OneNewsNow.com
March 29, 2007
A budget analyst says a plan by Democrats in Congress to implement the "largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history" would deliver a damaging blow to American families.
Critics of the Democrats' proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 estimate it would increase taxes $900 billion over five years and $3.3 trillion over ten years. Brian Riedl, senior budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, says if the Democrats' budget were enacted into law, the typical American household would see an average tax increase of $2,641 per year over the next ten years.
Riedl says the proposed plan does not do a single thing to address growing entitlements for millions of retiring baby boomers -- an issue he describes as "the greatest economic challenge of our era."
"We're about to have 77 million retiring baby boomers added on to our Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid rolls. The costs are enormous," says the analyst. "I mean, this would force us to either double all tax rates or pretty much eliminate every other government program if we don't do anything about this."
Yet the Democrats, Riedl says, prefer to "kick the can down the road" and ignore it.
"They reject the president's reform proposals [and] they say, we'll let the future worry about it," he laments. "And what's even more cynical and irresponsible about that is that the head of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad (D - North Dakota), went on 60 Minutes and said that Congress knows this is a problem, but too many members lack the courage to address it." And so does Conrad's own budget, the Heritage Foundation spokesman adds.
Riedl says the Democrats' budget would repeal all of President Bush's tax cuts, including the child credit, bring back the marriage penalty and the death tax, as well as raise taxes on investors.
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved
To Whom It May Concern,
Dr. Craig Hazen has come under renewed criticism by certain Christian apologists due to his candidacy for President of Biola University. As a friend of Dr. Hazen and student at Talbot School of Theology, I would like to express my support for him and his candidacy.
Jill Martin Rische has been the most vocal critic against Craig Hazen claiming that his remarks constitute blasphemy. While I don?t agree with every word Dr. Hazen used in those of these instances, but the accusation of blasphemy is completely unfounded. Frankly, I wish Dr. Hazen had not endorsed Robert Millet?s book, but nothing he said promotes or encourages Mormonism. Dr. Hazen?s words do promote the search for truth and he has been uncompromising about what the truth is. Mrs. Rische has even acknowledged this stating, ?In his own defense, Dr. Hazen argues he has spent his life telling people that Mormonism is a false religion.? While I occasionally disagree with Dr. Hazen over his methodology, to my knowledge he has never compromised the Gospel or backed down from identifying Mormonism as ?an achievement of the devil.?
Mrs. Rische has cited 2 Cor. 6:14-18 in support of her apparent view that Christians should not build relationships with non-Christians in an effort to evangelize to them. However, following her logic, Jesus was wrong for dining with prostitutes and tax collectors, and the Apostle Paul was wrong for addressing the Areopagus as he did in Acts 17:22-34. In fact, Dr. Hazen?s prayer at the Tabernacle even bears striking resemblance to Paul?s address in that they both appeal to the non-Christian?s religious in order to point them to the truth.
Through all of the criticisms that have been directed his
way, Dr. Hazen has maintained an attitude like that which Paul exhibited in
Philippians 1:15-18. Regardless of what is said about him, Dr. Hazen has shown
that his greatest desire is that the Gospel go forth into the world and
rigorously defended.
I know nothing of the other candidates for President of
Biola University, so I can say nothing of them. But of Dr. Craig Hazen I can
say that he is an incredible visionary who exemplifies what it means to act
with wisdom, knowledge, and character, even in the midst of harsh and
slanderous criticisms. I believe Dr. Hazen would make an outstanding President
and it is my hope that the accusations being made against him would not be held
against him.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Roger N. Overton
Stockman "hid the full truth from the company's investors and lenders," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said at a news conference.
He said that Stockman and other executives "resorted to lies, tricks and fraud" to boost Collins & Aikman's financial performance when they could not improve it legitimately.
Stockman and three others -- former Collins & Aikman executives J. Michael Stepp, David Cosgrove and Paul Barnaba -- were charged in a criminal indictment unsealed on Monday with conspiracy, securities fraud and other charges related to the alleged scheme. Prosecutors said the fraud lasted from December 2001 until the company filed for bankruptcy in May 2005.
Four other former company officials have pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to the alleged scheme, bringing the total number of people charged in the case to eight, prosecutors said.
Collins & Aikman was not named in the indictment. Garcia said his office had reached a non-prosecution agreement with the company, which has agreed to continue to cooperate with the government in its investigation.
Stockman, in a statement posted on his lawyer's Web site, said that the government's charges were implausible.
"My actions were motivated by the goal of saving the company, its investors and thousands of employees from a brutal financial squeeze by the Big Three automakers," he said. "There is not a hint of wrongful gain."
Stockman left the company five days before it filed for bankruptcy.
Separately, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil charges against Stockman and other individuals, as well as against the company. The SEC said the auto parts supplier has settled the charges, without admitting or denying the allegations. The agreement requires court approval.
Collins & Aikman remains under bankruptcy protection and is in the process of selling its remaining assets.
A former Michigan congressman, Stockman headed the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration. He became famous as a promoter of supply-side economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics."
Stockman became a private equity investor after leaving government. He joined Collins & Aikman in 2002, soon after Heartland Industrial Partners, a buyout fund that he co-founded in 1999, bought a controlling stake in the company. Stockman and Heartland lost hundreds of millions of dollars when Collins & Aikman sought bankruptcy protection.
Last week, in anticipation of government charges, Stockman told The Wall Street Journal he would "vigorously fight" any federal criminal charges filed against him.
A Collins & Aikman representative was not immediately available to comment on the indictments.
Additional reporting by Edith Honan in New York and David Bailey in Chicago
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Club for Growth Denounces Passage of Pork-Stuffed
House Iraq Spending Bill
Singles out "Blue Dog" Democrats who Broke Their Word
The Club for Growth denounced the 218 Democrats and 2 Republicans in the House of Representative who voted for the Iraq supplemental spending bill, containing $24 billion worth of wasteful pork-barrel projects. The Club specifically singled out freshmen Democratic Representatives Nancy Boyda (KS-02); Heath Schuler (NC-11); Nick Lampson (TX-22); Tim Mahoney (FL-16); and Harry Mitchell (AZ-05) who won their House seats on a campaign to restore fiscal responsibility to Congress and cut out earmarks. Instead these politicians caved to political pressure, throwing American taxpayers under the bus on their way down.
"Unfortunately, these candidates will say anything to get elected, but when push comes to shove, they roll over and play dead at the smallest command from their Democratic Party leaders," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "The U.S. Congress though, is not a canine obedience school. American taxpayers want to be represented by responsible stewards of their hard-earned money, not poodles. Ultimately, these congressmen will be held accountable for their empty promises and their cavalier attitude towards American taxpayers."
"The Club for Growth also urges President Bush to abide by his threat to veto the spending legislation when it reaches his desk," Mr. Toomey continued. "While the Democrats have made it clear that they cannot keep even the simplest of pledges, we hope the President will set a better example."
As Mitt Romney transitions from one-term governor to presidential candidate, he has been ticking through a presidential checklist, sometimes with perilous results.
Where he lacked foreign policy experience, his staff arranged one-day visits to Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Check, check, check.
Where there were questions about Second Amendment issues, he enrolled as a "lifetime" member of the National Rifle Association.
Check again.
But this month, Romney scratched when he tried to wade through the cauldron of Cuban-American politics during a speech to South Florida Republicans.
"Hugo Chavez has tried to steal an inspiring phrase ? 'Patria o muerte, venceremos.'" Romney said, referring to the Venezuelan president and persistent U.S. critic. "It does not belong to him. It belongs to a free Cuba."
In truth, the phrase does not belong to free Cubans. It has been the trademark speechmaking sign-off of their most despised opponent, Fidel Castro. And unlike Romney, Castro would switch to English to declare, "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome."
The mistake pointed up Romney's newness to the scene and the freshness of some of his positions.
"No human being can ever know every nuance to every issue. And the steeper the learning curve, the more likely you are to see inadvertent errors," said Dan Schnur, a Republican communications consultant in California. He worked for Pete Wilson's 1996 presidential campaign and Sen. John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, but is not involved in the 2008 race.
"I've never seen one of these things take down a campaign, but it's critical for the candidate to show these type of things are an aberration, not a rule," Schnur said.
Unlike some of his better-known Democratic and Republican rivals, Romney, 60, lacks extensive national and international political experience. Romney has made a series of foreign and domestic policy pronouncements as he rushes to close gaps in his campaign's portfolio.
On the plus side, Romney's mostly nonpolitical background ? primarily as a venture capitalist, as well as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics ? means he does not have a long history on many contentious issues. That gives him great leeway as he adopts his policy positions.
At the same time, it puts him at a disadvantage with more experienced rivals, for whom many contemporary issues are second nature.
That lack of depth and familiarity increases the chance of missteps, as well as outright contradictions with past policy views.
In Romney's case, critics have lambasted him for reversals on abortion rights, gay rights and tax policy.
His Chavez comment to a March 9 Lincoln Day dinner in Miami-Dade County, as well as his mispronunciation of the names of several prominent Cuban-Americans, set off a murmur within the crowd.
Kevin Madden, Romney's spokesman, said the speech was overwhelmingly well-received despite any mistakes.
"I think what's new is there is a higher level of scrutiny now because he's a presidential candidate," Madden said. "But as far as the governor's ideas, the substance of his proposals and his blueprint for America, this is the first time everybody is hearing it, and we are confident that the substance of his policies is what's going to bring more and more people to his campaign."
Recent campaigns are littered with examples of similar gaffes.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee, found himself backpedaling after he stopped in Wisconsin and declared his affection for "Lambert" Field. The proper name for the home of the state's beloved Green Bay Packers is "Lambeau" Field.
McCain took an unusual step as he proceeded through his own position checklist amid the 2000 GOP primary campaign.
After repeatedly flubbing when asked whether it was appropriate for South Carolina to fly the Confederate flag over its Capitol, McCain pulled out a statement written by his staff and read it aloud.
For the record, McCain declared that he saw the flag as a symbol of Southern heritage, not slavery. Yet after he lost the nomination to then Texas Gov. George W. Bush, McCain flew back to South Carolina and apologized.
The senator who prided himself on "straight talk" said he personally opposed the flag, but had offered a purely political answer during the campaign.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.
"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."
GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.
"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed ? if a president really believes that, then there are ? what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.
The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.
That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 ? or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.
On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.
In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.
In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.
"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."
"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."
Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.
"There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.
"That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.
"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."
Hagel spoke on ABC's "This Week," Feinstein and Lott appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Nelson was on CNN's "Late Edition."
| Written by Rich Hardway | |
| from Ohioans for Concealed Carry...www.ohioccw.org | |
I have been asked to write an account about my experience in changing management's opinion and policy on posting "No Guns" signs on the doors at Elyria's Midway Mall in Elyria, OH so others might learn from the way I handled the situation. I was asked by Daniel White, OFCC Director-At-Large, to verify that the Midway Mall had indeed posted signs on the doors as reported by a member in the forums on the OFCC web site. He asked me if I would be willing to talk to someone about their policy if the doors were in fact posted. I accepted his request on behalf of the members of OFCC and went to the mall that evening after work. I walked the perimeter of the mall to look at each door and indeed all but one was posted. I then went to the office of the mall but found it to be closed because it was after 5:00 PM. I then decided this was a good thing because it gave me a chance to prepare what I wanted to say to the mall managers. I then went to the information booth where they rent the strollers and wheel chairs to ask who I might be able to talk to about the signs or someone in public relations. The lady handed me a business card for the assistant manager of the mall. That night at home I developed my plan of action with the power points that I wished to cover in a meeting with him the next morning The next morning bright and early I went to the mall wearing an OFCC shirt and a large smile on my face. I asked to speak with the gentleman on the card I received the night before. When he came to the counter, I introduced myself and asked him if we could sit down and discuss the mall's new policy prohibiting legal concealed handguns. We began our conversation on what OFCC is and represents. Then we began talking about the mall's reasons for changing their policy and posting of the property. Within a few minutes, he stopped me and said that he wanted to bring in a couple other management members. After a brief introduction to the general manager, Mark, I began all over again. I asked them why they suddenly changed their policy. Mark said that they wanted to create a safer environment for their customers' shopping experience. I asked them if they truly feel that they had achieved this goal by refusing to allow law-abiding citizens in the mall that had properly and legally obtained a permit from the state of Ohio to carry a concealed handgun. I went on to say that I don't feel they did. They made a reference to the recent shooting in a Utah mall and that they did not want a similar action in their mall. I fully agreed with them that I also never want to hear or see such a thing in any mall. I then countered with the facts. The facts are that a deranged teenager went to that mall with a premeditated plan to illegally assault and kill as many victims as he possibly could. If it was not for the fact that an off-duty police officer was dining in that mall at the time, many more innocent people would have become victims at the killer's hands. The truth is that due to the off duty police officer's ability to carry a concealed handgun, he was able to cut the rampage short until police arrived and put an end to the carnage. This man saved innocent lives. I then asked them if they really think that any sign posted at the door of the Utah mall would have stopped the teen from entering that mall on that day with the small arsenal that he had to support his plan of terror. In fact, that mall did have a "No Weapons" policy. John Lott reported on his website and linked to a picture of the actual sign on the doors. You can view the sign by clicking here. |
I asked both managers if they had ever read the concealed carry law, as I handed them a copy of it. Then I made the following statement: "People that have a license to carry a concealed firearm issued by the state of Ohio have obtained that license after successfully attending the mandatory class, been fingerprinted by their local Sheriff, and passed a complete background check that the Sheriff has performed." When someone has a license you know that that person is someone that has a clean background and has never been convicted of a serious crime. You can not say that about anyone who comes into your mall that has not received a license just off the fact they don't have a license
Then I told them that people that have a license would do one of two things when they see the sign on the door. They will either return to their car and remove their sidearm, locking it in the trunk before returning to shop or they will do their shopping at a retailer that respects and supports their Second Amendment rights under the law.
Let's look at Wal-Mart for a moment. I think we can all agree that Wal-Mart is one of the largest retails in the world and they understand the thinking here. They removed their signs and changed their policy to a pro-choice stance and with that they let the American people decide if they want to carry a concealed handgun or not with their license.
Although law-abiding people will honor your request to not bring a weapon into your mall, criminals will ignore your signs and do as they please. Which customers would you prefer do their shopping here?
The Manager was agreeing with what I was saying and he said that the mall would remove the signs and make changes to their policy as well.
Three hours later I received the following e-mail from him.
Mr. Hardway:
Thank you for coming in to see me today and addressing your concerns. After talking with you and considering the facts that you have voiced we have reconsidered our position and have elected to remove the signs prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. They have all been removed today.
Our intention for posting the signage was an attempt to create a safer environment for our shoppers. However, your points are well taken and thus we have removed the signage.
We hope you and the other members of the O.F.C.C. will continue to consider the Midway Mall a safe place to shop in the future that does value and respect your rights under Federal and State laws. We recognize the fact as pointed out by you that people whom have been issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon are law bidding citizens and that's the type of shoppers we want in our stores.
Thanks again.
Mark J. Bressler
General Manager
Midway Mall
As OFCC members, we can all make a difference with a polite and understanding voice. The use of diplomacy with education and the truth must be our weapons of choice. The facts are a powerful thing when delivered with respect.
Mr. Hardway is a proud OFCC member that shows what one dedicated individual can achieve. This is his first article for our website.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
I guess it's A God Entranced Vision of all Things week. I want to share something with you from Donald S. Whitney's chapter, "Pursuing a Passion for God Through Spiritual Disciplines."
Several years ago at a church I formerly attended, I went to someone in leadership for prayer and for some help and accountability in being more disciplined. My times praying and reading the Bible had slowly become less regular and less frequent, and I could tell this was negatively affecting my life. I desperately wanted the spiritual fruit and closeness to God I had previously enjoyed when I had been disciplined, but my soul had become fat and lazy, and getting started again was proving to be difficult.
After opening up my heart to this leader about my need, he responded that I shouldn't seek to be disciplined with my prayer and Bible study--that is, I shouldn't try to develop a schedule and stick to it--because that would be "doing things in my own strength." Stunned, I went away without help.
Obviously, I would need God's strength to be disciplined--that's why I was asking for prayer! I think he meant something more, though. He thought there was something wrong with my wanting to put regular, structured effort into seeking God because he saw this as a form of legalism.
I think the following passage--particularly the last paragraph--from the chapter cited above speaks well to this concern, defining the purpose of the disciplines, God's part in our spiritual growth, and the need for our effort:
How shall we satisfy these ever-thirsty longings for the
God has built highways by which those he has made alive can come and be satisfied with the ocean of himself....These highways are the personal and interpersonal practices revealed in the Bible by which we may find and enjoy God. The highways do not exist for themselves. Our souls do not find satisfaction in the highways, but only in the ocean to which they take us.
It is God who makes us alive. It is God who has graciously built these highways to himself. It is God who gives us the ongoing thirst that this crystal-clear ocean alone can satisfy. It is God who entreats us with the invitations to come to him on these royal highways. It is God who gives us a spiritual affinity and enjoyment for the highways that take us to him. But we must get on the highways (pp. 126-127).
The following is an argument against slavery given in a sermon by Jonathan Edwards, Jr. in 1791:
Should we be willing, that the Africans
or any other nation should purchase us, our wives and children, transport us
into
(Quoted in A God Entranced Vision of All Things, p. 158. You can read the entire sermon, Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade and of the Slavery of Africans, here.)
Edwards does an excellent job here of showing that the color of your skin is irrelevant to your personhood. Choosing the point on the scale of colors after which a person would lose his rights as a human being would be a completely subjective and arbitrary enterprise. Would someone on the other side of that arbitrary line suddenly become a non-human without rights? Why? If the characteristic of color is truly relevant, then anyone with lighter skin is more deserving of rights than someone with darker skin. Am I more human than someone with a tan? The notion is ridiculous.
In the same way, those who advocate abortion rights often cite similar irrelevant characteristics such as size (the fetus is so small!) or level of development (the fetus can't do everything I can!) to disqualify the unborn child as deserving of rights. (I'm indebted to STR for their clarification of this in the SLED Test.) But if those characteristics were relevant to our rights and humanness, why should the line be arbitrarily drawn at birth? If they're relevant, then Andrew Jones ("Tall Skinny Kiwi") should have more rights than I, and I should have more rights than a young child who has not yet learned to walk.
The truth is that, as with slavery, our culture is defensively protecting its sin with some very weak arguments about irrelevant characteristics.
I've always had a certain bizarre fascination with things that annoy me, and now, it has happened: Someone has finally succeeded in bringing together everything that makes me crazy into one amazing conglomeration--including (but not limited to) certain New Age ideas (we're our own god, there's an impersonal base behind the universe, we should blame victims for their situation); Marxist theories; conspiracy theories; infomercials; historical revisionism; pseudoscience; narcissism; hoaxes perpetrated against lost, hopeless people; putting feelings in charge; and even the use of quantum physics to support dubious philosophical claims. (It would achieve total perfection if only it were set to the music of the Electrical Light Parade and hosted by the dancing Six Flags guy.)
Ahhh. It's so beautiful in its (near) perfection of all things annoying, I can only stand in awe of...The Secret.
[Warning: You probably should not watch that whole video in one sitting. You will not know whether to laugh or cry at any given moment, and various points may cause strokes and/or exploding heads among viewers. Too much of it at one time is likely to bring on all of these things at once.]
But seriously, I don't mean to make light of this. Real people--including some of my friends--are into this, and it's frustrating because God is so much better than the impersonal "universe" the video is offering, but people settle for this cheap imitation! The Secret offers health, wealth, love, and power? Big deal! God is the one for whose sake people endure painful physical persecution, lose all their possessions, suffer rejection from their family and friends, and become the servant of all. Which, then, is greater?
The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it (Matthew 13:44-46).
I hope you'll go out there today and tell people this good news.
I'm currently reading A God Entranced Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards and have come upon the chapter titled "Trusting the Theology of a Slave Owner."
Even as Edwards argued against the slave trade, saying that it was wrong because we are all of the same human race, made by the same Maker in His image, and we ought not steal human beings and tear them away from their families, nor should we profit from others who do so--even as he argued this, Edwards continued to own slaves.
It's a scary thought that a man who knew God's word far better than I do and who spent far more time in prayer, study, and meditation than I do was blinded enough by his own sin and culture not to see a sin that is now glaringly obvious to us--that a man of such incisive and precise thinking could not see that he condemned himself with his own arguments against the slave trade.
His son, who was able to follow the logic of Edwards's arguments and the implications of his theology to the end, argued eloquently against slavery and not just the trade. But it took those of that next generation to finally work their way completely out of the blinders of cultural complacency.
It's difficult to see clearly and then fight against a sin you're already participating in. How much more so if your culture condones it! Our sin blinds us and distorts our perception (a frightening reality that ought to make us more careful about giving into temptation). Edwards had slaves, so he was not able to see the wrongness of it, and while he was ahead of his time morally in many ways, including in his arguments against the slave trade, his treatment of his slaves, and his inclusion of slaves as members of his church, we can see now how far he was from God's standard of perfect righteousness.
If this doesn't point out the need of all of us for a savior, I don't know what does! We are all desperately in the "sinner" category (a category which includes everyone but God) in ways of which we haven't even a clue. Edwards fought so hard for holiness in himself and mastery over his sin, and people around him would have considered him a very good man. Some who misunderstood the gospel probably thought he was good enough to get to heaven based on his works. But they could not even see the sin of slavery.
In the same way, as best as we try to conquer our own sin, there will be sins in our lives that we will never even recognize. This is a humbling thought to which we are forced to respond like Paul:
Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!...Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus....For what the Law could not do [i.e., make us righteous], weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
The Kansas senator planned to send a letter on Thursday to President Bush supporting Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who earlier this week likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs also said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." (Watch how Pace's comments stirred the debate )
'Unfair and unfortunate'
Lawmakers of both parties criticized the remarks, but Brownback's letter called the criticism "both unfair and unfortunate."
"We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues," Brownback said. "In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views."
Asked whether he agreed with Pace's comments, Brownback said: "I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this."
Clinton: It's for 'others to conclude'
Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama initially tried to sidestep the issue when asked about it this week, but both sought to clarify their opposition to Pace's comments on Thursday. (Read how Clinton later said she "does not share [Pace's] view, plain and simple")
Obama did not directly answer on Wednesday when asked if same-sex relationships were immoral, Newsday reported. Obama issued a statement on Thursday, saying, "I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."
Clinton told ABC News Wednesday that it's for "others to conclude" whether homosexuality is immoral. On Thursday, she put out a statement saying that she'd heard from gay friends who said her answer sounded evasive.
"I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner's statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe," her statement said.
Meanwhile, Democratic hopeful Bill Richardson called Pace's remarks "unfortunate" and said the Bush administration should reject them, adding that he would push Congress to repeal military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay service members are required to keep their sexual orientation private.
"People should not be judged based on their sexual orientation," the New Mexico Governor said in Santa Fe. "Throughout my entire career I have fought for equal rights and against discrimination of any kind."
Brownback: 'We applaud Gen. Pace'
While there is no indication that Pace's job is in jeopardy, Brownback's letter to Bush said "personal moral beliefs" should not disqualify anyone from a position of leadership in the U.S. military.
"General Pace's recent remarks do not deserve the criticism they have received," the letter said. "In fact, we applaud General Pace for maintaining a personal commitment to moral principles."
Pace said he supports "don't ask, don't tell," something Brownback said is "an appropriate policy."
Brownback, a favorite of the religious right, has been a prominent opponent of gay marriage.
Brownback spokesman Brian Hart said the senator was working Thursday to get other lawmakers to sign his letter. Hart said Brownback's office would not disclose who has signed on to the letter until there is "a final count."
On his campaign bus in Iowa on Thursday, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, declined to comment when asked whether he agreed with Gen. Peter Pace's comment that homosexuality was immoral. He said he still backs the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. "It's working."
Another Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has been criticized for changing his views on gay rights to conform with conservative views, said he thought Pace's comments were "inappropriate for public discourse."
"He can believe what he wants to, that's the great thing about America -- believe in what you want. But in a governmental setting, the right way to go is to show more of an outpouring of tolerance," Romney said on CNN's "Larry King Live."
He said he didn't think the "don't ask, don't tell policy" made a lot of sense, but added he wouldn't change it now.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The blogsphere has practically irrupted with reaction to John MacArthur's recent comments regarding Calvinism and eschatology. Most of it has been worthwhile discussion about Amillennialism: Dr. Scott Clark answers with what John Calvin actually said regarding the millennium. Fide-O provided some clarifications about Amillennialism (among other great posts on the controversy). Sadly, some of the discussion has degenerated into a Sola Institutio flogging of those of us who don't believe in every jot and title of certain Reformed confessions (such as the Westminster).
Dustin Steeve at The Right House wrote one of my all time favorite blog posts. It does a great job of explaining my childhood love for Legos and fiscal conservativism. Check out the picture!
So far as I can see at this point, Congressman Duncan Hunter is probably the best candidate for President in 2008. It's too bad he likely won't make it past the primary, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to not vote for him.
Wm. B. Eerdmans is continuing down the path of losing its Christian identity (maybe it never had one and my assumption that it was a Christian company was wrong all along?). The last symptom was the publication of an explicitly Mormon evangelistic book (A Different Jesus? by Robert Millet). This week they've released another book by a Mormon author, Muhammad, Prophet of God by Daniel C. Peterson. I wouldn't make as big a deal about it except for the endorsement: "The best scholarly text on the prophet Muhammad written by a Christian. Parviz Morewedge ? Global Scholarly Publications" Either Eerdmans can't tell the difference between Christianity and Mormonism or they don't care about the factual integrity of what's printed on their books.
N.T. Wright wrote an "interesting" article on C.S. Lewis in the latest issue of Touchstone.
For some people in Church need to be focused on God, Church and family alone and not get involved in a world of back stabbing politics. For those of us that do go to Church and are politically active we need to remember to fight for those people rights. And besides that I think that the Republican think tank just wants our votes and don?t care what or who we think should best run the country other wise the Republican front runners would be people like Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo
Instead of trying to appease the left and right wing moderates with the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani who has tabloid flavor but no true conservative backing except that they say they will go against there personal beliefs and support the true conservative.
If you want Church People to vote, Don?t ask them to weaken there morals for the Republican party, Just give them a candidate that has a very strong conservative evangelical background, and will run the office with that agenda and passion, the God fearing conservatives will come out of there Churches and go to the polls in massive numbers.
If you would like to read "Consciously Sedated in a Cultural Quagmire" by Jeremy Kiner please click below.
http://www.thebranchcommunity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=63
OneNewsNow.com
March 12, 2007
Conservative author and talk show host Janet Folger of the group Faith 2 Action believes GOP presidential frontrunners -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- are Republicans in name only. Meanwhile, she says GOP presidential candidates who actually agree with the party's platform are not even being considered by the mainstream press and many conservative leaders.
Hear This Report
advertisement
Folger calls Rudy Giuliani "completely unacceptable," describing the former New York City Mayor as pro-abortion and "anti-marriage." And as for Arizona Senator John McCain, she says he is "disqualified" because of his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment and his campaign finance reform, which she contends "blacked out free speech."
McCain should also be disqualified for, among other things, "leading the 'gang of 14' who stood in the way of breaking the judicial filibuster," the Faith 2 Action spokeswoman says. He is also "a guy that voted against the federal marriage amendment [and] who, in his campaign finance reform, literally blacked out free speech, ripped it up," she notes.
Essentially, 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, Folger explains, Senator McCain in effect tells Amerians they can forget about free speech. "In fact," she notes, "John McCain just sued Wisconsin Right to Life, taking them to court because they had the audacity to suggest that people lobby Congress, and it was during one of those federally mandated gag rules."
But Folger says she is especially troubled that many conservative leaders are rushing to support former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. "This is the most concerning," she says, "because there's a lot of people who are running to him because he suddenly and conveniently switched from being an ardent, hardcore pro-abort."
In actuality, the pro-family talk radio host says, Romney is "extreme," as he "not only wants abortion -- he wants you to pay for it with your tax dollars." And that is exactly what the candidate's healthcare plan said, she points out, "even after his supposed conversion."
Romney also "mandated marriage licenses to homosexual couples," Folger adds, "even after his supposed pro-marriage conversion." Instead of looking at name-only Republican presidential hopefuls such as McCain and Romney, she argues, conservatives need to take a closer look at candidates like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, and others who more closely align with the Republican Party's platform.
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved
The Roots of Endurance is the third volume in a series of biographical books by John Piper called ?The Swans Are Not Silent.? Each book covers three figures from Christian history under a common theme. In this book, Piper looked at the lives of John Newton, Charles Simeon, and William Wilberforce, each of which endured to their ends facing remarkable adversity. |
Piper set the stage with an introduction connecting the three men together in history, spiritually, and theologically. As usual, his words are salted with spiritual wisdom and worth meditation. From the life of John Newton, Piper explored ?habitual tenderness? and what it means to have ?a tender heart and a theological backbone of steel.?
The biography of Charles Simeon is one of my favorite from
the series so far. For the first twelve years of his service at
Unlike the other books in this series, I thought the concluding thoughts to The Roots of Endurance were a bit shallow (compared to Piper?s other reflections) and perhaps rushed. However, the book stands well enough on its own without the conclusion and I would recommending reading it if only for the biography of Charles Simeon.
"Americans like New York City, as officials in both parties are quick to say. Most find it vibrant, entertaining and an object of sympathy and pride since the terrorist attacks five and a half years ago that made Mr. Giuliani the national contender he is today. But the city, with all its tumult and rough edges, is not for everyone. And few people embody all the complicated facets of New York City as much as Mr. Giuliani."
From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire- http://politicalwire.com/
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues - More Than 7.5 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003
Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures ? 97,000 Jobs Created In February. Since August 2003, more than 7.5 million jobs have been created, with 2 million jobs created over the last 12 months. Our economy has now added jobs for 42 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent.
More American Workers Are Finding Jobs And Taking Home More Pay
- Real Wages Rose 2.2 Percent Over The Past 12 Months Ending In January. This is substantially faster than the average rate of the late 1990s economy, and it means an extra $1,279 in the past year for the typical family with two wage earners.
- Real After-Tax Income Per Person Has Risen By 10 Percent ? More Than $2,900 ? Since President Bush Took Office.
- The Economy Has Now Experienced Over Five Years Of Uninterrupted Growth, Averaging 3.0 Percent A Year Since 2001.
- The Dow Is Up Over 40 Percent Since The President's Tax Relief Took Effect. The NASDAQ is up more than 55 percent over the same period.
The President's Agenda Will Help Keep America's Economy Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic
In His FY 2008 Budget, President Bush Laid Out A Detailed Plan To Balance The Budget By 2012 Without Raising Taxes. He has called on Congress to work together with him to spend taxpayers' money wisely and to tackle unfunded obligations in entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
President Bush Has Called On Congress To Act In Four Key Areas To Keep America's Economy Flexible And Dynamic:
1. Breaking Down Barriers To Trade So American Workers Can Sell More Goods And Services To The 95 Percent Of The World's Customers Who Live Outside Our Borders. Global trade talks like the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization have the potential to level the playing field so America can compete on fair terms in foreign markets, while helping lift millions of people out of poverty around the world. The President calls on Congress to extend Trade Promotion Authority so we can complete the Doha Round and make headway on other trade agreements.
2. Making Private Health Insurance More Affordable And Giving Patients More Choices And Control Over Their Health Care. The President has proposed reforming the tax code with a standard deduction for every American who buys health insurance, whether they get it through their jobs or on their own. His proposal also taps the innovation of States in making basic, affordable insurance available to all by creating Affordable Choices grants to redirect institutional subsidies to help ensure the poor and hard-to-insure have access to private health insurance.
3. Continuing To Diversify Our Energy Supply To Benefit Our Economy, National Security, And Environment. In his State of the Union Address, the President set an ambitious goal of reducing gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent over the next 10 years ? Twenty in Ten. To reach this goal, he has proposed setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and other alternative fuels in 2017 and reforming and improving fuel efficiency standards for cars like we did with light trucks, which could reduce projected annual gasoline use by up to 8.5 billion gallons in 2017.
4. Reauthorizing And Strengthening The No Child Left Behind Act While Preserving Its Core Principles. A strong and vibrant education system is vital to maintaining our Nation's competitive edge in the world and extending economic opportunity to every citizen here at home.
# # #
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
With the high negatives of Clinton & Obama's lack of experience, I've been convinced that the DEM that will be toughest to beat is Edwards. A true conservative like Brownback may be the best matchup against him-- Even though Edwards is now positioning himself to the left of Clinton & Obama, he may be acceptable to moderate voters once he centers his views for the general election. A Republican candidate who appeals to traditional Republican points, a la Ronald Reagan is crucial. Clearly acticulated GOP values win.
The danger with Brownback is that he cannot go overboard with being "the religious candidate"- a tag that alienated secular voters against Ken Blackwell in the 2006 Ohio Governors race. Brownback's religious views can only be a part of his marketing "package". The role-model here is George W. Bush. Be religious, but don't be a "bible-thumper"-- no Pat Robertson campaign, or the moderates will flee for the DEM.
But then why not a true GOP moderate like Giuliani or McCain? look to the 2000 election and the result with the left fleeing to GREEN Ralph Nader. A well-known Constitution Party candidate, like Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes or Tom Tancredo and the DEMs can walk back into the White House with 48% of the popular vote.
--Ron Lisy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From rasmussenreports.com
The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey gauging general-election support for Republican Senator Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record) shows him trailing Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton among likely voters by the narrow margin of just five percentage points. It's Clinton 46% Brownback 41%.
However, Democratic Senator Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) leads Senator Brownback by the much wider margin of 49% to 34%.
Clinton and Obama lead the polls for Democrats seeking their party's 2008 Presidential nomination. While Clinton has been ahead in every Rasmussen Reports poll for the Democratic nomination, Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards generally do better in general election match-ups (see summary of all match-ups).
Brownback, who announced his presidential candidacy on January 20 as a staunch religious conservative, is in the second tier of GOP Presidential hopefuls.
Both Clinton and Obama have high name recognition, but Clinton is saddled with higher unfavorables. Forty-eight percent (48%) view her unfavorably, 34% "very unfavorably." Throughout 2005 and 2006, our Hillary Meter indicated that a plurality of likely voters would not vote for the former First Lady no matter who she might run against.
Obama is viewed unfavorably by 37%. Only 14% dislike him strongly.
Brownback is an unknown to 43%, and viewed favorably by only 19%. Just a couple weeks after his announcement, the percentage who view him favorably isn't any larger even among Republicans.
That may change as Senator Brownback becomes better known. But the enthusiasm especially for Giuliani among Republicans persists despite the mayor's willingness to openly acknowledge disagreements with social conservatives on abortion and other hot-button issues.
This national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 5-6, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Tomorrow morning I?ll be leading the catechism reading at my church. Each week, we recite a few questions from the catechism written by Benjamin Keach. As Reformed Baptists, we hold to the Confession of 1689. Keach wrote his catechism in an effort to further explain the theology of the Confession.
Unfortunately, at least for us today, there are parts that still beg further explanation. The question I have in mind deals with the sacraments:
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual
means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
I think the phrase ?effectual means of salvation? can be confusing. It could easily be taken as referring to a way in which we earn salvation, such as a means to an end. We may even be encouraged to take it this way when reading the first supporting passage: (1 Peter 3:21) ?Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.?
The problem with this interpretation of the question is twofold. First, Reformed Baptists believe baptism and partaking in the Lord?s Supper are the appropriate actions of someone already saved, and we are saved by grace alone- not by works. So we would never say in a catechism that practicing sacraments are ways to become saved. Second, I know of no Reformed theologian (Baptist or otherwise) who believes that such a view is taught in the Bible, or specifically in 1 Peter 3:21*.
So what do we mean by referring to the sacraments as ?effectual means of salvation?? The answer is found in a previous question of the catechism:
Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby
Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the
benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the
Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
(Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)
The benefits of redemption begin first and foremost with our justification before God due to Christ bearing the penalty for our sins on the cross. But that is not the only benefit, and the benefits are not confined to the moment we acknowledge Christ as our Lord and Savior. Rather, the benefits of redemption are applied to us throughout our lives. Paul said in Philippians to ?work out our salvation with fear and trembling.? This doesn?t mean we work toward salvation, but that we are to participate in the results (benefits) of our salvation.
To the point, the sacraments are ways in which salvation is worked out in our lives as a result of already being saved. The sacraments are especially ?effectual? because they are ordinances that were instituted and commanded by Christ and the Holy Spirit makes special use of them in our process of sanctification.
*For a good explanation of this verse, see Matt Slick's article.
"For 31 years, the DC gun ban has been the criminal class's best friend. DC victims have been legally disarmed and helpless in the face of savagery from home invaders and street assailants," said Larry Pratt about today?s ruling by the DC Court of Appeals overturning the DC law.
"DC has been home to the nation's highest murder rate for most of the 31 years of the gun ban. DC's politicians and the Congress as well never wanted to admit that their law was killing people. The criminals were the only ones to benefit from the law because they never cared what that law, or any other law, said.
"Congress has never overturned this murderous law, even though it is their constitutional responsibility to oversee the laws of the District of Columbia. The Court has provided a lengthy and well-reasoned rebuke to those who have willfully misinterpreted what the Second Amendment protects ? an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will choose to take up this case. In the meantime, the sovereigns of the country, the individual American citizen, have had a measure of their rightful power restored to them," Pratt concluded.
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
by Cornell McCleary, http://www.formerwtvnbadboy.typepad.com/
NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and a majority of the 64-member national board wants to continue giving lip service for progress instead of taking responsibility for making progress happen.
Outgoing President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Bruce S. Gordon officially, and finally, told the world what most African-Americans already knows. The national NAACP does not want to do anything but look good and get in peoples face. The real challenges facing blacks, black on black crime, babies having babies, lack of job skills and the likes, the national leadership wants no part of that. Even though their list of what whites are doing to hinder the progress of blacks is short, the battle cry of the national leadership is still "We shall overcome."
Personally, I can feel Gordon's pain. I was the former Chairman of the Ohio NAACP's Legislation and Lobbying Committee and the former 1st Vice President of the Columbus Branch of the NAACP in the 80's. I left the NAACP for the exact same reason that Gordon did. The old guard is lazy and comfortable and, for the most part, compromised. The progressive leadership of the local chapters is often frustrated because of the lack of support from the national office.
Many national so-called leaders justifies their continued do nothing approach by declaring what Julian Bond has recently declared, that few American blacks would quibble that equality remains an unfulfilled dream. Equality will always remain an unfulfilled dream for everyone. The American experience has never been or will never be about equality. The American spirit is about parity and opportunity - the potential to gain.
The American Constitution is about individual rights not group's right. It is flat out impossible to apply group rights and not go against the grain of the Constitution with few exceptions. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave blacks parity rights in America. Now, as individuals, blacks must personally do the heavy lifting to achieve individual prosperity and success.
This is not to say that there is no disparity due to race. Disparity does in fact exist but, there are very few institutional solutions to the problems that exceed the viability of personal achievement, development and spirituality. A great house is built one brick at a time. A great nation also requires each and every one of us during our personal pursuits and endeavors to contribute as a matter of will, our best efforts for the collective that we call America.AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
| By John W. Whitehead
In his new book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (2007), Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former war correspondent Chris Hedges contends that today's Christian Right resembles the early fascist movements in Italy and Germany that emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. Known primarily as Dominionists, these Christians promote the belief that they are destined to take over and rule the world by taking "dominion" over the political process and reinstituting biblical law. Many perceive this as a campaign to use America to create a global, Christian empire. And statements by evangelical leaders like D. James Kennedy, who has declared that "Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," only serve to foster this perception. For those on the outside looking in, it might seem as if there is reason to be alarmed. As professor Charles Marsh notes in a New York Times editorial, American evangelicals "have amassed greater political power than at any time in our history." This power, which can be traced to a handful of evangelical leaders with decided political agendas, reaches into the Oval Office and deep into the bowels of Congress. Indeed, Dominionist-influenced leaders often have a direct line into the White House. For example, James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, reportedly held weekly telephone conversations with Bush advisor Karl Rove during the 2004 campaign. And as Jerry Falwell remarked to Vanity Fair, "Everyone takes our calls." However, in his book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction (2006), former White House insider David Kuo suggests that Christians are the ones being manipulated and used for their voting power. Hedges disagrees. In a recent interview with me, Hedges stated: "The neo-cons view these people as the useful idiots. I think it is reversed. I believe, in the end, that the neo-cons will be the useful idiots. I think that however buffoonish figures such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan Crouch and many of the others may appear to be, there are tens of millions of people in this country who take these people with deadly seriousness. And whatever buffoonish qualities the Falwells, et cetera, may have on the outside, on the inside these people have a very different stature." Calling this particular confluence of religion and politics "Christo-fascism," Hedges argues that today's Christian evangelical movement has many of the same characteristics as fascism: a claim for moral and physical supremacy of a master race, in this case American Christians; blind obedience to a male hierarchy that often claims to speak for God; intolerance toward non-believers; and disdain for rational intellectual inquiry. Ann Coulter, a spokesperson for the Christian Right, is adept at magnifying her personality through her own useful idiots, the media. A darling of right-wing talk shows, Coulter embodies some of the above qualities, especially the tendency to demonize one's opponents. As Susan Estrich points out in Soulless: Ann Coulter and the Right-Wing Church of Hate (2006), Coulter "has called the 9/11 widows 'witches' and 'harpies,' referred to Muslims as 'ragheads,' called Al Gore a 'total fag,' and said that both New York Times editor Bill Keller and antiwar congressman Jack Murtha deserved to die." Whether the leaders of the Christian Right are really fascists or whether their hateful bombasts are just ploys to stir up their supporters and shore up their funding base is open to question. But I do know that they are not Christo-fascists. In fact, the word Christo-fascist is a contradiction in terms because Christ was certainly not a fascist. Indeed, what Jesus taught undermined both the religious and political empires of his day. And it got him killed. Where the Christian Right gets it wrong is that the present spiritual problems we face today will not be changed through the political system. Although it is a valued and necessary part of the process in a democracy, the ballot box is not the answer to mankind's ills. And, in fact, Christians who place their hope in a political answer to the world's ills often become nothing more than another tool in the politician's toolbox. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, remarking about those who want to impose their version of "righteousness" on others through the hammer of law, wrote in October 2006, "Our movement must avoid the temptations of power and those who would twist the good intentions of Christian voters to support policies that undermine freedom and grow government." The influential Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer went one step further when he stated that Christians must avoid joining forces with the government. "We must not confuse the Kingdom of God with our country," Schaeffer writes. "To say it another way, 'We should not wrap Christianity in our national flag.'" WC: 833
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at http://www.rutherford.org
|
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
| | |
| March 08, 2007 | |
| Citing a "disgraceful lack of respect" for firefighters killed in the 9/11 attacks, an influential union initially decided that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be the only presidential candidate not invited to the union's upcoming presidential forum. Giuliani's campaign did not comment by press time. |
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
There is much discussion these days about the dangers of confidence. Those who think their beliefs are true are
feared and even hated. Evil of all sorts
has been traced back to confidence, and confidence is declared its root and
source. The remedy for evil in this view, then, is for everyone to reduce
their confidence in their beliefs. It's commonly thought that this would
make the world a better place.
On the other hand, on this blog (see here
and here,
for example) I've argued that confidence is a morally neutral trait.
Instead, what matters is what you're putting your confidence in.
If your confidence is well placed in the true and the good then great good will
follow. But if your confidence is wrongly placed in false and evil ideas,
then great evil will follow. The problem, therefore, is the false
beliefs, not the confidence which can serve either good or evil. The
remedy for evil in this view is for everyone to address the actual beliefs
people hold, encouraging others to reduce their confidence in false beliefs and
raise their confidence in true ones. The greater confidence people have
in good, true beliefs, the better off this world will be.
If this second view is correct, then seeing confidence as the
root of evil and pressuring everyone to have less confidence will have the
unfortunate effect of causing a net loss of not only bad things in this world,
but also a great deal of good. To do good is a very, very difficult
enterprise--one that is often met with ridicule and intense opposition (just
look at Jesus). Confidence is an absolute necessity for anyone who
would persevere through this.
William Wilberforce
is a perfect example of the blessings of confidence. How was he able to fight for twenty years, enduring scorn and
personal attacks day in and day out, to put an end to the slave trade in
The grand object of my parliamentary existence [is the abolition of the slave trade]. . . Before this great cause all others dwindle in my eyes, and I must say that the certainty that I am right here, adds greatly to the complacency [i.e., the settled, peaceful confidence] with which I exert myself in asserting it. If it please God to honor me so far, may I be the instrument of stopping such a course of wickedness and cruelty as never before disgraced a Christian country.
Wilberforce was certain
that he was right about what was wicked and cruel, and he was certain that the right thing for him to
do was to stop that wickedness. That is
what drove him steadily on to end the suffering of hundreds of thousands of
people. Would you have chided him for
his confidence? If so, what if he had listened to you? What if all the abolitionists had listened to you? The world would now be a much uglier place.
Let's work to end evil, not confidence.
Los Angeles, CA - An Orange County man has pleaded guilty to a federal wire fraud count, admitting that he ran a real estate investment scam that lured victims with bogus claims of large returns on investments in commercial real estate developments.
Barry Landreth, 37, formerly of Coto de Caza, pleaded guilty Monday afternoon to the felony charge that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in federal prison.
By pleading guilty, Landreth, a former adjunct professor of real estate finance at the University of Southern California, admitted that he ran two schemes involving purported real estate development projects in Chicago and Las Vegas. Through his company, Webster Realty Investors, Landreth offered short-term, high-yield real estate investments in two projects that he called Discovery Chicago LLC and Discovery Las Vegas LLC. Landreth induced victims, including wealthy investors and several USC students, to invest with promises that their money would be used in one of the two projects. In fact, Landreth did not use the victims' money for either project, but instead spent the money on business expenses for Webster Realty Investors and on personal expenses.
As part of the scheme, Landreth falsely represented to victims that the projects would provide 190 percent returns on investments within 30 days to 45 days.
In court documents, the government presented evidence that Landreth used victims' money to buy a Cadillac Escalade and several show jumping horses.
Landreth pleaded guilty in Santa Ana federal court before United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney, who is scheduled to sentence the defendant on June 4.
This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which received assistance from the California Department of Corporations.
Maybe it's not such a good idea for filmmakers to try to
piece together historical evidence. Just
as my hermeneutics professor always warned us not to be creative when we
interpret the Bible, good historical analysis demands a certain lack of
whimsical fancy. But how do incredibly
creative people just turn that off?
They can't, as you'll see from the
excerpt below from The Jesus Family Tomb
(my comments in brackets):
"What about the 'Judah, son of Jesus' ossuary? What's he doing there?" Jim injected. [Yes, what is he doing there? Don't worry, they can make him fit!]
"After they killed fathers, they
went after their kids," Simcha said.
"The Romans didn't mess about.
They called Jesus 'King of the Jews.'
They mocked his royal lineage.
Any surviving son would have been a target. He had to be hidden. That's why we haven't heard of him." [Oh that's
why! There's no mention that Jesus had a
son, so therefore, that becomes evidence that he had a son. I see, I see.
Go on...]
"Personally, Jim, I think he's the 'Beloved Disciple,'" I said.
"Or is he Judah, the brother of Jesus mentioned in Mark? Or, are they all one and the same--'Beloved Disciple,' 'brother,' 'Son,'" I said, looking at Jim and Simcha. "Look at the history of Roman slaughter. The children of a contender were doomed--and yet, siblings were sometimes allowed to survive. When they killed Caligula, they also killed his infant child, but his sisters were spared, and his uncle Claudius even survived to become emperor. So, within Jesus's inner circle, they knew that the Romans would kill the Prophet's child, while a little brother might be granted at least a fighting chance."
"So what you're saying is that Judah, the 'little brother' of Jesus might actually have been the child of Jesus all along," said Jim. "And the key to his survival was for the disciples to say he was really someone else's child."
"It's not impossible," I said....
"It sounds like madness when you first hear it," Jim thought aloud, "but there's a certain logic to it. The existence of this child of 80/501 [the ossuary designation], this child Judah, would have been concealed--probably even from most of the disciples--when Jesus was still alive. Concealed, probably, by Jesus's directive" (pp. 90-91).
I'd like to make a clever comment here, but really, what can you say to that? This logic sounds like me trying to come up with a theory about what's really going on in Lost. Somehow I can weave fantastic stories that make all sorts of details fit, and somehow I suspect I'm still terribly, terribly wrong.
The problem is that they can pull anything into their story. They aren't building their story from the facts, they're merely carefully and determinedly squeezing each new fact into their already developed story, as any of us