Thursday, December 30, 2010

Who is more generous, liberals or conservatives?

Who is more generous, liberals or conservatives?

I'll give you a hint. In 2006-2007 the Obama's gave roughly 6% of their income to charity. John McCain gave about 28%!

In the decade before Joe Biden became vice president, the Biden's gave a total--all ten years combined--of $3,690 to charity, or 0.2 percent of their income. By contrast, in 2005 Vice President Cheney gave 77% to charity. Please read the entire article, "Liberals Give Till it Hurts (You)!"

John Stossel once found that the this is not just true of politicians--it is also true of average liberal and conservative Americans.

Toying with totalitarianism

Think your freedom is not under siege? Think again. These are just isolated examples but they are symptomatic of the mindset of the Left whose motto seems to be, "government knows best."

The more we elect Democrats and "moderate" Republicans to government positions, the more we can expect similar trampling of our freedom.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

"If Christians were treated like Muslims"

If you read only one article this week, please take time to read Gary Baur's short but excellent article in Human Events entitled, "If Christians were treated like Muslims".

"Where's the Line to See Jesus?"

I'm a little late with this one since Christmas is over but it is still worth posting.

Undocumented workers and Unlicensed pharmacists

The politically correct Left apparently wants everyone to stop using the phrase "illegal aliens" for those who are in America illegally. The Left prefers the less offensive phrase, "undocumented workers."

Someone e-mailed Fox and Friends this morning saying that if illegal aliens are undocumented workers, then drug dealers must be "unlicensed pharmacists."

Human DNA and the Encyclopedia Britannica

"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces" (George Sim Johnson, Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1999, as cited in The Case for the Creator by Lee Strobel, chapter 9).

Monday, December 27, 2010

Please sign the petition to repeal Obamacare

Please sign the petition to repeal Obamacare.

Global warming in England

Just now on Fox and Friends, a British meteorologist says that so far this has been the coldest winter in England in 100 years.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Will Pigford be Obama's Watergate?

If you haven't heard of Pigford yet, you probably will before the New Year is over. It appears to be a case of horrific fraud and corruption which was apparently covered up by the Democratic Congress.

Uncoverage provides an explanation of the issue--and in the process, a sickening expose of how our legal system really works when in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers (sounds like an idea for a Hollywood movie). If this doesn't convince you that the legal system needs an overhaul nothing will (if corporations made money like this, I suspect their CEO's would be doing hard time)!

How does Obama figure into all this? Read that story on Big Government.

Global warming in the South

According to the Associated Press,
The white Christmas in the South was one for the record books. Columbia,S.C., had its first significant Christmas snow since weather records were first kept in 1887. Atlanta had just over an inch of snow—the first measurable accumulation on Christmas Day since the 1880s.
Darn that global warming!

Obama and the war on Jihadists

While recovering from the flu this morning, I was just watching a CNN's Candy Crowley interview two former high ranking Bush intelligence officials. They said that the Obama administration is pursuing the war on Jihadists at least as aggressively, if not more so, than the Bush administration.

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that to say I am no fan of the Obama administration would be a big understatement but I do believe in being fair. If what these men say is true, President Obama deserves credit for this.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Michelle Obama and childhood obesity

On this issue, I agree with David Harsanyi, Sarah Palin gets it. Mike Huckabee doesn't.

ACLU attacks Catholic Hospitals

Michele Malkin writes,

Ho, ho, ho! Just in time for Christmas, the American Civil Liberties Union has launched a new salvo against people of faith. Even as billions around the world celebrate the birth of Christ, joyless, abortion-obsessed secularists never take a holiday.
On Wednesday, the ACLU sent a letter to federal health officials urging the government to force Catholic hospitals in the U.S. to perform abortions in violation of their core moral commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn.

Any organization that seeks to force Christian or Jewish individuals or organizations to violate their religious convictions is fundamentally un-American!

Please read Michele's entire, excellent, article!



ldlald

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

"The Year of Right-Wing Terrorists?"

Please take time to read, "The Year of Right-Wing Terrorists?"

Some people in the Left-wing media are so blinded by hatred they are not playing with a full-deck!

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

ALA supporting Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is simply the beginning step of government regulation of the internet. That being the case, it is absolutely astounding that the American Library Association--which prides itself on its fight against censorship-- appears to be supporting Net Neutrality!  Read about it on Safe Libraries.

U.S. Senator on regulating free speech

Unbelievable! In a Congressional hearing a U.S. Senator (a Democrat, of course) suggested that it would be a good thing for the government to regulate free speech by censoring--indeed, banning--Fox News and MSNBC!

Senator Rockefeller also laments that news media "has all but surrendered to the forces of entertainment." Perhaps Rockefeller doesn't understand that this is because news is a competitive business. Those that don't get the ratings, go off the air. We may not like this, but that is the reality of business. Perhaps Rockefeller would prefer that the government just nationalize the news media so the government alone can decide what is fair and balanced! 

The government took a step in that direction today with the decision to implement their Orwellian "Net Neutrality." (Coincidentally, the Hugo Chavez government in Venezuela today also tightened their internet regulation).

Monday, December 20, 2010

Obama, racism and the Pigford farmer's settlement

Wow! This reads like the introduction to a new best-selling fiction. Many will dismiss it as pure fiction, but if even half of it turns out to be true, we're in for an interesting news year!

Consequences of dismantling "Don't ask, don't tell"

On the potential chilling repercussions of dismantling "Don't ask, don't tell" to religious liberty see Daniel Blomberg's outstanding article in Townhall.

Fortunately, the ADF has promised to defend service men and women who are forced to violate their religious convictions due to the government's decision to normalize homosexual behavior in the military.

On the definition of marriage

I recently read a lengthy article entitled "What is Marriage?" by Sherif Girgis (Ph.D. candidate in philosophy from Princeton), Robert George (McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princetion) and Ryan Anderson (Ph.D. candidate in Political Science from Notre Dame).

They compare and contrast two views of marriage: 1) The Conjugal View, i.e. that "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together" and 2) The Revisionist View that "Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life) (246).

The authors argue "for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, using arguments that require no appeal to religious authority" (247). In part one, they convincingly argue that "the common good of our society crucially depends on legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage and would be damaged by enshrining the revisionist view" (248).

Some of the issues the authors address include, 1) equality and justice (equating discrimination against gay marriage with discrimination based on race), 2) the definition of marriage, 3) "How would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage", 4) Moral and religious freedom, 5) Isn't marriage whatever we say it is?" 6) Wouldn't legalizing same-sex marriage help to "spread traditional norms to the gay community?" 7) "What about partners concrete needs?" 8) Aren't same-sex relationships only natural?" and 9) "Doesn't Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral and Religious Views on Everyone?"

The authors demonstrate that "according to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents" (257). This "advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents" (258).

Interestingly enough, this benefit to the children appears to hold true even if one of the partners in the heterosexual marriage is also attracted to those of the same sex (258). In other words, the issue is not the sexual orientation of the parents. The issue is that children need a biological father and a biological mother. Redefining marriage to include same sex relationships cannot provide that.

The authors admit that "social and legal developments have already worn the ties that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more securely to each other. But recognizing same-sex unions would mean cutting the last remaining threads" (262). This is significant "Because children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents" and "the further erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children" (262). "If same-sex partnerships were recognized as marriages...the ideal would be abolished from our law: no civil institution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need both a mother and a father; that men and women on average bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways" (263).

Since it is impossible for the state to be value-neutral on the issue of marriage, the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions would force the state "to view conjugal-marriage supporters as bigots who make groundless and invidious distinctions" (263-264). Indeed, "The proposition that support for conjugal conception of marriage is nothing more than a form of bigotry has become so deeply entrenched among marriage revisionists" that such prominent newspapers as the Washington Times and New York Times have promoted the idea (264).

Some of the statistics provided by the article are enlightening. For example,
In the 1980's, Professors David McWhirther and Andrew Mattison, themselves in a romantic relationship, set out to disprove popular beliefs about gay partners' lack of adherence to sexual exclusivity. Of 156 gay couples that they surveyed, whose relationships had lasted from one to thirty-seven years, more than sixty percent had entered the relationship expecting sexual exclusivity, but not one couple stayed sexually exclusively longer than five years" (278).
And, "A 1990's U.K. survey of more than 5,000 men found that the median numbers of partners for men with exclusively heterosexual"...inclinations over the previous five years" was two. By contrast the number median number of partners for homosexual men was 10 (279).

The authors conclude with a thought experiment:  "imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self-sufficient. In that case would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no" (286-287). The reason is that "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together" (246).

Excellent article!  I've only skimmed the surface. Please take time to read all of it.

Where is the outcry from American feminists?

Sudan: Women are punished with "600,000" lashes a year - Jihad Watch

I find it fascinating--no, appalling really--that many American feminists are so hateful to churches that do not allow women to be senior pastors, and yet are so tolerant of Muslims who regularly abuse and even torture women!

Is this what Americans fought and died for in Iraq?

Is this what Americans fought and died for in Iraq: Thousands of Christians flee central Iraq after attacks - Telegraph

Since we are so into immigration, perhaps we should open our doors to all the Iraqi Christians who want to leave--and then pull all of our troops out of Iraq immediately! I'm tired of pouring billions of dollars into a Muslim culture that will not guarantee basic human rights and freedom.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky. - FoxNews.com

Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky. - FoxNews.com

Decision Points by George W. Bush

I just finished reading Decision Points by George W. Bush. He failed to convinced me that invading and taking over Iraq--as opposed to just destroying the Iraqi military bases and their suspected WMD sites--was the best option. I was also not convinced that the TARP program and all the Bush bailouts were the best option. He says that all of the economists he trusted were telling him the economy would collapse without it, but he fails to convince me that he gave alternative views any serious consideration. 

However, having said this, the book did reinforce my previous conviction that much of the vitriolic hatred leveled against him was unfair, unjust, often hypocritical and more about power than concern for America. 

The book provides a fascinating behind-the-scenes account of the major decisions of the Bush presidency. It was outstanding. I found it hard to put down.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Democrats want to spend 1.1 trillion more of your money!

The Democrats are now proposing a  new1.1 trillion spending bill!

This is insanity!  The bill is not only stuffed with pork, it is 1,900 pages long so very few (if any) Senators have actually read it. If I didn't know better I'd think some of these Lefties are deliberately trying to bring down America so they can replace it with a totalitarian Leftist regime!

Monday, December 13, 2010

Muslims, Yasser Arafat and oppression

"Six months before I took office, the Camp David peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians fell apart. President Clinton had worked tirelessly to bring together Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Barak made a generous offer to turn over most of the West Bank and Gaza...Arafat turned him down...I didn't blame President Clinton for the failure at Camp David or the violence that followed. I blamed Arafat. America, Europe, and the United Nations had flooded the Palestinian Territories with development aid. A good portion of is was diverted to Arafat's bank account. He made th Forbes list of the world's wealthiest 'kinds, queens, and despots.' Yet his people remained trapped in poverty" (Decision Points by George W. Bush, ch. 13).

It is a sad fact that the biggest oppressors of Muslims in the world has been other Muslims.

SafeLibraries: How ALA Plagiarism Becomes Truth Through the Media Lens; SafeLibraries in USA Today

SafeLibraries: How ALA Plagiarism Becomes Truth Through the Media Lens; SafeLibraries in USA Today

Pro-polygamy economist discovers that polygamy has "institutionalized women into subservience" - Jihad Watch

Pro-polygamy economist discovers that polygamy has "institutionalized women into subservience" - Jihad Watch

"What on earth is happening to marriage"

Katherine Kersten has a good article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune entitled, "What on earth is happening to marriage?"

Friday, December 10, 2010

On taxing the rich

In "Debunking the Millionaires and Billionaires Tax Cut Rhetoric" Matt Towery writes of the vast majority of those "rich" people the Democrats villainize  and seek to punish:
While every big corporation and bank was getting a bailout during the economic collapse, and while those on welfare were seeing extension after extension of their benefits, this small group of Americans -- who already carry the brunt of the nation's tax burden -- struggled. And they are still struggling to keep their businesses and practices going. They are trying to avoid layoffs. They are cutting every possible expense.
These are the nation's most frustrated workers. Even while they have been balancing the economic viability of their enterprises on their own backs and out of their own pockets, they have had to watch as the bailed-out banks have made fortunes. And yet these same banks continue in their unwillingness and inability to lend money to the so-called "super wealthy" owners of small businesses so that they can keep their companies alive.
Excellent points! Please take time to read the entire article.

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

The Obama-Republican compromise

In a closed door session, President Obama and Republican leaders came to a compromise proposal recently. The proposal has to do with the so-called Bush tax cuts (aka Democrat tax hikes), further extension of unemployment benefits (up to three years now), and reinstatement of the "death tax."

Today on his radio show, Hugh Hewitt pointed out that Republicans in the House of Representatives all signed a Pledge to America and that House Republicans who vote for this compromise will be violating at least five promises in that pledge--on the very first piece of legislation to come out after the election!

I think I will be more angry with Republicans who support this massive spending bill than I've been with Obama, Pelosi and Reid. After all, I've come to expect that Obama, Pelosi and Reid will lie to us, but I expect better from Republicans.

Monday, December 06, 2010

"Up from Homophobia"

Steve Chapman, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, has an article in Townhall entitled, "Up from homophobia."  Chapman admits that he once had a strong dislike for gays and "found the whole idea sick and repulsive." But that was before he actually knew anyone who was gay.

One day in college he came back from class and found a note on his desk from his roommate and good friend admitting to being gay. After much soul-searching Chapman finally concluded that gays were not an alien species and that this revelation by his roommate really didn't change anything. He continued to be friends with his roommate and has remained friends for 35 years.

Chapman's point was that it is easy to be homophobic if you don't actually know anyone who is gay. In this case, familiarity, Chapman says, breeds acceptance. Chapman has changed his views and is now in favor of gay marriage and gays in the military.

This is the second of Chapman's articles I've read. In both cases I found his articles to be well written, thoughtful and wrong.

Chapman is certainly right, of course, that gay people are not an "alien species." They are not monsters. They are people just like everyone else. The gay people I've known were nice people who were kind and friendly. I would whole-heartedly agree that people should never be hated, mocked, ridiculed or assaulted for being gay.

From a Christian perspective, however, that is really all beside the point.

First, the issue is not whether someone is friendly or nice. The issue is not even about whether someone is sexually tempted by those of the same sex. The issue is about behavior. Both Old and New Testaments make it clear that having sex with someone of the same sex is sin--just like committing adultery, having sex before marriage, or getting drunk is sin.

Christians know and work with all kinds of people who regularly engage in lifestyles that we consider sinful. We don't hate such people. We may hate the sin, but should love the sinner. The same thing should be true of Christians' attitudes toward people who engage in sex with people of the same sex. Christians should not hate them and we should never ridicule or abuse them. They are sinners for whom Christ died, just like all the rest of us.

But on the other hand, we cannot accept sinful behaviors as OK just because our society has now determined that such behaviors are no longer sinful.

Second, Mr. Chapman seems to be entirely unaware that the real issue involved in re-defining marriage has to do with Freedom of Religion. See "The Consequences of Same Sex Marriage,"  "What's Wrong with Gay Rights?" and "Chai Feldblum against the First Amendment," and "Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty."

"Offended by the Offended"

If you read only one article this week, I would suggest "Offended by the Offended" by Terry Paulson. It is outstanding!

Friday, December 03, 2010

Tracking credit cards without search warrants?

I would be interested to know what judge Andrew Napolitano has to say about the federal government tracking American's credit cards without search warrants.

Global warming and the Mayan moon goddess

Just when you think the Global Warming hysteria couldn't get more wacky, now we find that the Cancun talks on Global Warming began with an appeal to the Mayan moon goddess!

Thursday, December 02, 2010

"The Folly of Attacking Iran"

Steve Chapman, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, has an article in Townhall criticizing plans to attack Iran. His article, "The Folly of Attacking Iran," is thoughtful and deserves careful consideration.

Regarding an "attack on a Middle Eastern country that has not attacked us and poses no threat to our security" Chapman asks, "Haven't we tried that, and didn't we learn anything about starting wars we don't know how to end?"  

Good question. The problem, however, wasn't that we took out what we suspected to be Saddam's WMD program. The problem was that we decided not only to take over the country but to engage in nation-building.  I don't know of anyone who advocates that with Iran. 


Besides, the U.S. once took out Libya's WMD-making capability, and Israel has done the same with Syria. The results in both cases were good. That, of course, doesn't mean that doing the same in Iran would produce similar results, but comparing our nation-building efforts in Iraq with taking out nuclear capability in Iran is apples and oranges.


Writing of Saudi Arabia's view that the U.S. needs to cut off the head of the snake (Iran), Chapman says, "If a snake comes after you, cutting off its head is the right response. If it's merely curled up in a distant lair, keeping its venom in reserve, staying away makes far more sense."


It sure does--if we were just talking about snakes. Fortunately, most snakes do not prey on people. If you leave them alone, they will probably leave you alone. We cannot say the same thing about Iran. They actively fund terrorists and even engage in terrorist ventures through their proxies. Once they have nuclear weapons, there is reason to believe they will use them, either directly or as means of blackmail.


Chapman, however, questions this assumption "that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will use them."  Chapman says that "zealots and despots" like Ahmadinejad, "have a powerful instinct for for self preservation" just like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Chapman says that "The Iranians know that any use of nuclear weapons traceable to them would be sure to accomplish one thing: their annihilation."


That is assuming, of course, that we could trace a dirty bomb or nuclear explosion back to Iran with enough certainty to justify nuking Tehran. But even if we could trace a nuclear attack back to Iran, nuking a million innocent people in Tehran is no compensation for the million lives Iran would have taken in the initial attack. 


Chapman's argument 
also assumes that the West really would nuke Iran under any circumstances. Many in the West would say that it is just not morally justifiable to kill a million innocent people, not even in response to a nuclear attack.

Finally, Chapman is equating atheist-Communists with Islamic zealots who believe they have  mission from God to bring the entire world under submission to Allah by any and all means necessary. Chapman fails to understand that we are dealing with an entirely different worldview.


Chapman argues that having nuclear weapons would not even "help Iran in pushing its neighbors around" because Iran's nuclear capability would just unite them to unite "in opposition to Tehran--and even closer to the United States."  


I think Chapman significantly and naively underestimates the potential power of nuclear blackmail.


Chapman says that "the only real value of acquiring an atomic arsenal is to deter attack and invasion." He cites Iraq which did not have WMD and was invaded by the U.S. whereas North Korea does have WMD and was not.


Chapman's point is on the tip of a two-edged sword. The other edge of that sword is that once a nation has nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering them, they can commit pretty much any atrocities against their own people or against anyone else who does not have nukes, and there is not much the world community can do about it (take the imperialism of China and the former Soviet Union as examples).


Besides, Chapman is basically dismissing Iran's warnings about wiping Israel off the face of the earth as if these warnings were empty rhetoric (in spite of the fact that Iran has spent millions funding Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israel). 


But what if Chapman is wrong? What if Iran really used nuclear weapons against Israel and a million people die. It would be a bit too late to say, "Hmmm, gee, sorry about that. We really didn't think they meant what they said" (even though they said it over and over and over again).


But Chapman is right about one thing. The possible consequences of taking out Iran's nuclear capability could be horrendous!  In fact, I would argue that the only thing worse, would be the possible consequences of NOT taking out Iran's nuclear capability.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Please sign the Manhattan Declaration petition

Please sign the petition to ask Apple to restore the Manhattan Declaration to iphones and iPad.