the first century. Besides, people have dreams all the time and Jesus was a popular preacher. There is nothing unlikely about someone dreaming about him.

Yet another piece of evidence NatGeo uses to say the Gospels present Pilate as weak, cowardly and indecisive are statements made by the crowds. According to the Gospel of John the people yelled “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend.” According to the Gospel of Matthew they also yelled, “His blood be upon us and on our children.”

It is a little puzzling why these statements should be deemed to be unhistorical unless someone has determined in advance that Jesus had no enemies among the Jewish people. This, of course, is nonsense! All the available evidence shows that while Jesus did have crowds of supporters, he also had a lot of enemies.

History shows that the Jewish people as a whole have never been supporters of Jesus. In fact, the very earliest records we have of Jewish-Christian interaction present Jews as persecutors of Christians—even to death! The record of antagonism by Jews against Christian does not just come from Christian sources like Paul’s letters or Acts, but also from first century Jewish sources.

For example, the first century Jewish historian Josephus writes of how a “Sanhedrin of judges” was assembled to try James, “the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and some others.” The decision was that they should be stoned to death (Antiquities 20.9.1)!

There is also the “twelfth benediction” of the first century Jewish council of Yavne (aka Jamnia or Jabneah) which made it impossible for Christians to attend synagogue services and pretty much condemned Christians to hell: "For apostates who have rejected Your Torah let there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes [i.e. Christians] and heretics perish in an instant” (Encyclopedia of Judaism, Birkat Ha-Minim).

There is, therefore, absolutely nothing necessarily unhistorical about the idea that a group of people incited by the Jewish leadership—which even NatGeo admits wanted Jesus dead—would yell “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend” and “His blood be upon us and on our children.”

We might also add, by way of digression, that while many of these first century Jews had rejected Jesus and Christianity, the earliest Christians returned this rejection with love (after all, the very earliest Christians were all Jews)! Jesus’ “Great Commission” commanded his disciples to begin making disciples in Judea which is exactly what Peter, John and other disciples did. Peter, in fact, became known as “Apostle to the Jews” (Galatians 2:8).

Paul actually writes that he would be willing to be condemned to hell if it would save his Jewish brothers and sisters (Romans 9:1-4)! This is hardly the attitude of an anti-Semite. It wasn’t until the second century—after Christians had been officially expelled from the synagogue—that Christian anti-Semitism began to raise its ugly head in opposition to everything Jesus and the apostles taught about loving even our enemies.

Third, there is actually a very reasonable explanation for Pilate’s actions as presented in the Gospels. According to all four Gospels, Jesus’ last week in Jerusalem was initiated when Jesus rode into Jerusalem riding on a donkey, a deliberate fulfillment of a prophesy written about four hundred years earlier in the Book of Zechariah which prophesied of how Israel’s “king” would come to them humbly, riding on a donkey.

The Gospels say that many people eagerly welcomed Jesus into the city, waving palm branches and yelling “Hosanna!” (Save us), which is similar to the way Jews had welcomed Judas Maccabaeus into the city as king about 150 years earlier.

Jesus was known as a miracle-working prophet, and Jewish hopes were undoubtedly high that this popular prophet was indeed their long-awaited Messiah whom they expected to deliver them from their bondage to Rome just as Judas had delivered them from Syria. Perhaps, they hoped, this would be the time he would make his move!

The people’s hopes were—to their minds—dashed, however, when only days later Jesus was presented before them beaten, bloodied and in Roman custody! To their minds, the idea of a beaten, bloodied Messiah in Roman custody was an absolute impossibility.

They were infuriated, undoubtedly concluding that they had been deceived and that Jesus was just another false prophet. They demanded—no doubt being spurred on by the Jewish leadership—that Pilate do to Jesus what the Law required of false prophets. Execute him!

Far from being a fabrication, this story makes perfect sense in its historical context.

If we believe the National Geographic documentary, however, Pilate would have then executed Jesus without further ado. This conclusion, however, fails to grapple very deeply with the actual political dilemma facing Pilate. On the one hand, Pilate needed to appease the Jewish leadership who wanted Jesus dead and whose support Pilate needed to maintain peace (NatGeo concedes both of these points).

On the other hand, Pilate knew that Jesus was still a very popular preacher and executing him during the potentially volatile season of Passover—when millions of Jews descended on Jerusalem from all over the empire—could be the spark which would ignite the whole powder keg of Jewish hatred against Rome. While rebellion was not in the best interests of the High Priest, there were undoubtedly some on the Jewish high Council who would be more than happy to see rebellion break out.

Pilate was indeed between a rock and a hard place. What was he to do?

While it was true that Pilate was brutal and couldn’t care less about Jesus, Pilate was also very political and pragmatic (another point conceded by NatGeo). His job depended on keeping peace and avoiding rebellion. He tried to get off the horns of this dilemma by having Jesus beaten and released, but the Jewish leadership would not let him off the hook. They wanted Jesus dead because they were convinced—as NatGeo admits—that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy. Jewish Law required the death penalty for blasphemy.

What Pilate did next was nothing less than a stroke of political genius. Standing before the Jewish leadership and the angry crowd, he publicly washed his hands of the matter, not because he was weak and cowardly, but precisely because he was political and pragmatic.

By publicly washing his hands of this case Pilate would allow the Jewish leadership to have their way, thereby keeping their support to maintain peace, but if that failed and rebellion did break out, he could also distance himself from the rebellion by placing the blame squarely on the backs of the Jewish leadership!

Pilate’s action was not indecisive, weak or cowardly. It was a shrewd and pragmatic political decision. The story as told by the Gospel writers makes perfect historical sense when considered in historical context.

Fourth, the NatGeo documentary goes to great lengths to convince viewers that the Gospels are fundamentally unreliable. They have to do this, of course, because they are presenting as history a story that has no support in the ancient sources. The only way their fiction has any hope of being accepted is by subverting the actual historical sources.

The documentary flatly states, therefore, that the “Gospel’s aren’t historical fact,” that there is “no hard evidence” that any event in them ever happened,” and that there isn’t even proof that Jesus even existed!

These statements threaten to put the NatGeo documentary on the same level as “911 truthers,” or those who deny the moon landing or holocaust! While you can always find someone to support any position regardless of how ridiculous, even radical skeptics and critics of the Gospels—like Robert Funk, Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, et al.—acknowledge that Jesus actually existed and that at least some of the events recorded in the Gospels actually happened.

NatGeo, however, gives several reasons for questioning the Gospel’s reliability. First, the reliability of the Gospels is dismissed because they were written decades after the time of Jesus (40-70 years). The documentary, however, never questions the reliability of information it presents about Pilate or Tiberius even though most of our sources for this information (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius) are as far (or farther) removed in time from Pilate and Tiberius as the Gospels are from Jesus. Clearly, something other than objective history is at work here.

Second, NatGeo says that the gospels were not presenting history but theology. This idea ignores the fact that unlike some other religions, Jews and Christians based their theology squarely on history. The Jewish feasts of Passover and Tabernacles, for example, were based on the belief that these events actually happened in history.

Christians’ belief in the atonement was based on the historical fact of Jesus’ execution. If Jesus had just died of natural causes, like Muhammad, there would be no discussion of how Jesus “died for our sins.”

For first century Christians and Jews, theology was based on what they really believed actually happened. To summarily dismiss the historical reliability of the Gospels as if their writers were issuing some kind of speculative theology rather than history is modern nonsense read back anachronistically into the first century.

A third piece of evidence presented by NatGeo for the unrereliability of the Gospels came from a scholar who called the story of the release of Barabbas during Passover “completely crazy.” The documentary pointed out that there is no historical evidence of prisoners being released by Romans in Judea.

What this means is that there is no historical evidence, except for the Gospel of Matthew, of prisoners being released by Romans in Judea. Leaving aside the fact that other ancient events are often accepted as historical even if only attested in one source, the phrase “in Judea” is key.

The documentary fails to point out that there is documented evidence that ancient governors did in fact release prisoners on special days as a gesture of good will.

How can a 21st century scholar, therefore, possibly be so sure that this did not happen in first century Judea when it happened elsewhere in the Roman world? What makes 21st century scholars think they know more about it than a first century writer?

The fact is that there is nothing at all crazy about the possibility that a Roman governor of Judea would release a popular prisoner on a potentially volatile feast day in an attempt to placate the crowds and maintain peace.

Fourth, the NatGeo video says the authors of the Gospels wrote their stories with the Romans in mind, to convince the Romans that Christians are not a threat--that they are a new movement, not like the Jews, “not part of that despised race.” The Gospels make Pilate the official Roman mouthpiece for Jesus’ innocence as if to say, “your guy Pilate even liked our guy.”

This is a cleaver theory but it fails to deal with the facts.

If the Gospel writers were trying to distance themselves from their Jewish heritage they certainly had a strange way of doing it. The Jesus of the Gospels is, after all, Jewish! In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ genealogy is thoroughly Jewish. He celebrates Jewish feast days like Hanukkah (John 10:22-24) and Passover. He preaches to Jewish people in Jewish synagogues located in Jewish villages. He sends his disciples out with specific instructions to preach to the “lost sheep of Israel,” not to Gentiles (Matthew 10:6). He quotes from Jewish Scriptures and refers to Jewish heroes like Abraham and Moses, never to popular Greco-Roman writings or heroes.

Not only do the Gospels make no attempt to distance Jesus from his thoroughly Jewish roots, the Jesus of the Gospels even calls Herod Antipas, one of Rome’s governors, a derogatory name (Luke 13:32). Furthermore, the Gospels do not try to water down the fact that it was Rome’s governor, Herod the Great, who was so unreasonable and paranoid that he tried to kill Jesus as a little baby! And according to Matthew 2:22, after the death of Herod the Great, Joseph was afraid to return to Judea because another one of Rome’s guys, Archelaus, was ruling in Judea. Finally, although most of the blame for Jesus’ death falls to the Jewish leadership, Pilate is not thereby relieved of responsibility and does not come out as a good guy in any gospel.

The idea that the Gospel writers were fabricating a story to distance their new religion from Judaism and to cozy up to Rome is itself nothing but a creative fiction.

Finally, NatGeo squarely lays the blame for centuries of anti-Semitism at the feet of the Gospel writers. There is a terrible lapse in logic behind this argument. Nothing written in the Gospels can legitimately be used to justify the travesty and disgrace of abuse and violence done to Jews at the hands of Christians down through the centuries.

Imagine, for example, that modern day Jews were persecuting Germans because of Jewish historical accounts of the Holocaust. Would anyone say the fault of the persecution rested with those who wrote the historical accounts? Of course not!

Would anyone say that what Germans did to Jews over 60 years ago would justify the persecution of the Nazi’s children, grandchildren, or great-great-grandchildren today? Of course not!

The Gospel writers were simply recording the historical fact that Jesus was executed on the demand of the Jewish leadership—a fact which the NatGeo documentary even concedes—and that some Jews agreed with them!

This fact does not excuse those Christians who, throughout history, have persecuted Jews. It would be absolutely absurd to imagine that Jesus, Peter, John, or Paul would have wanted approved such persecution! In fact, such persecution of Jews by Christians is in blatant disobedience to the commands of Jesus and New Testament writers who commanded us to love even our enemies! But trying to re-write history to blame this persecution on the Gospel writers smacks of anti-Christian bigotry.


National Geographic usually produces excellent and high quality work so the production of this blatantly biased and anti-Christian documentary is very disappointing. I would encourage NatGeo to pull this propaganda and produce something which meets their usual standards of excellence by interacting with more than just one side of the issue.