SAN DIEGO, Feb. 16 /Christian Newswire/ -- "Charles Barkley revealed an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Bible and Christian morality by attacking pro-life and pro-family conservatives as 'fake Christians,'" said Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "Barkley rips one phrase of the Bible from its context, and then asserts that anyone who is opposed to abortion or gay marriage is a 'fake Christian.'"
Dr. Cass continues, "We respect Barkley as an expert on basketball, but he is obviously not an expert on Christian moral theology. The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission calls on Barkley to apologize for his hateful remarks. We are hopeful that he will do the right thing."
Former NBA great Charles Barkley made his remarks in an interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. The remarks have been posted on the Drudge Report. When Blitzer asked Barkley to clarify his remarks, Barkley made it clear that he did not misspeak. According to Barkley anyone who judges another person's actions is wrong.
"For Barkley to think that Christians cannot have an opinion about matters of public policy and personal morality is astonishing," said Cass. "Jesus forbids judging by hypocritical double standards, but he requires Christians to make just and sound judgments everyday according to biblical precepts."
"Ironically, Barkley engaged in the very activity of judging others that he condemned in conservatives. Barkley's words reveal an unfortunate, irrational anti-Christian bigotry."
The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is a non-profit organization devoted to protecting the rights of Christians to confidently live their faith. Dr. Gary Cass has degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary. He previously served as Executive Director of the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, an outreach of Coral Ridge Ministries founded by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Charles Barkley Confused on Theology
No Honor in Berkeley
I’m still pretty ticked about that Berkeley City Council and Marine Recruiting Station story. Yeah, the Council backed off a little, but did they? Really? You can judge, but one thing for certain Max Anderson hasn’t publicly repudiated or amended his previous comments calling Marines the “President’s own gangsters” and “trained only to kill.” Anderson claims to have once been a Marine but was booted from the Corps and holds nothing but contempt for them since.
This video from The People’s Cube is my answer to the Berkeley City Council and especially Mr. Anderson, who apparently never learned the meaning of Semper Fidelis.
Lesson 6 - History: Whose Story?
The Truth Project continues this week at South Canyon Baptist Church in Rapid City this Sunday from 8:57 am to 10:15 am. Come and join us for Lesson 6 on history.
One aspect of the lesson will deal with revisionism, which is something I dealt with yesterday, from people who say the Founders of the United States were not Christians, and that they wanted no religious influence to be found in our government. That is revisionism, which is another way of saying "lie."
The Truth Project could change the way you look at the world, and maybe even be life changing.
Does the past have an objective actuality and significance? Or does it, as postmodernist philosophy asserts, exist primarily inside our heads? This tour considers the meaning of history as God's story and shows us why remembering is so important.
Visit www.thetruthproject.org for more information.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Hillary Clinton's so-called solutions...
Republican challenges and the politics of unity
BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION
Unity is one of the big themes of the current election.
People get unified in two different ways. Unity comes either from a common threat from the outside, or from leadership emerging from the inside.
Who can forget the shock and the surge of patriotism that followed the 9/11 attacks? The political and social divisions that define calmer times disappeared and we all became Americans.
We were united behind our president, whose approval ratings went beyond 90 percent.
Over the few short years since that shock, circumstances have changed. President Bush, once wildly popular, is now wildly unpopular.
Last month, polling showed that concerns about the economy moved past concerns about terrorism as the nation's top issue.
If we look at the two parties, the Democrats appear far more unified than Republicans.
But this Democratic unity is driven primarily by the outside-in variety. Democrats are deeply unhappy with the status quo in the country, Republicans far less so.
Only about 25 percent of Americans express satisfaction today with the direction of the country.
But the gap between Republicans and Democrats is huge. Only about 15 percent of Democrats are satisfied with how things are going, but almost 50 percent of Republicans are satisfied.
Democratic Party unity is being driven from the outside, a common dissatisfaction with the status quo, with the party uniformly defined by liberalism.
The Democratic nomination contest is about personalities, not issues. Regardless of which candidate gets nominated, Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, 85 percent of Democrats say they will be satisfied.
It's probably the reason why Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Despite Clinton's efforts to distinguish herself from him on issues, the truth is that there is very little difference. It's a contest that will be won on personality, and he is beating her hands down in this department.
Republicans, on the other hand, are driven by an entirely different reality. Republicans are far less put off by the status quo in the country and party unity must come from the inside out. Whereas outside-in unity is driven by a commonly perceived external threat, inside-out unity must be driven by internal leadership.
As a result, the GOP contest has been far more one of issues than of personalities.
The problem is, no one Republican candidate has been able to appeal with equal strength to the major party concerns of national security, traditional values and free-market economics.
Given that 86 percent of Republicans say that "defending the U.S. against terrorism" is their No. 1 concern, perhaps it is not surprising that Sen. John McCain has emerged as the front-runner.
But, although national security is the top concern of Republicans and remains at the top of concerns for all Americans, social and economic concerns are also strong.
The unavoidable conclusion is that, if one assumes that McCain prevails as the party nominee, his choice for vice president will be crucial both for unifying the party and for the general election. He's got to pick a running mate who will bring strong credentials that satisfy the social and economic concerns of Republican conservatism.
What will this mean for the general election?
There's a sense that this is going to be a year when a Democrat will be returned to the White House.
An election year in which general public dissatisfaction is high does not bode well for the party in power. Plus, Democratic fund-raising and voter turnout is far outstripping Republican efforts.
The decisive battleground for the general election will be the third of the electorate in the middle -- independent voters and those without strong party affiliations.
These voters have migrated to the Democratic side over the past couple years. But polling indicates that this migration has been more defined by disillusionment with Republicans than with a surge of new enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and liberals.
This is supported by the fact that despite the Democratic blowout in the 2006 congressional elections, the approval ratings for the Democratic Congress are abysmal.
It is most reasonable to conclude that the Republican tent that housed party loyalists and independents for so many years is still the tent where most Americans want to be. They just need to feel comfortable that it's a tent that will be standing dependably once they are inside.
A Republican ticket that is balanced and strongly representative of concerns for national security, traditional values and a free economy can still be the winning formula.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.
The Illinois Mystery of Murder & Suicide
By Carrie K. Hutchens
Thursday, February 14th, forever changed many lives as a lone gunman, Steven Kazmierczak, stepped onto the stage in that lecture hall on Northern Illinois University campus and opened fire, snuffing out six young lives and injuring many more, before taking his own life. What was behind the mass murder and suicide? It is the question repeatedly asked throughout the media, law enforcement and public. The answer is silence.
No one knows what Steven Kazmierczak was thinking, but that hasn't prevented speculation that he may have been planning the attack for some time. The reasoning? He began buying weapons sometime ago. Perhaps he began buying them to be prepared for the massacre? If that is the case, why didn't he simply carry out the plan several weapons ago? Just as fair a speculation -- perhaps there was no intent of harming anyone when the young man made the purchases.
Anti-gun fanatics are prone to seize these horrendous situations as support for their cause. If we removed guns from the hands of people, then this situation would never have happened. Do they really believe that? Can they say that and keep a straight face?
People who are bent on killing others will find a way. And finding a gun isn't difficult at all, if one isn't particular about whether the purchase is legal or not. Nor is it difficult to find other methods, if the intent is there. So are we going to restrict, or withhold, anything and everything that might possibly be utilized to take the lives of others? That would be an enormous list. Obviously, it would be impossible to strip the world of all the potential dangers, even if one was possessed with the determination to do so.
The weapon of choice is, more often than not, secondary in the scheme of things. It is only a dangerous weapon when in the hands of the wrong person(s) at the wrong time. Wouldn't this then suggest that focusing so intensely on the weapon issues is actually taking away from where true focus should be? What happened to the Steven Kazmierczak everyone knew? What was behind his decision to kill others and himself? Were there any signs? Should someone have known? Is there something we are failing to see? Is there something we are failing to do? Why are so many of our young pursuing such a violent path of destruction that destroys so many lives? Why? What has gone wrong? Can we stop it?
There was a time that young people were frequently seen with weapons. A time when teens (and even pre-teens) would hunt on a regular basis and keep their weapons close. A time when, in some areas, it was the norm to see a truck being driven by a teen with a shotgun or rifle or both resting in the gun rack in the back window. A time when wearing a hunting knife wasn't given a second thought. A time when the violent crimes were far less than now. How is that possible?
Teens had weapons readily available, but incidents of them using them were, to modern ways of thinking, incongruently rare. Now, with considerably more restrictions in place, teens are by far more involved in violent crimes. Rather than an old fashion fist fight to settle a disagreement, today's disagreements (real or imagined) often involve weapons being pulled and the participants playing for keeps. The value of life has been on the fast track to meaningless for some time. Now it is becoming too obvious to ignore or play off. It is everywhere we turn. There is no place safe from the explosions waiting to happen; not until we identify and deal with the actual problems that are setting our young people off into uncontrollable and deadly behavior.
The Illinois mystery of murder and suicide may not be solved for a very long time to come, if ever. Wherever the major clues to the truth rest, I'm betting they are not necessarily in the purchase of weapons, whether the weapons were bought legally, whether the laws should be changed and things such as that. I'm betting that the answers to why there are six people from Northern Illinois University campus dead, rests in another direction. A direction that many do not want to look in.
As the parents began to lose the right to raise their children as they saw fit, and children were given more and more freedom to do whatever felt good to them, while being held to little or no accountability for inappropriate behavior, so have many of the children lost their sense of direction and self-value. And as seems to be the norm--as the outside forces gained more and more control--self-control became optional, and some have wandered aimlessly into a world of destruction they had no ability to avoid.
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Relativistic Logic
It's amazing how sloppy the logic and reason can become in the absence of a Christian worldview.
A key component of a Christian worldview is that, since God's values are transcendent and immutable, we can count on certain truths in life. In the Christian worldview, truths are logical, they make sense, and they are consistent both with one another and the world around us.
The secular worldview is based on the wisdom of man, whatever seems reasonable at the moment. It shifts like the sand, and what may be "right" or "fact" today is tomorrow "wrong" or "myth."
Want to see an example?
Consider this reprint in the Rapid City Journal today of the "third party" story I posted on last night.
The Journal has a feature called "Rapid Reply" which operates much like the comment system of many blogs. It allows readers to leave their thoughts about the story.
While some made comments that, while opposed to Bob Fischer's position and mine, are nevertheless reasonable and appropo to the topic. For instance, some disagreed with supporting a third party over John McCain for fear it would hand the presidency to the Democrats--which it likely would.
Others, however, were pretty intolerant of Christianity (usually most people who hate Christianity pride themselves on being tolerant--even though they usually aren't).
How about this comment:
Please take yourself, your church and furniture store and move to Saudi Arabia...Or just keep your religious beliefs to yourself and stop trying to make laws to change how the rest of us think and act. I am just fine with my own morals, I don't need yours forced on me!
Or this one
...the religious right is not entitled to the presidency...
Or this
...you need to look beyond your ultra-right conservatism and vote on real issues...
Or this
UNBELIEVABLE!! Fischer have you ever heard of the separation of church and state??
I'm sure Fischer has heard of it, since secularists have been trying to use a phrase not in the Constitution to override the right of free religious expression for about 60 years now. The commentator obviously has no understanding of the doctrine of separation of church and state, either in it's appropriate or inappropriate context, since it's totally inapplicable here even in the commonly accepted inappropriate meaning. Since when has "separation of church and state" been heralded even by secularists to mean that a religious person can't vote, organize and advocate as they see fit?
For the person who said Fischer needed to "look beyond your ultra-right conservatism and vote on real issues," I wonder if he/she ever considered that our religious and philosophical beliefs (whether they be Christian, conservative, or whatever) DO speak to "real issues." And those issues include not only taxes, defense, and health care, but the value of human life and the preservation of marriage--the cornerstone of a healthy society. Since when did "real issues" become so narrow as to encompass only those issues which are myopically considered to exclude any religious or moral input?
That same commenter also says, "The evangelical movement is, was, and will ever be a lost cause because this movement cannot justify any of its platforms without relying on 'faith.'" The wise person will realize that not only are the positions of evangelicals based on transcendent religious values (the most important foundation, since they do not change with whim or who's in power), but that moral choices usually have "real life" consequences. For instance, gambling addictions usually result in poverty, children outside of marriage usually results in poverty, etc.
Or this comment:
McCain scares the heck out of religous zealots, because he displays tolerance towards others. God forbid we reech across the isle and shake hands with a...dare I say it 'Gay person'. Many Christians would have you believe that this would lead to certain death and damnation.
Really? The Bible says Christians are not so much to avoid unbelievers who are sinning, but DOES say NOT to associate with someone who calls himself a Christian but is willfully living in sin. And the same passage in the Bible which says God does not approve of homosexual behavior also says there were former homosexuals in the church. So obviously one can leave this sin behind and join the fellowship of God and his church.
And nowhere does the Bible say the penalty for being homosexual, or being friendly and cordial to a homosexual, will result in certain death (though given the short life expectancy and health risks of homosexuality, an indirect result might be argued). And the Bible is also pretty clear that practically any sin can be forgiven, thus avoiding damnation, but a failure to accept the grace of Christ will result in damnation.
It was at this point that I left a comment myself, pointing out the intolerance of some of these hypocritical commenters:
Judging from some of the comments on this article, it seems some folks don't believe Christians have a right to be active and participate in the political process. Okay for liberals, okay for "moderates," even okay for secular conservatives...but not Christians.
How did "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" devolve into outrage that Christians might want to see their values promoted in the public square (as everyone does, regardless of what their values are)?
If our nation was to be a country where religious values could not "contaminate" government, why would the people who gave birth to this nation and set up its government have believed overwhelmingly in the role of religious values in government? Why would President George Washington have said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports"? Why would John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, have said, "...it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
This anti-Christian sentiment which would confine faith to the irrelevance of a Sunday morning pew is all the more reason Christians should be active in the political sphere.
No matter who is elected, someone's values will prevail in this country; should it be the values which say Christians should not have the same rights as everyone else, and are no longer welcome in the country they founded? "
Of course, rather than simply accepting logic and reason, the intolerant secularists had to come out and embarrass themselves with even more flawed logic and inaccuracy.
" Why is it that "Jesus", "Christianity", "Christian", "Bible", "Yaweh", or "Jehovah" specifically aren't included in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence? The generic words "Nature's God", and "Creator" are used instead.
The Constitution also says that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for office or public trust.
It was done this way intentionally. To accept ALL religions and religious beliefs. Including no belief, if one was so inclined.
You're free to think, believe, and live your life however you want. You, and others like you, cross the line when you force and legislate your beliefs on me and others like me to live our lives according to your mandates. "
Rather than retype and rephrase what I said in response, here is the next comment I left:
To re: Bob Ellis - You claim "creator" and other such language describing God is "generic." What was the religious faith of the men who wrote those words? Were the Muslims? Buddhists? Practically all of the Founders recognized Christianity as the preferred religion, even relatively nominal ones like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin called themselves Christians and/or promoted prayer and other Christian values.
If I said "My Lord," (which isn't "God" or "Jehovah") would you think I was talking about Lord Fauntleroy, or Lord Vader? The context and source make it pretty obvious for anyone interested in knowing.
Besides, that one day of the week (Sunday) exempted from bill consideration in Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution is a holy day for only one religion that I know of (hint: it isn't Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or secularists).
That religious test you mentioned in the Constitution: does that restrain government from establishing an official test, or does it prevent a person from voting according to their values? Does the Constitution define and restrain individuals or government?
Christian doctrine shaped the very way our government was set up. The system of checks and balances, for instance, is a reflection of the Christian doctrine of the fallen nature of man, that humans tend toward evil. Secularists believe we are evolving to a higher moral plane and those old checks and balances are no longer necessary; that's why they're working to undo things like federalism and separation of powers. Which set of values will we legislate?
Everyone "force[es] and legislate[s] [their]beliefs" on others when their beliefs are in the majority and adoption of those beliefs as law follow our republican (small "r") and constitutional form of government. How do you think laws have been passed in this country for over 200 years? Every law we pass reflects our beliefs and values.
I'd rather my values win out in the electoral process (just as you'd prefer your values). They are the values that created our nation, made it the great place it is, and can save it from the deterioration it's experiencing. Those values have proved they work. Values that promote a lack of restraint and moral fortitude, show contempt for private property, and disregard for human life have wrecked many a country. It's your right to choose those values, but it's my right to oppose them in the political process.
Then we had one of the Christian self-emasculators weigh in with some unbiblical illogic:
I'm a Christian. I have strong beliefs. But I refuse to force my beliefs down anyone's throat. The Bible says we shouldn't judge other people. I don't. The way I see it, when the Bible says we should or shouldn't do certain things, God is talking to us as INDIVIDUALS. When God said it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man, he's tellin ME not to do that. What others do is their business. I won't judge another, because we ALL sin in some ways. And I believe that when He says "Do not take the name of the Lord, thy God in vain", He's not talking about something you might say when you hit your thumb with a hammer, but rather using God's name to promote your own agenda. THAT is taking God's name in vain. "
Here was my brief reply to this:
To "I'm a Christian too" - You might want to go read the Bible again regarding that part you missed about judging things as right or wrong--it's in there (try Ezekiel 3:18-21, 1 Cor 6:3, Matthew 5:13-16 and Galatians 5:19-21 for a start), and God told us which are which. Does your non-judgmentalism and "the Bible only speaks to me" apply if I want to come murder you or steal your car? Remember, these are religious values. Should we un-legislate them? My car is pretty old and I could use another one, cheap (just kidding).
I could have taken issue with his dismissal of taking God's name in vain, but if I pursued every flaw and inconsistency, things would get pretty long (like this post).
In case you're wondering, those passages I cited tell the person who ostensibly believes the Bible (i.e. what used to be known as a "Christian"), both individually and in aggregate, that certain things are definitely wrong, that God's people (having received and acknowledged His truth) have a duty to warn others about wrong things, that we are to use judgment in ascertaining what those wrong things are, and that we are to allow the light of the truth we have received from God to shine forth so that others can learn the truth, too (remember that un-saltiness and "light under a bucket" part?).
Do people not bother to think ANYTHING through anymore, not even people who call themselves Christians?
This comment wasn't worthy of response, but I found it cute, in a sad, misguided sort of way:
Excellent post. If all Christians (evangelicals and fundamentalists, specifically) thought and lived their lives like you do, I doubt very much we'd have the problems we have today.
In other words, if Christians would just shut up and ignore all those passages I just cited (Ezekiel 3:18-21, 1 Cor 6:3, Matthew 5:13-16 and Galatians 5:19-21), things would be so much better. Life would be great if Christians would just refuse to be the salt of the earth that God commanded them to be. We wouldn't have all these problems (like a high divorce rate, high out-of-wedlock-births, STDs, a million aborted children every year, people dying of AIDS, children struggling emotionally and academically because they have no stable home life, people assaulted and raped and robbed and murdered every year, etc.) if these crazy Christians would just shut up and hide their light under a bucket.
You know, you don't have to agree with Bob Fischer's efforts to explore a third party option, even if you are a conservative and even if you're a dedicated, Bible-believing Christian. But is it so much to ask that arguments to the contrary at least be logical, consistent, factual and relevant, as a few were?
I suppose this is to be expected, though, in a world that has rejected absolute truth in favor of moral relativism. If nothing is true unless I want it to be, then I can make up my own truths, even my own facts and my own history. I can even harmonize all my made-up facts and truths with my own brand of logic; if I say it's consistent, then it is, and who are you to question it.
And it isn't even something new. We've seen it before, in the Israeli period of the judges, if nowhere else, when people simply did "what was right in their own eyes."
When we live that way, no one is safe. But it looks like that's the kind of world some people are insisting on.
Notice to McCain: The Dog is Off Leash
A picture is worth 1,000 words?
Scott Stantis has a comic strip at Reason.com which perfectly illustrates why conservatives have a problem with John McCain.
Check it out.
New Mexico is old news
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Death Toll In School Shooting Rises To 6
Northern Illinois University Says 16 Others Wounded
UPDATED: 8:25 pm CST February 14, 2008
KMBC.com
Authorities said a man dressed in black opened fire from a stage of a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday afternoon, killing five people and himself.
University President John Peters said four of the victims, including the gunman, were found dead at the scene of the shooting, which took place shortly after 3 p.m. CST on Thursday.
Another two people died later at a nearby DeKalb, Ill., hospital and 16 others were injured in the shooting, Peters said.
(Full article)
Though there has been violent crime throughout known history, how did we get to now? How did life come to be of so little value to so many?
Third Party Talk Surfaces Again
NewsMax and CBS features an article on renewed third party talk.
At the center of the article is Rapid City businessman Bob Fischer. The article says that while Fischer could support McCain over Clinton or Obama,
I'll be working in other ways to see that we have additional choices as conservatives," Fischer said.
He declined to elaborate, but held out hope that Mike Huckabee might mount an improbable comeback, or that another "good conservative, Godly, Christian pro-life" GOP candidate somehow emerge to supplant McCain. The Arizona lawmaker has opposed abortion during his four terms in the Senate.
Fischer and I discussed the campaign a few evenings ago informally. I'm not going to violate confidentiality, but I think I can safely say from what's already revealed in this NewsMax story that while Huckabee isn't Fischer's first choice, he and I agree that he's the best one remaining in the race.
I admitted to Fischer at the time that I've been in a funk for the past week or two over the pathetic choices we've been left with in the election. I don' know whether he was just trying to cheer me up, or whether he genuinely has something substantive up his sleeve, but he told me to be of good cheer.
The Constitution Party is mentioned quite a bit in the article, and it would be a good choice for conservatives. I've been receiving Constitution Party material on a regular basis for a few years now, and I consider several of their officers as friends. They are a good, conservative bunch of folks.
When I reviewed their platform a couple of years ago, and again just now, the only place I really disagreed with them was on involvement in wars overseas. While I agree with them that we should return to the constitutional system of declaration of wars from Congress, given that we've been off that path for decades, I don't know how easy it'll be to get on it again--and with the terrorist and international situation being what it is, we might need to mobilize in a hurry.
Other than that, I love the Constitution Party. They are as their name says: a party that honors and respects the U.S. Constitution. They are a party of conservatives, traditionalists, who believe in the wisdom of the Founders and the great vision this country once had.
In the article, Fischer sounds as if conservatives might reconsider McCain if he gets his act together and gives conservatives some solid assurances. I can tell you, though, that this is one conservative that has zero (0) use for what a politician says on the campaign trail, when it contradicts their record.
The time for convincing me he is a conservative was prior to the campaign; he chose to blow that opportunity by playing footsie with the "mainstream" media and other liberals. There's nothing he can say or do at this point to make me trust him.
I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain over Obama or Clinton...but if I have a viable, serious alternative that will allow me to have more respect for myself and my values, I may go there.
Even if it's outside the Republican Party I've considered myself a member of since before I could even vote.
Homosexual Org Admits: AIDS is a 'Gay Disease'
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 /Christian Newswire/ -- In a public statement last Friday, Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, rattled the homosexual activist community by joining the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pro-family organizations and a growing number of homosexual activists willing to admit that homosexual behavior is both extremely high-risk and primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S.
Addressing the topic of AIDS, Foreman drastically deviated from the "gay" lobby's party line by admitting, "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."
A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the "gay" community by stating that, "HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it."
Foreman's admission comes on the heels of a letter from Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America's (CWA) Policy Director for Cultural Issues, inviting Foreman and other homosexual activists to work together in discouraging homosexuals from engaging in the high-risk behaviors researchers recently determined are responsible for the epidemic spread of a potentially deadly strain of staph infection among certain segments of the "gay" community. The CDC has acknowledged that many of those same high-risk behaviors, such as male-male anal sex, are chiefly responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS.
Matt Barber addressed Foreman's admission: "It's extremely encouraging to see Matt Foreman, a homosexual activist who has for so long been in denial about the dangers of the lifestyle he has promoted, publicly coming to terms with the undeniable perils of that lifestyle.
"I only hope he will now stop promoting homosexual conduct and push for other liberal elites, especially those running our public schools, to do the same. Educators must truthfully address the 'gay' lifestyle's potentially deadly consequences.
"It's criminally reckless for the National Education Association and liberal educators to put political correctness and a deceptive political agenda above the lives, health and well-being of America's children. The evidence is there for all to see. 'Gayness' is not about 'who you are,' it's about 'what you do.' The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has now, in effect, acknowledged that reality. Their honesty is refreshing and unexpected," concluded Barber.
Jane Fonda Uses Extremely Foul Language on Today Show
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 /Standard Newswire/ -- This morning, on NBC's Today Show, Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler spoke about the 10-year anniversary of the Vagina Monologues. During the interview, on live television, Jane Fonda blurted the foul and offensive four letter "c"-word, referring to female anatomy.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) needs to take swift action to ensure broadcasters are held accountable. In a letter written to the FCC, Dr. Janice Crouse, Director and Senior Fellow of CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute said "This incident follows a similar instance on CBS' Good Morning America show when Diane Keaton used the vulgar word 'f--k.' Both of these instances occurred on morning programs when families are typically watching television with children around. But whether children or adults, we should not have crude and vulgar language broadcast over media to corrupt the culture and all of society."
Wendy Wright, President said "The topic was the Vagina Monologues, and the guest was Jane Fonda. What more did NBC need to be forewarned that something offensive would occur? A simple seven-second delay would have spared families throughout the country from Fonda's profanity. NBC deserves a big fat FCC fine."
Concerned Women for America (CWA) is urging the FCC to enforce decency standards and keep the airwaves clean.
GodTube.com Poll Finds Many Christian Conservatives Support Obama or Clinton Over McCain
DALLAS, Feb. 14 /Christian Newswire/ -- GodTube.com has announced that despite the recent sweeping victory for John McCain, a stunning new GodTube.com poll reveals that if McCain wins his party's nomination, Christian Conservative participants would rather vote for one of the two Democratic candidates.
With a slim 9.1% support for McCain, Obama has become a viable choice for many Christian Conservatives with 26.3% of the Christian vote, up 8% from last week.
Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton showed no increase in the GodTube.com poll this week maintaining her 19.6% of the Christian vote while Republican candidate Mike Huckabee increased his lead 30% last week, leading the GodTube.com poll by 45% of the overall Christian vote.
With religion taking center stage in this year's Presidential election, the Godtube.com poll is voted upon by registered Godtube.com users and received more than 40,000 votes within the first week. The number of participants continues to grow with an astounding 11,075 new voters registered this week. GodTube.com is utilizing internet survey techniques to ensure fairness and only includes the leading primary candidates.
"Our poll clearly indicates a dramatic change in the pulse of the Christian voter this election," said Chris Wyatt, GodTube.com founder and CEO. "There are a great deal of undecided Christian voters and we're in discussions with the candidates to address the Christian community directly through GodTube.com's ongoing election coverage."
In addition to the presidential polling, 69.5% of Christian voters expressed that they believe the U.S. is likely to be struck by another "9/11" in the next five years. 60 % of Christian voters agree that US passenger planes should be equipped with anti-missile devices, showing that Terror is still in the minds of America and remains a major issue.
There is no single source of ongoing nationwide Christian polling, and GodTube.com is uniquely positioned to reach the Christian community. With more than 2.5 million monthly visitors and over 280,000 registered Christian users, including 25,000 churches, GodTube.com connects with tens of thousands of Protestant and Catholic Americans each day seeking faith online.
GodTube.com has become an instant success, experiencing explosive growth drawing nearly 3 million unique visitors each month. GodTube.com broadcasts more Christian videos in a single day than all of the Christian television networks do in an entire year. With more than 50,000 videos offering a diverse array of video content, ranging from powerful personal testimonials to humorous youth-oriented videos to well-known pastor messages, GodTube.com provides thought-provoking and welcoming ways for people to explore their faith online.
Study Finds Obvious Link Between Abortion and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
STATEN ISLAND, Feb. 14 /Christian Newswire/ -- Leaders of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, the nation's largest network of individuals harmed by abortion, say a new study linking post-traumatic stress disorder with abortion only reinforces what its members have been saying for years.
"It's always good when a peer reviewed psychiatric study validates what you already know in your heart to be true," said Georgette Forney, co-founder of the SNMAC. "It's really only common sense, though, that a mother who undergoes the trauma of losing her child, whether voluntarily or under coercion from a boyfriend or parent, would suffer consequences from that trauma."
The study, published in the journal BMC Psychiatry, evaluated women one month and then three months after their abortions. It found that 20 percent experienced post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after one month; 61 percent did after three months.
"This is more evidence that abortion hurts women," added Janet Morana, another co-founder of SNMAC. "The cause and effect link between abortion and mental health problems is obvious, painfully obvious. It's far beyond time for the abortion industry to stop disrespecting women and tell them the truth about what abortion will do to them."
Since the launching of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign in 2003, 2,326 women and men have shared their testimonies publicly at over 200 gatherings in 44 states and six countries where more than 15,000 spectators have heard the truth about abortion's negative aftereffects. More than 4,100 people are registered to be Silent No More. Raising awareness about the hurtful aftermath of abortion and the help that is available to cope with the pain are two of the Campaign's goals.
The Silent No More Awareness Campaign is a joint project of Anglicans for Life and Priests for Life.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Hillary Clinton Debate Demands
Do We Have Too?
by Carrie K. Hutchens
Personally, I hope that Obama doesn't give into Hillary Clinton's debate demands, for no other reason than I am beyond sick of the debating, but feel obligated to stay on top of what is transpiring. I mean... what is left to debate? It's the same thing over and over and over again. How about trying something new for that free advertising she seems to be after? It certainly would bring a sigh of relief to many that feel the same as I do.
The way it is playing out though...
Since Hillary Clinton's funds went further south than north, she has had this urge to do a debate a week. It's even reported that she has an ad going in Wisconsin to make it sound as though Obama is simply trying to avoid debate with her. According to the Washington Post, "Clinton Airing New Ads in Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin", it goes like this, "Both Democratic candidates have been invited to a televised Wisconsin debate. Hillary Clinton has said yes. Barack Obama hasn't. Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions. Like why Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American, and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures. Wisconsin deserves to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter. And that's not debatable."
Not mentioned in the Wisconsin ad is that Obama, though he didn't have to -- no obligation on his part -- did accept two debates with Hillary. One is in Austin, Texas on February 21st, and another in Cleveland, Ohio on February 26th according to Timesonline.
Sadly it seems -- for some of us -- Obama did agree to at least two of the debates Hillary is trying to make happen. Since he did, how about a new twist to those? How about the moderators "make" Clinton obey the rules? How about she either obeys the "time limits" or the debate ends right then and there? How about she either answers the questions, instead of going off wherever she decides she wants to go, or the debate ends right then and there? Now that is a debate I could get into!
Will it happen?
Some say that Hillary is held to a different standard than others. I agree. She gets by with breaking rules that others do not. She twisted Obama's words and got caught. When she got called on it, surrogates and supporters were crying that she was being picked on. They claimed she was being held to a different standard. What these particular people aren't realizing is that they are requesting that Hillary be able to get a free ride with regard to anything and everything she happens to do that is inappropriate and rule-breaking. Why? How is that to be considered that everyone is being held to the same standards?
This reminds me of some years back when people were demanding jobs that they were incapable of doing. For example, a woman that couldn't lift over 60 pounds wanting to work on a dock where one must be able to lift 200 pounds. She wanted the job without being held to the same standards as her male counter-parts. That isn't how it is suppose to work.
If the job requires a certain ability, then all should be held to that standard. Likewise, Hillary Clinton should have to be held to the same standard of the male candidates or get off the stage and out of the campaign. She is not entitled to any special treatment, no matter how much she and her supporters want to believe she is. Hillary Clinton is nothing more or less than a person running for the nomination of her party for the presidency bid. As such, she should be held as accountable as all the other candidates.
Hillary Clinton demands debates and tries to force Obama into acceptance? Isn't this called "attempted manipulation" and a showing of her need to control everybody else's business, while failing to tend to her own? Maybe she should pay more attention to her own camp and campaign, and get a handle on it, before trying to force everybody else to do what she wants just when she wants it. Likewise, maybe instead of trying to run the debates, she ought to take her position as one of the debaters and follow the rules just like everyone else is suppose to do.
Let's see if the moderators hold her accountable! That's the least they can do, if we have to endure even one more debate! Do we really have to?
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
City of Berkeley Says "Get Out!" to USMC
The San Francisco Bay area, once famous for restaurants, bridges and trolley cars, continues to redefine itself (more). This time it’s across the bay in Berkeley, famous since the 60’s as a hub of anti-America/leftist/socialist radicalism. So this recent news certainly doesn’t surprise this one-time resident of the city by the bay.
A blogger calling himself “Zombie” has been active for some time in chronicling the nuttiness around the People’s Republic and has posted a number of photos of the activities in Berkeley this past week.
The San Francisco Chronicle on-line has this report, and has phone numbers and e-mail addresses to contact the Berkeley City Council for those wishing to make themselves heard.
As the right-wing blogosphere railed and a U.S. senator vowed financial retaliation against the Berkeley City Council for its effort to boot the Marine Corps out of town, three war protesters ratcheted up pressure from the left by chaining themselves Friday to the front door of the downtown Marine recruiting office.
The demonstrators snapped their locks shut at 7 a.m. and spent the next 7 1/2 hours blocking the door, waving and chanting as hundreds of cars driving by honked in support. Finally, at 2:30 p.m., police snipped the chains and arrested them.
Two of the three were cited for blocking a business and released, and the third was booked into jail on an unrelated traffic warrant, police said.
The demonstrators promptly said they will keep protesting outside the recruiting station at 64 Shattuck Square until the Marines leave Berkeley - which is what the City Council advised the service to do in a vote Tuesday night that called the Marines 'unwelcome intruders.'
How Did McCain Become the GOP Nominee?
Adam Graham's column at Renew America has some useful advice for conservatives (for the future) that might help us prevent another liberal nominee like John McCain.
I differ with Graham in some areas, primarily in his assessment of criticism against Mike Huckabee. Graham appears to have a soft spot for the pro-life liberal, believing some of the criticism of Huckabee was too harsh, but I maintain Huckabee deserved to be nailed to the wall for his soft-on-crime, soft-on-border-control and soft-on-terrorism comments and record--especially when far better candidates were still in the game.
But Graham makes some good points.
One is that many conservatives came out against certain candidates, but never indicated who they were for.
Another area cited by Graham goes along with that, in that too many conservatives were not engaged early in doing their research, finding the right candidate and getting behind them (I'm guilty of that to some extent--wish I'd realized what a solidly conservative candidate Duncan Hunter was much earlier). Candidates who don't have media and establishment backing need ground-up buzz to get their campaigns going; they can't do that if the base is sitting on its hands, or trying to figure out not who's the best candidate but who's "electable."
One of the most important facts Graham points out is that when you're dealing with an establishment candidate, you can never turn your back on them and assume they're done until their campaign is gone, gone, gone. That's another mistake I made. I assumed early on that McCain wouldn't get anywhere (and at first, he wasn't), that too many people saw through him and were tired of him.
But when we conservatives as a collective group wrote off the good candidates like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback as "unelectable," then succeeded in pointing out the liberal records of rising contenders like Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney, that left McCain as pretty much the last man standing.
I hope we do better next time, because, barring a miracle, for November 2008 it looks like our choices are going to be bad and worse.
Conservatives Dominate Top 10 Talk Shows
From Crosswalk, here are the top radio talk show hosts from the Talkers magazine "2008 Heavy Hundred":
1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Sean Hannity
3. Michael Savage
4. Dr. Laura Schlessinger
5. Glenn Beck
6. Laura Ingraham
7. Don Imus
8. Ed Schultz
9. Mike Gallagher
10. Neal Boortz
Not bad for conservatives: 8 of the top 10 spots. And unlike most liberals, Don Imus actually flirts with reality sometimes.
The article sounds like placement of liberal talk show hosts in the list is subjective because "they're not a dime-a-dozen like so many conservatives." I read that to mean, they threw in some liberals, not necessarily because they have big audiences, but because they're noteworthy simply for existing.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Elitist Superdelegates
The "superdelegates" of the Democratic Party are a study in contradictions. While the very name of the Democratic Party carries the implication of keen interest in the average voter, the function of superdelegates reveals the elitist bent of the Democratic Party.
I was planning on writing a piece about superdelegates, but I came across "(Not So) Superdelegates" written by Ted R. Bromund at Commentary Magazine that says it so well.
...the fact that the Democratic Party does not trust Democratic voters to pick the right candidate could easily lead voters of all stripes to decide that they, in turn, should not trust it.
Bromund's piece examines the history of how superdelegates came to be, and if you believe not only in a republican (small "r") form of government, but greatly in the "power of the people," then perhaps the Democrat Party isn't the place for you.
According to Bromund, the Democrats had tried to "democratize" their selection process as a result of the 1968 election. That led to the disastrous selection of ultra-liberal George McGovern and his humiliating 1972 defeat, and Jimmy Carter, who made great headway in making the United States look like a Third World country with our runaway inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and military impotence.
Thus, Democrats came up with the superdelegate system to insulate the party from its own voters. No more could "the people" be trusted with candidate selection.
South Dakota's own superdelegates include none other than former Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Tim Johnson, and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.
Bromund also points out that while superdelegates can normally be counted on to ensure victory for the establishment candidate, the politics of victimhood which has characterized the Democrat Party for years (it could be said that the party is made up of victims of some type or another, and those who specialize in pandering to those victim groups) is lending to some superdelegate uncertainty this election.
There is the victim-group of feminist women, and the victim-group of liberal blacks. But then there is also the establishment-favorite in Hillary Clinton, even as she represents the female victim-group. Such tough decisions!
Still, I find it ironic that a party which ostensibly prides itself on "reaching down to the common man," believing in democracy, and "power to the people" is in practice a party led by elitists.
This superdelegate mechanism actually goes hand-in-hand with the liberal belief that average people are too stupid to run their own lives, that everyday people are incompetent, that average people need government to make the important decisions for them and to do everything for them.
So I suppose it fits with the Democrat Party, after all.
Barna Poll: GOP Can't Count on Evangelical Vote
George Barna and the Barna Group reveal some interesting polling numbers about values voters and evangelical voters for the upcoming election.
You might recall that margins in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were pretty close, and that "values voters" played a critical part in the success of the Republican Party.
That critical segment that got George W. Bush over the top in 2000 and 2004 may not be there for John McCain.
From the Feb. 4 Barna report:
If the election were held today, only 45% of evangelicals say they would support the Republican nominee for president, and 11% would support the Democratic representative. Most significant is that a whopping 40% of evangelicals are undecided. This is extraordinary, given that 62% of evangelicals voted for the Republican candidate in 1992, 67% did so in 1996, along with 67% in 2000 and 85% in 2004.
"Evangelicals are clearly sending a message to Republican leaders this time around," commented Barna, a former campaign manager whose firm has conducted surveys for candidates in two presidential elections. "There is tremendous frustration among evangelical voters, in particular. Overall, 90% of them say they are interested in the presidential election, making them among the voter segments most interested in the race. Further, 98% of them say they are concerned about the moral condition of the country and 82% say they uncomfortable with the way things are going in the world. Yet, given the stands of some of the leading Republican contenders, evangelicals are registering their discomfort with the choices they have at hand."
It is beyond doubt that evangelicals and values voters in general were far more positive about George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 than they are about ANY of the current GOP candidates, especially John McCain.
If Bush, the GOP candidate, was elected with the support of evangelicals but little overall margin in the last two elections, that doesn't bode well for John McCain, who not only lacks solid conservative, pro-life, pro-family credentials, but who has sometimes gone out of his way to show his disdain for evangelicals.
McCain might fare better against Hillary Clinton as a Democrat opponent in November. After all, her negative numbers are high even among Democrats.
But McCain against the positive, fresh-faced Barak Obama? I would almost certainly expect a Democrat president in 2008 in such a matchup.
But if the GOP establishment is dead set on going with the "mainstream" media flow and nominating a liberal candidate that alienates the conservative base, then I suppose they'll just have to sleep in the bed they've made.
Here are some key terms used by the Barna Group that help understand exactly what segment of the population is being discussed:
"Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."
"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."
Hillary Clinton: The Underdog with all the Advantages? -- proof please
By Carrie K. Hutchens
It seems the Clintons (and their camp) want us to believe that Hillary Clinton is both the underdog and the winner. Not that an underdog can't win in the end, but usually the term refers to one that has the disadvantage and is going against the odds. But I thought that Clinton was boasting that she had all the experience, the ability, the money and the contacts to beat the Republicans in the general election. Is she now saying that was all a farce and she is actually disadvantaged?
The problem with Hillary Clinton and her husband, the man that doesn't know what defines sex, is that they seem to change their stories so frequently that it is difficult to know from one moment to the next what is the special of the day and which Hillary is serving it up.
One minute Hillary is the take-charge woman who has the nomination and election all sewn-up, and the next minute, she is so desperate she is wanting to change the rules in mid-stream regardless of how unethical it would be to do so. She suddenly wants Florida delegates to count. Would she be trying to get them to count if it had been Obama or Edwards that had won the popular vote? I think not!
What role should the super-delegates play?
"For Clinton, Ohio, Texas emerge as must-wins" by Patrick Healy (The New York Times - Feb. 11, 2008), reports on a very revealing difference between Obama and Hillary, "Clinton advisers have said that super-delegates should support the candidate who they believe is best qualified to be president, while Obama advisers have argued that superdelegates should reflect the will of voters and the best interests of the party."
Hillary was so busy talking "I" and "me" and what she wanted, it seems that she forgot there are some people called citizens of the United States that a president is suppose to represent -- not be dictator of. People that certainly don't need her guiding their lives as she seems to think she should have the right to do. Hillary knows best? She can't even get her own life straight, how is she going to get it "right" for others? But then I suppose whether it is right or not is not the issue. Her being in control is what she needs... what she appears to thrive on. But it looks like she is not as in control as she once thought she was.
Healy further reported, "She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she's out," said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. "The campaign is starting to come to terms with that." Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view."
The irony is that while some of the donors and super-delegates are reportedly getting nervous and some are expressing concern about the financial imbalance, the Clinton campers are reporting that Hillary has financial resources to regroup. So on the one hand, Obama had the financial advantage, but on the other, Hillary actually has the financial resources? And... we are to believe which suggestion made by her and her people?
The underdog with all the advantages? Guess a Clinton would expect most to be too stupid to realize the claim is an oxymoron or that there is a game of manipulation at play.
Hillary Clinton may very well be the underdog in this stage of it all but if she is -- she no longer has all the advantages she boasted. It does seem, however, that whatever Hillary suggests is the reality we are to accept -- it is a matter of convenience and not necessarily the "true" reality of the day.
On still another questioning note...
What is it that Hillary thinks she has done for the past thirty-five years that we should be impressed with? Maybe she should clarify, give specifics and provide documentation, rather than to simply throw that tired statement around as though it is gospel and with the expectation we should receive it as such.
The short of the story is...
We need a president that we can trust to be the person claimed to be. We need a person that we can trust to tell us the truth -- not a chameleon that has no hesitation in twisting other people's words and presenting the lie to us as true. How can we trust someone that would do that? How would we ever really know if what was said was true or a convenient lie? We wouldn't.
The underdog with all the advantages? Is that like 35 years of unexplained and undefined proven experience?
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Hillarycare is not the answer
Soviet-style mandates are morally repugnant, the antithesis of everything that a free society is aboutBY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION
Suppose I tell you that the government will design a product and make you buy it. If you say no thanks, that's too bad. The government will decide what you need and what you will buy.
If you say you can't afford it, we'll send in government investigators to check, and if they conclude indeed you can't afford it, we'll tax your neighbors and make them subsidize you so you can pay for it.
We'll set up a government bureaucracy to monitor and make sure you're cooperating. If they discover you haven't made the purchase, they'll go to your employer and have your wages garnished.
Let's assume further that total spending for this government-designed and -mandated product accounts for about a fifth of the nation's total economy.
The former Soviet Union? Communist China?
No, this is the new Hillarycare. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., having once failed to explicitly nationalize the one-fifth of our economy going to health care, now wants to slip it past us by dressing it up in drag.
Her plan is to use a federal government mandate to force every American to buy health insurance. She claims it won't violate our freedom because if you already have a private plan that's OK. But a government alternative plan will be made available.
The government will regulate health care, define acceptable health insurance and force every American to buy a plan based on the government-established standard.
Her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, also wants vast government regulations and controls to define and price out health care. But Obama, who has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, grasps that, short of invoking a police state, it still must be up to consumers to decide to purchase health insurance.
This last point does not intimidate Clinton's Soviet-style affinities. When asked how purchase can be enforced, she told interviewer George Stephanopoulos, "We will have an enforcement mechanism. ... you know, going after people's wages."
Incredibly, Clinton calls her concept of government-mandated universal health coverage "a core Democratic value."
Indeed, we have a problem in the delivery of health care in our country. Costs are going up at twice the overall rate of inflation, with increasing burdens on working families.
Why have health-care costs gone out the roof when the prices of just about everything else have gone down? Because health care already has become a highly regulated, highly bureaucratized industry.
If we want cheaper and more creatively delivered health care, we need less, not more, government.
According to Dr. David Gratzer of the Manhattan Institute, in 1960 about half of health-care expenditures were directly controlled by consumers. Today, it is about 15 percent. Over the same period in which consumers have relinquished control, per-capita health-care spending has quintupled and costs have skyrocketed.
When someone else is paying, individuals behave differently. In a recent book by Shannon Brownlee of the New America Foundation, "Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer," she argues that up to a third of our health-care expenditures are frivolous and ineffectual.
Beyond the pure economic calculus lies the moral question of individual responsibility and freedom.
Last year, the pharmaceutical firm Merck unleashed a state-by-state lobbying campaign to get state governments to mandate that teen-age girls receive an expensive vaccine they developed to combat the virus that causes cervical cancer.
Deemed irrelevant was the fact that this virus is transmitted overwhelmingly through promiscuous sexual behavior. Those most at risk are poor black girls, so the costs would flip over to government (taxpayers).
The core behavioral problem, immorality and promiscuity, driving the poverty and risk of the disease is not only ignored but effectively subsidized.
Our health-care ills are symptomatic of our social ills. And our social ills reflect a society where the link between personal responsibilities and costs and personal rights and benefits has been largely severed.
Soviet-style mandates like what Clinton wants will simply dig the hole into which we are sinking deeper. The approach is morally repugnant, the antithesis of everything that a free society is about, and, like the former Soviet Union, does not work.
More individual freedom, choice and responsibility in both the delivery and purchase of health care is our only hope.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.
Confirmed: Adelstein Runs Again
Today's Rapid City Journal reports what the street was already saying: Stan Adelstein is going to run for his old District 32 state senate seat that he lost in 2006.
In addition to the obligatory "I'm not running against anyone" language, the article included another interesting bit:
He said he does not expect opposition from anti-abortion groups that worked against him in the 2006 primary.
Really?
They don't have funerals for bills that die in committee
By Gordon Garnos
AT ISSUE: As far as my thesis goes, two legislative bills take center stage today. One has been moved to the 36th day in committee, thus killing it. The other, when last heard of, was in the Senate State Affairs Committee awaiting action, and more than likely it will be "killed in action," by a hail of bullets from both legislators and lobbyists. Some could say one or the other, or both, could be considered unimportant. But wait a gosh darn minute, neither has had a real autopsy to determine the causes of their demise.
SENATE BILL 120 is simple enough to understand. In fact, it makes a lot of sense unless you are one of those who feel the state Legislature shouldn't meddle in the affairs of cities or counties, or, for that matter, school boards, except when it comes to sending them the ole "doe-ray-me."
Senate Minority Leader Scott Heidepriem is the sponsor of this bill. Its title is simple enough, "Certain Bonds to be Competitive." What it would do would make it mandatory for cities, counties, school boards and the like in South Dakota to use competitive bidding when they sell bonds. The hang-up here is that today many of these local governments would rather negotiate what they may have to pay for interest. I'm told it's an easier process. My guess is the bonds people would prefer negotiation process as well.
SELLING BONDS IS a common and often very necessary for cities of all sizes, for instance, to finance large projects like constructing a swimming pool, or a school board to build a new building. By putting these bonds on the market, these local governments can thus choose where they will get the best deal. Simple enough, unless it has been done the other way, which seems to be pretty much the rule across the state.
But such negotiations generally cost taxpayers money. The Sioux Falls City Council found this out after a push was made to bid the bonds for a project instead of negotiating for their sale like they usually did. In that bit of business that city near Harrisburg saved several thousand dollars of its taxpayers' money. I should say here that bonding just doesn't affect large cities and schools, etc. It affects our communities of every size when they borrow money.
Should bidding on bonds in local governments become mandatory? Many say, "No!" because such a law would impugn on what they call local control and nothing is more important to them than local control. Even if it is costing taxpayers more money? That's the question. The answer is for the Legislature to "enable" this bill into law. Schools, counties and cities have to put out bids for their annual supplies, cars, etc. Why shouldn't they have to put out bids when they "rent" money, which is what bonding is all about?
THE OTHER BILL I mentioned is now dead for this legislative session unless someone substitutes its wording under the number of another bill. That is called hog housing, which is legal in South Dakota. Senate Bill 76 would have made an $50,000 appropriation to support the South Dakota Hall of Fame at Chamberlain. The bill was presented by Senator Cooper Garnos of Presho, my cousin's son. Jenna Friedrich of the Bureau of Finance and Management opposed the bill.
It was on its way until Senator Jean Hunhoff of Yankton made a substitute motion to defer the bill to the 36th legislative day. Senator Brock Greenfield of Clark seconded the motion and the second motion passed.
I guess the lack of money was one of the reasons for its defeat.
Another was, I suspect, the opponents' inability to understand the importance of getting more funding for one of the most important museums in South Dakota. I also suspect those opposing this funding motion probably have never set foot in the only facility of its kind in the nation or understand its function. It archives the very people who have either been born here and gone on to famous careers or who have helped make what our state is today.
Most museums house the relics of yesteryear. The South Dakota Hall of Fame tells the stories of those people who had a significant hand in developing our state and nation.
WHEN THE HALL was created, it was hoped that donations would keep the door open. But that isn't happening. Finances are tight there at the Hall, very tight. Since its inception more than 600 South Dakotans and former South Dakotans are on its register. They include people who are millionaires to a little old woman who saved lives with her nursing skills.
It would be most unfortunate if the Hall had to close its doors.
Financial help is needed. It is needed from the state coffers. It is needed from those who have been honored and it is needed from the public across the state. I was there when those doors were opened to record the successes of our famous people. I don't want to be there for its funeral, a death without an autopsy....
Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Notes on 'Science: What is True?'
Lesson 5 of the Truth Project is on "Science: What is True." It is a two-part lesson, the first of which I attended last week, and finished up the second part today.
The first part of lesson 5 opens with an examination of God's truth revealed in His creation.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20
In other words, the very universe around us (it's majesty, it's complexity, it's obvious design) testifies to the reality and truth of God, so that even if humans claim no one told them about God, they are nevertheless without excuse, because creation itself has testified to them.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. - Romans 1:21-23, 25
Do we see this today? Some have exchanged the worship of God as the ultimate source, the ultimate truth, for the worship of the cosmos (remember Carl Sagan?) and man's reason as the ultimate beginning and end.
Speaking of Carl Sagan, the Truth Project showed a clip of Sagan in an earlier lesson from Sagan's PBS series "Cosmos" stating that "The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be." Dr. Del Tackett, the host of the Truth Project, asks the question, "If the universe has 'always been,' then shouldn't entropy have rendered it dead by now?"
This lesson also asks the questions, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "Why is anything in motion rather than everything still?" and "Why is there order rather than chaos?" and "Why is there life rather than deadness?" and "Why is there music?"
The lesson also reveals how evolutionists and materialists can come up with their fantastic theories to explain a universe without cause, when otherwise we would look at their claims and instantly recognize them for the foolishness they are: time. Quoting George Wald from "The origin of life" in Scientific American:
...Time is the hero of the plot...what we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Give so much time, the impossible becomes possible.
In other words, most of the claims of materialists don't make sense, but if we throw in the key ingredient (billions of years of TIME), then in our minds the impossible somehow becomes possible. After all, millions or billions of years is beyond our human comprehension.
Also examined are some basic assumptions articulated by Sagan in Cosmos:
I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos
We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both.
We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.
We will see in the course of lesson 5 that assumption 2a is a lie (materialists will not pursue the truth if it leads to God), and assumption 3 is a lie (the vast majority of evolution and materialism is speculation that is being marketed as fact).
Also examined is how the line between science and philosophy has become blurred in the past century. Science attempts to understand the "particulars" of the universe (how it works, etc.) while philosophy is concerned with the "universals" or the big "why" of things. Science has gone beyond the investigation of how things work, to attempting to answer the philosophical "why" of the universe. And in doing so, it has lost it's way, and a great deal of it's credibility.
Evolutionists love to claim that Christians are opposed to "science" (they are NOT, they are simply opposed to science that tries to answer the big "why" based on speculation). Yet scientist Johannes Kepler, a creationist, said
The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God.
Some say evolution is no longer a theory but is established FACT. This means it has become recognized as a scientific LAW. Yet while science normally requires repeatable testing, observation and verification, evolution has somehow been given a free pass from these requirements. We have never observed evolution occurring, we have no recorded evidence that it occurred, and we have no tests that can make it occur. Yet we call it "fact."
Lesson 5 also points out that evolutionists have not only moved science from the particulars to the universals, they have moved from the objective to the religious in their attitudes. Do you see anything "religious," dogmatic, or judgmental in this statement from Richard Dawkins:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
I wonder if Dawkins realized that in making the value judgment implicit in the term "wicked" that he was dangerously close to showing his hand, and revealing that evolution is a religion to him?
Tackett points out another important truth about the creation/evolution debate. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, creationists do not deny the evidence, they do not deny the fossil record or anything that science has showed us. Yet they reach a different conclusion. Tackett uses the analogy of a football game where one set of fans clearly sees a touchdown, where another set of fans clearly sees an "incomplete." Only one is true, yet both are convinced of a different reality. Is bias and presupposition a factor? Evolutionists will never admit to bias or presupposition, but it is every bit as present as it is for the creationist.
Tackett also highlights the tremendous discipline it takes for the evolutionist to keep on believing in random progression, especially in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Consider this quote from Francis Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." In other words, no matter how much this looks like it was designed, keep telling yourself it evolved randomly.
Even Darwin had these unpleasant intrusions from reality: "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" Remember what Romans 1 said above?
Part 2 of the lesson today examined a biological function a simple as blood clotting, and how it is evidence of design. What did organisms do until the function of blood clotting "evolved?" One tiny injury to the organism and it would bleed to death. What a wonder that any organisms survived long enough to "evolve" blood clotting. The odds are so high, it'd almost be considered a miracle...but that would assume a supernatural agent, which we must not even consider!
In fact, Crick essentially said so himself:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
What a refreshing, if incomplete, admission of honesty!
Darwin also laid out the test of veracity for his own theory:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
In fact, many scientists have become convinced that the gradual, successive changes posited by Darwin are in fact impossible. So they have come up with the theory of "directed panspermia" which finds that living cells are so complex that even the billions of theoretical years the earth has existed would not be enough time to evolve that kind of function and complexity, so the first living cell on earth must have been transported to earth from some other planet outside our solar system. (Haven't I said before that evolution is "science fiction?")
Scientists who are hopelessly devoted (enslaved?) to their religion of evolution face some tough choices when they are smacked in the face with the reality that the universe is far too complex to have come into existence without design. They are so desperate that they will come up with more and more outlandish theories in order to escape facing the one conclusion that is utterly unacceptable: that there is a Creator to which they are accountable.
Consider this statement from George Wald in Scientific American:
Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternate belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.
The lesson examines irreducible complexity. This is where one part of an organism has no purpose or function without other parts, so there is no "evolutionary need" for the development of one part until others involved in the process develop, but they too have no need to exist without the others--so many parts would have had to spontaneously evolve at the same time and coincidentally work together to perform some useful function. Quite a stretch?
For an example, consider the simple mousetrap. Do any of it's parts (the piece of wood, the spring, the trigger, the locking arm, the locking ring) serve any useful function without all the others? The simple mousetrap would perform no useful function without all the parts in the exact correct configuration.
Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box examines this unworkable problem for evolutionists and compares it to Darwin's own test of veracity for his theory of evolution:
To Darwin, the cell was a "black box"--its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. Now, the black box has been opened up and we know how it works. Applying Darwin's test to the ultra-complex world of molecular machinery and cellular systems that have been discovered over the past 40 years, we can say that Darwin's theory as "absolutely broken down."
Another of Darwin's veracity tests is examined:
...[T]he number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
That was 150 years ago. We have seen much more of the geologic column that had been discovered in Darwin's time. So have we found those myriad transitional forms which prove evolution? Uh, no.
Even Stephen Jay Gould admits that, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils."
Scientists have also come up with a new theory to explain evolution since Darwin's theory obviously doesn't cut the mustard: punctuated equilibrium. This theory basically posits that there was sudden, immediate change in organisms, that organisms remained stable for many years, and would suddenly evolve into new species, remain stable for many more generations, then suddenly evolve again.
I wonder what theoretically triggers such sudden changes. And I wonder how it happens that out of the alleged millions of years there has been life on earth, how it happened that two biologically compatible organisms, capable of complimentary reproduction, happened to exist at the same time to be able to reproduce and carry forward such spontaneous changes? But when you're dealing with sci-fi, I guess anything is possible in the movies...and in evolution.
Why are evolution scientists so willing to come up with wild theories that just don't hold up under the very laws of nature they claim to worship? I believe that it is because evolution is a form of worship. A worship of the universe, or a worship of man's reason. And the motivation to hold onto that belief is not generated by scientific integrity, but by a religious and philosophical faith.
I believe the following revealing statement from Richard G. Bozarth in American Atheist demonstrates that evolution is a religiously dogmatic position:
Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
The theory of evolution is a religious, worldview-attack on Christianity.
Evolution is not science, but a philosophy, a religion--a religion that holds the universe or man's reason as deity.
The Truth Project also quotes S. Lovtrup:
I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?
I couldn't agree more.
